WTC7 Demolition on mainstream news site

[Canadian Blue]

People, one thread has well over 100 pages of nothing but youtube videos and Alex Jones websites! Do we really need to do another 100+ pages of nothing but the same BS.

[Riverwind]

This engineering professor thinks the video is enough to make that determination.

If it was really enough then hundreds of similarily qualified people would be saying the same thing. The fact that almost no one agrees with means the most likely conclusion is either:

1) His comments are taken out of context and don't mean what you claim;

2) He does not know what he is talking about;

I am not stupid enough to take the word of a single expert. I look for the academic consensus and believe that the academic community will eventually endorse ideas that have merit even if they are met with skepticism to start with. This means that any idea that fails gain support over time in the academic community likely has no merit. It has been five years since 9/11 and there is no evidence that the engineering community is accepting the truthie theories.

[PolyNewbie]

(3) Most people are afraid of the US police state and don't want to lose their jobs like (Jones & Ryan) or end up on no fly lists or labeled as terrorists

(4) A combo of (3) and the fact that enough people have come forward already and there is no point in taking risks to try and convince the sixteen perceneters because they will believe anything gov says anyway.

[PolyNewbie]

Actually there are quite a bit more experts in the field of structural engineering than one that say 911 was an inside job. That above post has two implying it.

Where is the list of NIST contributing experts ?

[Riverwind]

(3) Most people are afraid of the US police state and don't want to lose their jobs like (Jones & Ryan) or end up on no fly lists or labeled as terrorists

There are many tenured and/or retired academics outside the US that would be free to state their views. If the science was really irrefutable then they would be protected. The only rational conclusion is the science does not have that much merit.

(4) A combo of (3) and the fact that enough people have come forward already and there is no point in taking risks to try and convince the sixteen perceneters because they will believe anything gov says anyway.

We are talking about mass murder by the US government. The idea that people would remain silent because others have come out is rediculous.

Actually there are quite a bit more experts in the field of structural engineering than one that say 911 was an inside job. That above post has two implying it.

Where are the papers that prove this? If they don't exist then you cannot claim that engineering experts support your claims.

[PolyNewbie]

Where are the papers that prove this? If they don't exist then you cannot claim that engineering experts support your claims.

Try reading the quotes.

[stignasty]

People, one thread has well over 100 pages of nothing but youtube videos and Alex Jones websites! Do we really need to do another 100+ pages of nothing but the same BS.

Yeah, I'm done. This is pointless.

[Riverwind]

Where are the papers that prove this? If they don't exist then you cannot claim that engineering experts support your claims.

Try reading the quotes.

Out of context quotes mean nothing. Where are papers that back up the claim?

[PolyNewbie]

Out of context quotes mean nothing. Where are papers that back up the claim?

The quotes seem complete. Why don't you try explaining how "In my opinion the building WTC 7 [610 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane] was, with great probability, professionally demolished," could be taken out of context ?

(this should be good)

The whole NIST report was taken out of context because they do not actually investigate the collapses.

[Riverwind]

The quotes seem complete. Why don't you try explaining how "In my opinion the building WTC 7 [610 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane] was, with great probability, professionally demolished," could be taken out of context ?

That is easy. His quote only refers to WTC7 but you are trying to use his claim to support your views on WTC1 & 2. A perfect example of how you distort the significance of isolated quotes without context.

He also uses the word "great probability" which means he is not 100% certain and he does not reject the possibility that WTC7 came down naturally. IOW he does NOT support your claim that the _only_ explaination for the WTC7 collapse is a demolition. Claiming that he does support that view is a gross misrepresentation of what he said.

The fact that he has written nothing on the topic re-enforces my suspicions that there is context for those quotes which is not reported.

The fact that the only thing you could come up with is a single dubious quote from retired Swiss professors also confirms that truthies do not have any structural engineering experts that support their views.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind: That is easy. His quote only refers to WTC7 but you are trying to use his claim to support your views on WTC1 & 2. A perfect example of how you distort the significance of isolated quotes without context.

I'm not - perhaps I said it wrong. But if wtc7 was demolished it leads one to conclude that wtc1 & wtc2 were demolished as well, unless there was another incredible 911 coincidence.

