The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

toiletduck

Flyingfish wrote:

The CD hypothesis has very firm foundations... you know... the laws of physics?

Which laws in particular?

Flyingfish

toiletduck wrote:

Which laws in particular?

Hmm... Seems like a lot of "experts" and not a lot of answers... let me see why don't you try one of the foundational Laws on for size, say conservation of momentum. Thanks for that insightful contribution though!

mr_disc

Good show on BBC2 now about all this...........

Ciaran500

Programme about this on BBC2 for anyone interested.

radiospan

Good show just over on BBC2 called: "9/11: The Conspiracy Files". Had plenty of clips from "Loose Change" included in it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6160775.stm

Had interviews with the maker of "Loose Change", a guy from "Popular Mechanics", Alex Jones and others.
Debunked a lot of the theories (including many theories central to "Loose Change"), and ended suggesting that the only government conspiracy was after 9/11 and not before. (in not being open about warnings, and breakdown of communication between FBI and CIA about leads, etc...)

Hopefully should be online somewhere soon.

Flyingfish

me wrote:

Looks interesting and definitely good to see some mainstream coverage of the subject.

However must admit I'm not holding out much hope for a balanced / detailed treatment. Having said that if the show means more people asking their own questions about what happened and doing their own research it can only be a good thing IMO!

Unfortunately even worse than expected - no real detail - poor presentation - focused on an odd mix of issues - pointless exercise really -very poor indeed! Glossed over well pretty much everything! My advice... do your OWN research!

is_that_so

Flyingfish wrote:

Unfortunately even worse than expected - no real detail - poor presentation - focused on an odd mix of issues - very poor indeed! Glossed over well pretty much everything! My advice... do your OWN research!

Hmm maybe you missed the X Files writer at the end.
Personally found enough compelling evidence in the "real science" to suggest as the programme did that the real cover up was in the ineptitude of the authorities especially the so-called intelligence agencies. I will say what it reminded me of is the danger the web can be to genuine clear thinking and proper research. Sometimes you do have to look at the messenger.

Flyingfish

is_that_so wrote:

Hmm maybe you missed the X Files writer at the end.
Personally found enough compelling evidence in the "real science" to suggest as the programme that the real cover up was in the ineptitude of the authorities especially the so-called intelligence agencies. I will say what it reminded me of is the danger the web can be to genuine clear thinking and proper research. Sometimes you do have to look at the messenger.

In this case you could not be more correct when you say "Sometimes you do have to look at the messenger" ... hey and who said TV doesn't form peoples opinions for them!

is_that_so

Flyingfish wrote:

In this case you could not be more correct when you say "Sometimes you do have to look at the messenger" ... hey and who said TV doesn't form peoples opinions for them!

As you say make your own mind up.

oscarBravo

Let's look at the messengers, shall we? We have Dylan Avery, who says of Popular Mechanics that they should "stick to tractors", and that they're unqualified to discuss 9/11. Um, and his qualification is what, precisely? Then you have Fetzer who comes across as a complete nut from beginning to end.

Flyingfish wrote:

...now you're a military expert or what?

I haven't claimed to be an expert. The sum total of the evidence you've presented thus far is your belief that the defences must have existed. What qualifies you to hold that belief?

Flyingfish wrote:

Operative phrase there being "I don't know"?

I don't know because you haven't said. So far you have consistently failed to present anything that remotely suggests you have the first idea what you're talking about. Case in point:

Flyingfish wrote:

Why don't you [civdef] enlighten us with your expertise?

Honestly, I've seen nothing to date to indicate that you have sufficient knowledge to even begin to understand anything a qualified engineer could explain to you.

Flyingfish wrote:

Wow now that's warped logic! And you think that the fire theory meets those criteria? How many unproven elements need to be introduced to make that one fly??

Building receives massive structural damage when neighbouring 110-storey building collapses beside it. Building then suffers extensive fire damage from thousands of gallons of burning diesel fuel. Building's structural steel is weakened by a combination of these factors, and eventually collapses.

I don't know if that's the full story, but I look forward to seeing the NIST report. In the meantime, we have a theory that explains the collapse without the introduction of any factors that have not been observed.

Incidentally, how do you reconcile sardonic statements like "in NIST we trust" with your unwavering faith in FEMA's statement that the collapse hypothesis as outlined has only a low probability of occurrence?

Flyingfish

oscarBravo wrote:

I haven't claimed to be an expert. The sum total of the evidence you've presented thus far is your belief that the defences must have existed. What qualifies you to hold that belief?

I need qualifications simply to have beliefs now?? OK.... you brought your guided tour up as if it were some kind of trump card! Also the relationship between the media and the military is very well documented.

oscarBravo wrote:

Case in point: Honestly, I've seen nothing to date to indicate that you have sufficient knowledge to even begin to understand anything a qualified engineer could explain to you.

