Je suis Omar

Do you offer this as your scientific contribution, Poochy?

This sounds like a poor misunderstanding of a nonsensical Popular Mechanics article. You can of course provide sources to back your contention.

You missed the part where Danny Jowenko, an expert in controlled demolition stated that it was a controlled demolition. He did this without knowing anything about WTC7. He could hardly have been prepared to give a complete analysis of how it might have been prepared. In fact, he would know nothing about hi tech nanothermites as these were only a recent discovery. And interestingly enough residues of those nanothermites were found in WTC dust.

You're advancing a huge joke, right? Will Newton's Third Law satisfy you. I'm pretty sure that that one deals with conspiracies.

That's quite the assumption, Sir. Even NIST didn't suggest such a notion. That they didn't tip over at all says a great deal. Asymmetrical damage does not bring on symmetric free fall. The speed was pretty much right in line with design criteria. The fuel loads were nowhere near full load, which was what the design called for. http://www1.ae911truth.org/home/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html I want you to think about what you have just said here. WTC7 was a football field plus (123 yards) away from WTC1. Since the fires in WTC1 were nowhere near hot enough to melt, let alone seriously degrade the steel structure, how do you figure that that fire could have had any effect upon WTC7? I'm going to have to ask you to support your ideas with something more than your fanciful notions of how steel buildings fall down. "shudder" indeed.

But you don't feel any need to bring it to anyone's attention.

I repeat, no steel framed high rise buildings have ever collapsed. Portions of buildings have collapsed, which is what one would expect. And this was a real towering inferno that burned for what, 20 hours?

I don't think believe that that conclusion is completely warranted. In fact, both towers survived the impacts just as they were designed to do. It's the unexplained anomalies that followed that are important. One very important one was discussed by Toni Szamboti in the Ben Swann video I linked to, which, of course, you must have watched, right, OGfT? That doesn't explain WTC7 nor does it explain all the other major problems with the official story of WTCs 1&2. Let's focus on 7 for the moment and deal with the issues that have been raised.

Doesn't anyone have any idea why so few are willing to address the science? I dare say that there likely are some who have received advanced education.

You advanced it, G, so you bring forth the evidence.

That is not even basic science. You illustrate an ignorance of both the facts and the science, Shady. Not the pejorative sense of ignorance.

No high rise steel frame buildings have ever collapsed due to fire. Don't you think it more than odd that 3 did, on the same day, in the same city?

Does this have something to do with the science relating to 911, S?

I can offer you one very good reason. The official story, just focusing on the science is so riddled with holes, with bad science, with much patent dishonesty, with outright lies. Did you watch the video wherein John Gross told his bald faced lie? The science offered by AE911Truth offer science that actually describes events as they really occurred.

That's certainly among the most unscientific things I've ever heard. I'm shocked. That leaves us with the perplexing question, Why are so few willing to discuss the science? WTC7 - 42% say Controlled demolition; 28% fire; 27% don't know 41% support a new investigation.

Well, that settles it then, doesn't it, Tim? How can science hope to stand up to your ex cathedra pronouncement? Have you looked at all the evidence?

See the video in the thread following your post.

Here's another short video, this of Dr John Gross, a lead investigator of NIST. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mReGog2PzLY My only question. Does it give you pause?

Are you advancing the preposterous notion that you deal in evidence and/or logic, Argus?This evidence, that you are falling all over yourself to avoid, comes from some 2300 architects, scientists and engineers. Where is your evidence and moreover why are you so unwilling to discuss the science?

See my response to B_C, Argus.

Not only no science but heaping loads of disingenuousness. Do you have any notion, an inkling maybe, George, why you are so unwilling to address the science?

No prosecutor, no forensic investigator would fly off on wild goose chases searching for conspirators, Tim. They focus on the science because only the science can describe what happened.

You don't know that in any scientific sense at all, BC. It's not of science. A third building, WTC7 came down that same day, at free fall speed for the first 2.5 seconds. That is simply not possible. Put another way, it is impossible. Watch the 30 second video. Watch the 2 min 47 sec video of Danny Jowenko, the Dutch controlled demolitions expert that I linked to in my response to Mandy (??). Read the material at the link I gave Tim which illustrates just how unscientific, how shoddy, how deceptive was the NIST study.

The science involved here is an immensely complicated subject, Tim. Can I respectfully request, not demand, that we leave out the conspiracy notions for the time being? They have no place with the science. Considering the damage caused by WTC1, see, http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/927-nists-wtc-7-reports-filled-with-fantasy-fiction-and-fraud-intro.html

With all due respect, Queen Mandy, you are speaking from a position of ignorance, in the non pejorative sense. Please watch this.