Riverwind: He also uses the word "great probability" which means he is not 100% certain and he does not reject the possibility that WTC7 came down naturally. IOW he does NOT support your claim that the _only_ explaination for the WTC7 collapse is a demolition. Claiming that he does support that view is a gross misrepresentation of what he said.

I see.

Riverwind:The fact that he has written nothing on the topic re-enforces my suspicions that there is context for those quotes which is not reported.

Do you think that maybe he was rehearsing for a play and those were his lines ? One of my profs in school was a thesbian. Perhaps thats it.

[kuzadd]

You need to understand a hypothesis is

not a consclusion.

when in doubt , check it out!

Assertion:

Assertions, although usually simple to spot, are often dangerous forms of propaganda because they often include falsehoods or lies.

stignasty:

In reality, I mistakenly called an hypothesis a theory.

are you now contradicting yourself, or was this one of you assertations??

LOL!

Read what you posted above carefully. Read it a number of times if you have to. Pay careful attention to who said what. Eventually it may start to make sense to you.

actually stignasty the whole scenario, went down like this

stig tries to pass of a hypothesis as conclusions.

i point out via quotation from your info, that the statements were hypothesis.

You then assert again they are conclusions, I correct you.

You persist,

I post defintions of hypothesis, vs conclusions.

When Buffy points out something along the same line, and I digress, on what you posted, you finally, finally concede, that YOU mistakenly called a hypothesis, a theory, when actually you were attemting to pawn the hypothesis as conclusions.

it's all there to read.....

when you realize your error, you start with this foolishness.

IT STARTED HERE

KUZADD

NIST and FEMA can't/haven't explain(ed) the collapse of wtc 7, when they allegedly had access to all the info.

why????

STIGNASTY:

Well, actually, the NIST has explained it to be a combination of the massive damage suffered when the first tower fell into it, and the fires that softened the steel afterwards. Their full report is due out this spring, that doesn't mean they haven't expressed why the building collapsed (regardless of how many question marks you use).

kUZADD"

Neither NIST nor FEMA have explained the collapse, you acknowledge such yourself, by claiming they will be releasing a full report this spring, therefore, to this date, they have not as of yet, explained the collapse."ok, so we are in agrement on that!?

STIGNASTY:

No. What I said was:

Well, actually, the NIST has explained it to be a combination of the massive damage suffered when the first tower fell into it, and the fires that softened the steel afterwards. Their full report is due out this spring, that doesn't mean they haven't expressed why the building collapsed.

And while the report is a work in progress, they have explained the collapse.

KUZADD:

'from your own post

"working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 "

they have a hypothesis, they are setting out to prove, will they, will they not, we'll see when the final report comes out, and there is NO conclusion, so why are you claiming there is??"

kUZADD:

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis " from your own post

a hypothesis is NOT an explanation, it is a POSSIBLE explanation, why you persist in portraying it as a final explanation is beyone me? Other then to promote bs?

Hypothesis: either of a suggested explanation for a phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal

in other words it is NOT a foregone conclusion, as you are attempting to portray it as

How many times did I point out to you your own info, was a hypothesis, and you persisted in minimally three cases, by claiming NIST had "explained it to be", or " they have explained it " as if that was a conclusion.Using past tense language. NIST didn't even claim they had explained it to be anything, you did.

That's what happened stignasty and it's all there, to read.

Now you are trying to say what, more twisted BS?!

that generally sums up all you have said.

RIVERWIND;

Furthermore, there is evidence that directly contradicts your assertion that the other towers were damaged more than WTC7 or that their were few fires were present. You are simply making facts up in a desperate attempt to support your 'demolition fantasy'.

I am waiting.......................

Though I see you continue to ignore.............

See if PN, made this type of claim, and then did not support it, the nasty people, would be here, calling PN every name in the book, and yet, Riverwind, you have made an assertation, which you have failed to support, kinda like WMD's in Iraq, now I won't call you names, I leave that to the varying posters on this forum, who resort to that, but I will ask you again to support your claim.

Thanks

[Riverwind]

I'm not - perhaps I said it wrong. But if wtc7 was demolished it leads one to conclude that wtc1 & wtc2 were demolished as well, unless there was another incredible 911 coincidence.