TRY ME!

oscarBravo wrote:

Building receives massive structural damage when neighbouring 110-storey building collapses beside it.

Beside it - exactly! As to your claims of MASSIVE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE - well that's totally unproven as the extent of any possible damage is utterly unknown!

oscarBravo wrote:

Building then suffers extensive fire damage from thousands of gallons of burning diesel fuel. Building's structural steel is weakened by a combination of these factors, and eventually collapses.

drivel - pure unproven, unprecedented drivel! Please provide any proof whatsoever to back up any of that?

oscarBravo wrote:

I don't know if that's the full story, but I look forward to seeing the NIST report. In the meantime, we have a theory that explains the collapse without the introduction of any factors that have not been observed.

See above you have a highly improbable series of assumptions – WTC7 CD as a theory is based on observable / recorded phenomenon on the day and CD precedent.

oscarBravo wrote:

Incidentally, how do you reconcile sardonic statements like "in NIST we trust" with your unwavering faith in FEMA's statement that the collapse hypothesis as outlined has only a low probability of occurrence?

Because despite their lies and in the absence of any explanation they had no choice but to state the OBVIOUS!!! Also if they've got to admit that through gritted teeth that it demonstrates how weak it is!

You're reaching!

oscarBravo

Flyingfish wrote:

I need qualifications simply to have beliefs now??

Nope, just so we're clear that it's an unsubstantiated belief we're talking about.

Flyingfish wrote:

OK.... you brought your guided tour up as if it were some kind of trump card!

I never mentioned a guided tour.

Flyingfish wrote:

Also the relationship between the media and the military is very well documented.

Is it documented by anybody credible? Not that it has anything to do with the existence or otherwise of defence systems for which you've effectively admitted you haven't the first hint of a shred of evidence.

Flyingfish wrote:

TRY ME!

You miss my point. Let me ask the question directly: what qualifies you to understand anything an engineer could explain to you?

Flyingfish wrote:

Beside it - exactly!

Heh. If you were standing beside WTC 1 or 2 when they collapsed, do you reckon you would have escaped structural damage?

Oh that's right, I'm sorry, they were demolised - they collapsed neatly into their basements. Not.

Flyingfish wrote:

As to your claims of MASSIVE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE - well that's totally unproven as the extent of any possible damage is utterly unknown!

And yet, you're confident - in the absence of anything that remotely resembles a hint of a shred of evidence - that it was demolished.

Allow me to anticipate your response by saying that "it looked like it" doesn't count as evidence, even if you had any qualification to judge by appearances, which you've yet to demonstrate that you have.

Flyingfish wrote:

drivel - pure unproven, unprecedented drivel! Please provide any proof whatsoever to back up any of that?

It's a working hypothesis. It's known that the building was damaged by falling debris. It's known that the building was on fire. It's known that it contained huge quantities of diesel fuel. If you have information contrary to any of the above, please produce it.

Flyingfish wrote:

See above you have a highly improbable series of assumptions – WTC7 CD as a theory is based on observable / recorded phenomenon on the day and CD precedent.

CD precedent like evacuating and stripping buildings of all furnishings, pre-cutting support beams and wiring literally miles of detonator cord? Or CD precedent like "it looks like it"?

Flyingfish wrote:

Because despite their lies and in the absence of any explanation they had no choice but to state the OBVIOUS!!!

I can't speak to FEMA's motives, but as someone who works with electronics for a living I have frequently had to come up with hypotheses for why things weren't working that I considered unlikely at the time but couldn't come up with any other that fit the facts as observed. In all cases either the hypothesis turns out to be true or it emerges that I missed something on initial evaluation. You'd be surprised how often an unlikely explanation turns out to be the correct one.

Flyingfish wrote:

You're reaching!

Whatever. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling at this stage.

civdef

TRY ME!

Happy to, just as soon as you have the common manners to back up claims you made first.

Remember, this one:

WTC7’s “collapse” is a physical impossibility unless explosives severing the core columns were progressively removing all vertical support. End of story.

Hint: I'm not letting you off the hook on this one.

civdef

Oh yeah, for anyone who hasn't been keeping up, NIST issued a project uodate in December:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf

For the record NIST are looking at the controlled demolition theory, even though there is no evidence of such. They are examining what would be involved to do it and if it is at all plausible.

Good scientific rigour etc.

It's a pity they're wasting so much money on an investigation though, when Flyingfish claims to have the incontrovertible proof to hand.

Flyingfish, maybe you'd ring them up and give them a dig out?

