Why is that, Akabula.?

It seems to me that examples such as those reinforce rather than belittle the explosives argument.  It shows how tough it can be to reduce a building to rubble within its own footprint, even for experts.

Yes but there are experts and then there is God. Not that I believe in him though.
I don't think anyone can say with any certainty that explosives were used at 9/11.
and even if they were then who's to say who put them there. Could easily have been the terrorists.

Note also the ad hominem stance taken by Blackbarn and many others, I have found it to be rather typical when discussing this subject.  That, in itself, is telling.

If you could furnish me with a link to where those two points (in red) are explained away, sir, I would be most obliged.

Repeated (with my spelling mistake corrected).

If anyone who endorses the official version of events concerning WTC 7 (collapsing due to fire) happens to be looking in on this thread, it would be most interesting to learn of their views on the series of short videos linked below.  The three clips are only eleven, five and ten minutes long respectively and are the work of a high school physics teacher named David Chandler.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXZnvn7O2NY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYR9Xvo3Ofw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Vh1GjMdLyU


Mr Chandler managed to gain entry to a NIST technical briefing and ask their lead investigator, Dr Sivaraj Shyam-Sunder, and his colleague, Dr John Gross, a question about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers' building (otherwise known as WTC 7).  The query concerned one of the most basic aspects of physical science, a subject in which both gentlemen undoubtedly excel and are highly qualified to discuss.  All the more perplexing, then, that they should become confused, stumble over their words and generally prevaricate about nothing at all whilst looking decidedly uncomfortable.  Please give the recordings a quick glance if you can, if anything has a chance to change a person's mind on the veracity of the official report this will be it.

I said I watched it on tv but I'm sure there will be a link somewhere.
Too many people involved if true yet no one has opened up.
It's like those who accuse Madeleine mcCanns parents and their friends of being complicit in her disappearance.
As was once said a secret is only safe as long as only one person knows it.

If it's the same documentary I saw, Akabula, it most certainly did not explain away the two (red) facts posted above.  It mostly addressed NIST's assertion of fire-induced collapse; the structural damage caused by the falling twin towers; the premature BBC report of the building's demise; and Mr Silverstein's ambiguous "decided to pull it" quote.  Their reasoning in these issues was plausible to a degree but, in my view, straw man arguments against the inconvenient truth of symmetrical free fall.

Scientific facts
No presented to us as facts.
Enough experts have condemned all of the allegations as rubbish or speculation.
The net was a wonderful concept but is now used to confuse and cause doubt.
I've viewed loads of clips on here both for and against a conspiracy.
I've come down on the side of it purely being the work of terrorists.
With very few exceptions the families of those who died are of the same mind as me.

I fear that the sad truth is, Petrus, most folks remain unaware about WTC 7's collapse or simply do not care.

The two points I posted in red are facts, Akabula.  What do you find laughable about them, sir?

And to state that my beliefs all come from the web is also untrue.

Pokermonster
12 Oct 15 00:55
Joined: 14 Sep 04
| Topic/replies: 8,788 | Blogger: Pokermonster's blog
I fear that the sad truth is, Petrus, most folks remain unaware about WTC 7's collapse or simply do not care.


I'm supposed to be studying for an exam but I saw this thread and watched the three Chandler videos and read the comments. I went to the fridge to get another beer and my room mate asked me how much studying I'd done.  I told him none and that I'd been revisiting the whole WTC7 thing.

"What's building 7?" he asked

"You're joking" came my reply...but he wasn't. I explained a bit about it and he was unaware that there even was such a building let alone its fate.

It's a social paradigm that most folks are of a mindset to question the accepted stance in this matter would reveal them to be a fruitloop.  Worse yet, they then compound the insult by ridiculing those who do strive to highlight the obvious scientific flaws in the official report. 

As mentioned before, note the ad hominem approach taken by many on this forum.  As some on here will testify, I am a New York State resident, I also hold a physics degree.  Nothing remotely special in any of that, of course, but it should at least mean my opinion is as valid as the next man.  And yet, on this thread alone, I have been accused of hearing voices; having no mind of my own by regurgitating anything I read on the internet; and being unaware of what is or is not scientific fact.  It astonishes and depresses me in equal measure.

It is a morbidly fascinating subject.  I don't really want to be interested but I am despite myself.  Perhaps a lot of people are like that but don't want to admit it?  Having looked at all the videos I'm probably a covert on the whole third building thing.  Like others I didn't know about it until late on and the argument put forward by the 'truthers' as they call themselves seems compelling on this subject if not so much the rest.  It looks just like a demolition in the videos, not that that proves anything, but the things poker keeps saying about how it fell down must be hard to counter because the posters who try just insult him or try to change the subject to something else.  My biggest problem with the government killing its own people iswhy would they do it?!!!

Good evening, Torque.  I hope you are well, sir.