But the professor did not say that. Maybe the professor believes the video evidence shows that WTC1 & 2 came down as a result of planes and fire. It is rediculous to claim that the professor's words endorse your theory. That is why out of context quotes mean nothing.

[Riverwind]

I am waiting.......................

Though I see you continue to ignore.............

I gave you a photo that shows a large piece missing from the face of WTC7 yet you ignored it. I don't see any point in providing additional links to someone that has already ignored information that they don't like. The NIST report on WTC7 will be out in a few weeks. It should provide a more complete description of the damage to WTC7.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind: It should provide a more complete description of the damage to WTC7.

That report will be saying that there were explosives in the building- Its already been suggested by GW Bush. I'll be real interested to hear how that gets explained in the context of foreign terrorism.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:But the professor did not say that. Maybe the professor believes the video evidence shows that WTC1 & 2 came down as a result of planes and fire. It is rediculous to claim that the professor's words endorse your theory. That is why out of context quotes mean nothing.

So you think that even if wtc7 was demolished it may be that the other two buildings just coincidently came down on the same day as a result of fires and structural damage. Interesting.

[ScottSA]

Will this silly thread never die?

[Riverwind]

That report will be saying that there were explosives in the building- Its already been suggested by GW Bush. I'll be real interested to hear how that gets explained in the context of foreign terrorism.

ROTFL.

So you think that even if wtc7 was demolished it may be that the other two buildings just coincidentally came down on the same day as a result of fires and structural damage. Interesting.

The more plausible explanation is that WTC7 came down as a result of debris damage and fires. The professor only said that explosives were 'very likely' when he viewed some unknown video evidence. We do not know if he was shown videos of the debris hitting WTC7 or the obvious structural damage. We do not know if those videos would have changed his opinion regarding the likelyhood of explosives. IOW - random out of context quotations do not support your claims.

[ScottSA]

IOW - random out of context quotations do not support your claims.

To wit: "My kingdom for a horse!" proves that Richard III really really liked horses.

[stignasty]

Will this silly thread never die?

Not until you stop bumping it.

[ScottSA]

Will this silly thread never die?

Not until you stop bumping it.

Sorry. I must admit it's fun watching river use Polly to mop the floors.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind: The more plausible explanation is that WTC7 came down as a result of debris damage and fires. The professor only said that explosives were 'very likely' when he viewed some unknown video evidence. We do not know if he was shown videos of the debris hitting WTC7 or the obvious structural damage. We do not know if those videos would have changed his opinion regarding the likelyhood of explosives. IOW - random out of context quotations do not support your claims.

The NIST report and GW Bush have already said there may have been explosives in the buildings- I just can't find the links now. I saw GW say it on CNN & others have said the NIST report suggests it. You have structural engineers saying the same thing. But still...they must be speaking out of context. Man you are a good debater.

We will see when the report come out.

[PolyNewbie]

"Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC."

NIST (p 90/140), obtained from 911Research

This means that only a few support columns had their strength reduced to half.

[Riverwind]

This means that only a few support columns had their strength reduced to half.

Try reading the NIST report. It does not claim that fire weakened the vertical supports. It explains that the fire weakened the floor trusses and caused them to buckle. This then caused the perimeter columns to bend which, in turn, weakened them to the point where the collapse started.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Try reading the NIST report.

Few people actually read that report. It stacks two feet high (but still doen't explain the total collapses of the buildings) I bought the shortened version, what conspiracy theorists call the "Omission Commission" but it got to so ridiculous that I stopped reading it. It seems to me like its an obvious piece of propoganda - especially when it talks about tracking Usama because we know the French have had Usama in their sights and were told to let him go, there have been other cases like this from Somolia I think. I have a hard time believing that people can read that crap and actually believe it - I think the report supplied so that it made it look like NIST was explaining things and they expected few people to actually read it.

Hoffman talks about the NIST report and how its a 20 million dollar whitewash but his explaination probably doesn't apply to the latest version since it keeps changing all the time. Hoffman said he spent two yeras studying that report. He is probably one of a handful of people that actually read it. It wasn't designed to actually be read according to Hoffman.

Hoffmans discussion is a free MP3 download Hoffman / KPFA / Guns & Butter

(warning: This is a conspiracy theory)

Jim Hoffman has what conspiracy theorists consider to be the best site on 911: www.911research.net or google "Hoffman 911 research".