Je suis Omar

Is this science, Boges?

I never said "no fires". Look at the videos of 7 just before the collapse. There are almost no windows broken, no extensive fires. Compare that to the much much more serious fires in other buildings that never collapsed. Other Skyscraper Fires Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html Building 7 http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html

Is this your idea of science, George?

We know that, G. America produces myriad war crimes the world over. It produces terrorism on a scale that outmatches the totality of all other terrorism combined. That's not why it's the elephant at all. The elephant is the one prancing around within every discussion of this type that those who know better ignore. But you knew that. Obfuscation and diversion.

Really, Argus. What of, What of, Half a million Iraqis children killed by the the USA and UK in the 1990s?

You forgot the operative words, George. That's just not like you - you're usually so honest and upfront. A terrorist, guilty of myriad war crimes superpower's ... .

There was no raging fires in 7, Sir. Your sources are nonexistent. In steel framed high rises where there have been raging fires, no global collapse has ever occurred. And you don't seem to be the least bit concerned that 7 came down at free fall speeds, admitted to by NIST, after they had initially denied it. You don't seem to be aware that office fires cannot cause the symmetric collapse of a building because office fires cannot cause the collapse of any steel frame high rise, ever.

George, your only offering, putting it politely, has been a fiction. That's not science. I've put forward information that refutes the official story. From acknowledged scientific experts and you want me to go digging through old forum archives to search for what? If there was anything there, it would have been brought forward by now. It was like pulling teeth to even get you to provide a link to your FICTION. It is not incumbent upon me to do your research or your homework. When you decide to put something pertinent in a post, let me know. Fluff isn't science. Advancing fictions that you know to be fictions is not science.

Questioning everything, Kimmy, is futile and unscientific. Focus is what is crucial, as it always is in science. How does molten steel and iron appear at three different sites where there was no fuel source capable of performing that feat? How is it possible for random office fires to cause three buildings to collapse at free fall speed or very close to it, in a symmetric manner that resembles controlled demolition?

As I have mentioned, George, your offerings are totally bereft of anything remotely connected to "technical details". Your only offering to date has been a fiction.

I did check the actual distance, OGFT. You didn't. What "science" are you referring to?

I'm happy to see that you are willing to discuss the science, Argus. You have hit on a very pertinent detail. There was no fuel source in any of the three towers that could have created this effect upon that steel. No matter if they had burned for 40 days and 40 nights. The fuel sources available, jet fuel and office furnishings, can NEVER reach temperatures hot enough to melt steel. And yet there was melted steel! Even before the collapse melted steel could be seen pouring from one of the towers. In the rubble pile for weeks after, many people saw and reported molten steel. What could have generated the temperatures necessary to do that when the fuel sources natural to the towers, and the jet fuel, were incapable of melting steel?

Do you consider what you offer as science? What intense heat? Widely separated office fires do not generate intense heat. Office fires cannot generate a completely symmetric free fall collapse. Never have, ever, in the world we live in. Intense fires in buildings that were close to totally engulfed in flame. There was no fuel source available to create anything remotely approaching intense heat.

I've seen what you think constitutes science and evidence, George. You advanced the fiction that a steel frame building had collapsed when you knew that the information you were advancing was false. Pictures, right at the site from your link, clearly illustrated your fiction. No discussion at all from you, just obfuscation and diversion. Detail is hardly your long suit, George. Your posts are totally bereft of detail.

This then must be your idea of looking at the science, Argus.

Not at all, Boges. You've described the smoking gun. Now, are you willing to look at the science?"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." ~ John Adams

This, http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html refutes that old wives tale. Now it only comes down to, are you willing to look at the science?

Does this, in your mind, Argus, constitute a discussion of the science? Why do you try to make this about me. 2300 architects, engineers and scientists, and counting, have studied the official story and found that it doesn't match reality. I haven't advanced any conspiracy theories so why are you even bringing that up. Which leads us right back to the central premise - why are so few willing to discuss the science?Boges stated, very succinctly, "Tower 7!!!!". Have you looked at the evidence, have you discussed the science? Nope, see your contributions to science above.

You never explain anything, George. It's a struggle for you to get out more than four or five words. Your ellipses most often constitute the greatest portion of your offerings.

What is pretty well displayed in the video, OGfT?

All you have to do is understand the science to realize that the pile driver theory is not supported by science or by observation. Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics By David Chandler http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf

Now that is critical thinking.

How did you happen to miss this? "The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing." And your sources for your pile driver theory are where? The intense heat passing over 123 yards of open air to heat 7 are forthcoming. And the Shudder Theory.

Then please explain this grand documentation, George.

Nope, not this one either. Why are so few willing to discuss the science?