00 1 301 9756051

toiletduck

Flyingfish wrote:

Hmm... Seems like a lot of "experts" and not a lot of answers... let me see why don't you try one of the foundational Laws on for size, say conservation of momentum. Thanks for that insightful contribution though!

I'm a long term reader of this thread but it seems a bit "closed" however I find it interesting that you still haven't produced any calculations to back up what you're saying.

Oh and I find it interesting that you assumed I claimed to be an "expert", let me tell you a little secret; it doesn't take experts to ask questions. it's the foundation of science.

Flyingfish

Well here's one tip for NIST - conduct your analysis BEFORE you've scrubbed the scene and disposed of your samples!

Flyingfish

toiletduck wrote:

I'm a long term reader of this thread but it seems a bit "closed" however I find it interesting that you still haven't produced any calculations to back up what you're saying.

Oh and I find it interesting that you assumed I claimed to be an "expert", let me tell you a little secret; it doesn't take experts to ask questions. it's the foundation of science.

Fair enough but you do realise that both of those comments are self-contradictory right?

Diogenes

Flyingfish wrote:

So here's a SUMMARY of my position to make it as CLEAR as I possibly can:

• I have NEVER stated that I had specific evidence of ground-to-air batteries - TBH the idea is so laughable but I'll continue -

Um what?

Flying Fish wrote:

Don’t get me started on things like commercial airliners bypassing the Pentagon ground-to-air defences either.

So what's more laughable?

A) You claiming that the pentagon had ground to air defences?

Me pointing out the flaws in that claim?

C) Do you deny you made the original claim?

[*]A link to a CNN "news story" was produced as proof -

Again I linked to a CNN story. A statement by Richard Clarke a very senior member of the Bush administration who pointed out the failures of the Bush administration in the run up to 911 and using common sense the flight paths that intersect the pentagon.

which, for reasons already detailed twice I reject as "proof" or "evidence" of anything other than the medias inability to say anything other than what they are told by the military. Due mainly to HOW the media accesses such information and the medias lowly position in the knowledge food chain.

Actually you rejected anything the CNN say without offering any proof of what they say is false.

[*]So in short(er) my position is that there's no evidence one way or the other (that I'm currently aware of). Given that, I'm assuming that the Global HQ of the largest military machine ever imagined DID indeed HAVE some ground-to-air defence capabilities on 9/11 until proven wrong - and that will take some doing.

Okay fair enough. I accept your assumption. You assumed without any evidence that the penatgon always had missile defences. Its a reasonable assertion. Where you fall down however is when you point blank refute any evidence that rejects your assertion. You deny CNN's report because of an idealogical perpective not a rational one, you've no reason to dispute it, and had offered no reason just idealogly. You've ignored the statement of Richard Clarke and the logical argument of the proximity of the flight path. FF you're descended to dogma.

See the core problem with our differing viewpoints is that you and others appear to take what the US military-media "claims" at face value - I most certainly do not. If you want to know more - this is a MUST SEE: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6546453033984487696&q=media

Oh look another video. Flying Fish I don't want to sound patronising. But I work for the BBC and Reteurs and CNN, and Al Jazeera and APTN I know how context can be changed and you patronising telling me how the "world really is" is running

I hate to be rude but you've yet to provide any evidence of missile batteries...

As for "producing calculations" to re-prove the known laws of physics
No I read it. I've also never claimed to be an engineer or fire safety expert of any sort.

Yet you're disinterested in the opinion of someone trained in fire engineering, CivDef.

But what really has me stumped is why you would think I'm somehow required to "produce calculations" to re-prove the known laws of physics which would be violated by anything other than the use of a controlled demolition hypothesis to explain the fate of WTC7???

So if I have this clear WTC7 is totally proven by the laws of physics you don't need to bother prove it? Flying Fish you really better pray that people with your sense of logic aren't on a jury for anything you could be tried with

I mean if you've got a workable fire theory to explain the CD characteristics as observed in WTC7 (detailed earlier) please do let us in on it - I'm sure everyone here, doubters and defenders of the official theory the word over, the US gov and especially NIST would be ALL ears. It's not my intention to deliberately misunderstand you - can you explain what you mean?

Do you dispute the diesel fuel? The power substation the unsual building structure?

In addition using your "expertise” please do feel free to produce whatever contrary calculations and enlighten us on your insights into changes to the laws of physics as you see fit. Occam would be spinning on his razor about now if he could hear you!!! BTW can you please get specific as to how I have misused that very principle while we're at it? But keep in mind the following...


I look forward to your reply...

How does one spin on a razor? painfully I imagine....



