sundin13 said:
"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?"
"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?"
"what is conspiratorial thinking?"
"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... |
"lol that up till now you don't understand how the sound analyses you keep speaking of is flawed is sad to me
( its like calling a witness to court and after they have testified telling them "well even though you experienced this event yourself you are wrong" meaning that court cases for the most part are flawed )
furthermore using descriptions of an event for analysis is not scientific in the first place ( if that were the case then space aliens would be an accepted topic ) but whatever moving on
"I'm saying that they don't provide the evidence necessary to convince me"
fair enough and honestly the same applies for me with the NIST report for what should be obvious reasons
""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."
yeah sure...
them saying that the structure failed on the East side first and then travelling to the other parts of the building is an infallible ascertion to blind people i'm sure
that expansion of steal caused the beam to disconnect is also an infallible ascertion i suppose
""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."
that a bit of the building at the very top fell in doesn't answer my question if we conclude that the structure was weakened on the east side then when the structure came down it should have buckled to that side as it fell
instead what actually happened was that it buckled slightly to the center and then the whole structure goes right down the NIST report does nothing to explain this or again why the entire structure effortllessly falls cohesively as if all support is removed instantaneously
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI
again its there for all to see
the report you posted goes against what can be seen to happen in footage
"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."
with regards to all of the supposed support NIST appears to have
do a google search for "NIST buildng 7" scanning the first page quickly i can find no page that supports the NIST report
all mention flaws and omissions related to how the report was conducted
this just comes down to who you believe
because of what i see in the footage i cannot accept the NIST report
i did physics back in school i understand how forces and support works
" 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."
i agree
""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."
again i agree
"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."
that is ironic since you are telling me that the physics principles i was taught are wrong
you are basically telling me that i'm supposed to believe that if i have weight held up with supports and i weaken the supports on one side
that in the event of a collapse the weight won't have the tendency to drift to that side
anyone who understands physics knows that that is folly
the same applies to the fact that the building fell at freefall speed
that can only be possible if all support for the building failed simultaneously
if we look back at the NIST report
it states that some of the supports failed which led to a chain reaction of failure causing global collapse
that is not what is shown as i keep saying there was no buckling no indication of weight being shifted all of the weight just went straight down
