Why are so few willing to discuss the science?

[Boges]

Boges stated, very succinctly, "Tower 7!!!!". Have you looked at the evidence, have you discussed the science? Nope, see your contributions to science above.

Your sarcasm detector is broken.

[Je suis Omar]

... none of the post disaster investigators would have noticed the effect on the recovered steel beams either.

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?

[Je suis Omar]

Your sarcasm detector is broken.

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

Edited April 1, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Je suis Omar]

Ah, because it wasn't him! It was the international Jewish conspiracy working with the evil CIA and Mossad and the ruthless Bush and Cheney!

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

[Argus]

Boges stated, very succinctly, "Tower 7!!!!". Have you looked at the evidence, have you discussed the science? Nope, see your contributions to science above.

Your problem is that while you can find crazy people to explain their twisted versions of science to you you lack motivation. Every crime needs motivation.

What was the motivation to take down Building Seven? Presuming this whole thing was designed to fuel the military industrial complex and let them invade Afghanistan, well, why go the extra mile of hitting another building? It redoubles the danger of being spotted, of being caught, for no real gain. It makes the conspirators' job way more difficult, so why do it?

[On Guard for Thee]

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

Are you calling WTC the smoking gun...that would be ironic for a conspiracy theorists, as it is known that 7 was destroyed by intense heat from iternal fire.

[Je suis Omar]

I don't think you understand, Jesus.

This topic was beat to death many years ago with far more detail than you offer today.

Please search the forum archives to catch up to the rest of the group.

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.

[Michael Hardner]

refutes that old wives tale. Now it only comes down to, are you willing to look at the science?

If you are truly interested in the science, then you need to have experts discuss the science NOT have a single-sourced propaganda piece that none of us could hope to understand critically. There is an entire institute of experts that have already dealt with the pro and con arguments on this. Your source hasn't done that.

[Argus]

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?

This is kinda what I"m talking about. You and the other conspiracy buffs read these complicated statements which involve science you absolutely don't begin to understand (nor do I) and draw your own conclusions from them.

Let's look at a quote from your cite.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

What conclusion do you draw from this? I draw the conclusion these girders were exposed to a tremendously hot fire for an extended period of time.

Their described condition certainly doesn't seem to me to fit into the sudden explosions that you people seem to be pushing at all. But you've convinced yourself it does somehow.

[Je suis Omar]

Are you calling WTC the smoking gun...that would be ironic for a conspiracy theorists, as it is known that 7 was destroyed by intense heat from iternal fire.

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.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[On Guard for Thee]

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.

Maybe go check the actual distance between the north tower and #7 first. Get that science figured out to begin with.

[kimmy]

The mainstream media might be afraid to talk about the truth, but the fearless Howard Stern is not!

Howard Stern gets to the bottom of things in a groundbreaking interview with 9/11 Truther Paula Gloria!

Must watch! This will open your mind! Question EVERYTHING!!!

-k

[Je suis Omar]

This is kinda what I"m talking about. You and the other conspiracy buffs read these complicated statements which involve science you absolutely don't begin to understand (nor do I) and draw your own conclusions from them.

Let's look at a quote from your cite.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

What conclusion do you draw from this? I draw the conclusion these girders were exposed to a tremendously hot fire for an extended period of time.

Their described condition certainly doesn't seem to me to fit into the sudden explosions that you people seem to be pushing at all. But you've convinced yourself it does somehow.

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?

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Wrong, Jesus. We (as in forum members) had far more discussion and technical details than your feeble effort started so late in the game.

It's not all about you, Jesus.

[Je suis Omar]

Maybe go check the actual distance between the north tower and #7 first. Get that science figured out to begin with.

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

[Je suis Omar]

Wrong, Jesus. We (as in forum members) had far more discussion and technical details than your feeble effort started so late in the game.

It's not all about you, Jesus.

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

No problem, Jesus. I knew it would be too much work for you to review the forum archives. You are not interested in our well documented member discussion(s) at all. Just as I thought, despite the misleading topic title.

[Je suis Omar]

The mainstream media might be afraid to talk about the truth, but the fearless Howard Stern is not!

Howard Stern gets to the bottom of things in a groundbreaking interview with 9/11 Truther Paula Gloria!

Must watch! This will open your mind! Question EVERYTHING!!!

-k

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?

[On Guard for Thee]

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

The fire that caused #7 to fail wasnt the so much the one in #1, it was the internal blaze that raged unchecked inside #7 itself.

[Je suis Omar]

No problem, Jesus. I knew it would be too much work for you to review the forum archives. You are not interested in our well documented member discussion(s) at all. Just as I thought, despite the misleading topic title.

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.

[Je suis Omar]

The fire that caused #7 to fail wasnt the so much the one in #1, it was the internal blaze that raged unchecked inside #7 itself.

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.

[On Guard for Thee]

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.

No fire huh....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

Here is one fairly experienced eyewitness who probably knows a little about fires.

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/next:whatreallyhappenedatwtcbuilding7on9

[bush_cheney2004]

It is not incumbent upon me to do your research or your homework.

Sorry, Jesus...you have provided absolutely nothing in the way of science or research.

You are very, very late to the game, with nothing new to add.

Use the elephant's Google and Internet to do better.

Edited April 1, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Boges]

Sorry, Jesus...you have provided absolutely nothing in the way of science or research.

You are very, very late to the game, with nothing new to add.

Use the elephant's Google and Internet to do better.

Google's in on the conspiracy, Dontcha know.

[bush_cheney2004]

Google's in on the conspiracy, Dontcha know.

Of course...and all the elephants too !