By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sundin13 on 14 October 2014
Edit Thread
o_O.Q said:

"Just went back and looked at the old quote I posted to prove that I had included the bit about audio recording since the begining:

"Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse."

 

we already went through this

witnesses did indeed report hearing noises that they thought were explosions, why do i have to keep repeating this?

 

"There are some very vocal people who really like to accuse the government of killing thousands of their own people and thats about it. Some of them may be intelligent people, but they don't have the evidence they need to prove their points."


i'm not understanding this claim why would they have less access to evidence than NIST?

 

"Additionally, the collapse was not simultaneous:"


my eyes are not agreeing with that claim sorry

one thing NIST cannot argue with is the footage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg

there is no buckling whatsoever as the thing falls, it just goes straight down with no resistance as it does so meaning simultaneous structural failure

why are you letting them tell you what is happening when you can use your eyes and see that its nonsense

 

"As you can see, the method of collapse is explained in detail in the NIST report..."


from what i understand a support on the East side failed first

"The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures."

why therefore did the building not buckle to the East side as it fell down?

simple physics dictates that the building according to what is said here should have buckled to its East side since the support there failed first

however in reality both sides of the building fell at the same rate of speed downward 

 

"Once again, thermal expansion was the main factor of the collapse, not the melting of beams"


ok sorry for misquoting you

"Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column"

So if i understand correctly the beams are expanding and yet one lost contact?

wouldn't expansion force the beam up against its contact?

i would've figured that the opposite a reduction/melting would result in loss of contact not expansion but then again i'm not a NIST employee

 

""also why is there no visual evidence of flames from the outside?"

Says who?

"

 

my mistake i was wrong

 

"You and others have pointed out a lot of moving parts to this conspiracy. I am not talking about the american people, I'm talking about those parts such as (PS: Feel free to ignore any involving the illuminati, its still a lot of people)"

as i said before i can't say for certain who did this and how wide the involvement spreads

but for certain governement officials have been caught in lies for various events assocated with this event that can't be news to you


"The media (how else would they be able to report things before they happen)"

good point how did that happen?

could it possibly be that their information comes from people who knew before hand that this would happen?

well it would seem so to me

 

"Teach people how to think critically, don't teach people how to think conspiratorily"

what is conspiratorial thinking?

 

"So you are saying "think critically, but you aren't allowed to use logic!""

logic isn't letting authority figures think for you....

"witnesses did indeed report hearing noises that they thought were explosions, why do i have to keep repeating this?"

I've explained this five times now, yet you keep bringing it up...According to the NIST report, certain witnesses may have heard something that they described as an explosion, but the descriptions did not match what would have been heard if a high explosive, like what would have been required to take down the building, was present...

That quote (as I stated, yet somehow you didn't understand) was only to prove that I have included the audio evidence since the begining of this discussion.

"i'm not understanding this claim why would they have less access to evidence than NIST?"

I'm saying that they don't provide the evidence necessary to convince me. As I stated, I have yet to see any published scientific articles discussing any of the doubts you are bringing up, although I would love for you to post some.

"my eyes are not agreeing with that claim sorry"

The initial stages of the collapse were mainly internal as is explained in the NIST report. Their finding and their simulations are very similar to what can be seen on the outside of the building. You denying that holds little to no basis in fact and is only you being a skeptic for skepticism's sake.

"why therefore did the building not buckle to the East side as it fell down?"


The east penthouse collapsed beforehand, followed by the rest of the building...just for fun here is something I just dug up:

"there have been many, many peer reviewed engineering articles published that directly analyze, draw upon, and confirm or otherwise independently corroborate NIST's methodology and conclusions. Here are links to those that I could find and review in about 3 hours of searching (remember, these are just the papers that include support for NIST's WTC 7 model; there are many, many more that only explicitly support NIST's WTC 1 & 2 collapse hypotheses):

Also notable is that, in my search for peer reviewed articles that cited to the NIST WTC 7 report, I could not find a single paper that was critical of NIST's methodologies or conclusions. Not even one."

Some more light reading for you if you still doubt the NIST model.

"good point how did that happen?"


Well, it seems that a large amount of first responders knew it would happen so in all likelyhood, wires just got crossed. The news potentially prepared the story for when the building inevitably collapsed and aired it early or made a mistake getting some information from one of their informers. Its not a difficult stretch of the imagination that on one of the most chaotic days in history, a news station would make a relatively small mistake.

"what is conspiratorial thinking?"


Pretty self explanatory. Its when you see some phenomena, you jump to the assumption that it is due to some conspiracy like I've seen you and many others doing multiple times throughout this thread. Just because you maintain that you are open minded and that none of your beliefs are set in stone, doesn't make you assertions any less ridiculous.

"logic isn't letting authority figures think for you...."

Just as much as logic isn't disbelieving everyone on principle or letting over paranoid bloggers think for you.

Honestly, what you are doing is changing the rules of the world. Its kind of like telling somebody to do a simple math equation and then telling them that all the rules of math are wrong. They make the assumption that 2+2=4 and you tell them, "but this math doesn't follow those rules, so how can we know?". If we abandon all the rules on how the world works, we lose even more of our capability to make critical, logical decisions, yet that is what you are asking us to do.

Conspiracy theories aren't going to solve any of the world's problems...