Nick. You're right about missile defences for presidents. In fact every g8 summit since 2000 has had SAM defence in case of a potential Al Qaeida attack. Because Bush's visits are temporary and various locations no fly zones can be put in place and surface to air defences arranged, to secure the president the pentagon's flaw, which FF choises to ignore is that dozens of planes flew just past the pentagon every day

Flyingfish

civdef wrote:

Oh yeah, for anyone who hasn't been keeping up, NIST issued a project uodate in December:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf

For the record NIST are looking at the controlled demolition theory, even though there is no evidence of such. They are examining what would be involved to do it and if it is at all plausible.

Good scientific rigour etc.

An alternative take on that last part - worth a read regardless of ones chosen standpoint in the debate:

NIST WTC-7 Technical Approach and Status Summary
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id357.html#_ftnref5

Flyingfish

Diogenes wrote:

Um what?

But did I say I had evidence? No - as you correctly noted it was a reasonable assertion.

Diogenes wrote:

Again I linked to a CNN story. A statement by Richard Clarke a very senior member of the Bush administration who pointed out the failures of the Bush administration in the run up to 911 and using common sense the flight paths that intersect the pentagon.

• CNN – Already rejected the source for reasons beaten to death by now
• Richarcd Clarke - LOL - MR "we all failed you" CIA Clarke you mean!
• Flight Paths – not disputed – hence no discussion – however isn't that where transponders come in?

This is what I said:

So in short(er) my position is that there's no evidence one way or the other (that I'm currently aware of). Given that, I'm assuming that the Global HQ of the largest military machine ever imagined DID indeed HAVE some ground-to-air defence capabilities on 9/11 until proven wrong - and that will take some doing.

See! Consistent! "Some doing" means just that!

Diogenes wrote:

Actually you rejected anything the CNN say without offering any proof of what they say is false.

Now let's not drift back into that misquoting business again! Anything Military-related is what I clearly called out! But yes only what I know from my own research into the media is correct.

Diogenes wrote:

Okay fair enough. I accept your assumption. You assumed without any evidence that the penatgon always had missile defences. Its a reasonable assertion.

Agreed – I thought so – oh I still do as I don’t feel it’s been proven otherwise! Wow a momentous occasion - we actually agree on something!

Diogenes wrote:

Where you fall down however is when you point blank refute any evidence that rejects your assertion. You deny CNN's report because of an idealogical perpective not a rational one, you've no reason to dispute it, and had offered no reason just idealogly. You've ignored the statement of Richard Clarke and the logical argument of the proximity of the flight path. FF you're descended to dogma.

See above for first points. So you’re calling my characterisation of how the US Media-Military relationship works ideological dogma??? It’s very rational – nothing ideological about it – AND please stop repeating that BBC ****e. All I can say is do your own research on this and make up your own mind - seriously you work in the media - surely you know better? Are you sure you're not the one being ideological now???

Diogenes wrote:

Oh look another video. Flying Fish I don't want to sound patronising. But I work for the BBC and Reteurs and CNN, and Al Jazeera and APTN I know how context can be changed and you patronising telling me how the "world really is" is running

Did I miss something? What’s the problem with video? & If that’s the case with your employment… seriously you should know this yourself - I’m not trying to patronise anyone.

Diogenes wrote:

I hate to be rude but you've yet to provide any evidence of missile batteries...

Have you provided any “evidence” to the contrary? Think about the meaning of that word before you answer.

Diogenes wrote:

Yet you're disinterested in the opinion of someone trained in fire engineering, CivDef.

The opposite is true! Seriously!!!

Diogenes wrote:

So if I have this clear WTC7 is totally proven by the laws of physics you don't need to bother prove it? Flying Fish you really better pray that people with your sense of logic aren't on a jury for anything you could be tried with

And with your logic - I mean who would investigate the alternative hypothesis if I were being charged with a crime I didn't commit say? I'd be screwed!!!!

Diogenes wrote:

Do you dispute the diesel fuel? The power substation the unsual building structure?

Not at all - if fact I'm sure they were there - it's the “alleged” role these things played that I very much dispute!

Diogenes wrote:

How does one spin on a razor? painfully I imagine...

It's gotta hurt! BUT it might depend on which edge said spinning was done on - you know - the narrow one or the wide one!!! See alternative explanations ARE good!

Flyingfish

civdef wrote:

Remember, this one:

Hint: I'm not letting you off the hook on this one.

Was I ever ON a hook? I’m beholden to no one but myself

In relation to Oscar's previous post before that - couple of points...

Is it documented by anybody credible? Not that it has anything to do with the existence or otherwise of defence systems for which you've effectively admitted you haven't the first hint of a shred of evidence.

One word - google. In relation to the "evidence" issue please read the thread.

You miss my point. Let me ask the question directly: what qualifies you to understand anything an engineer could explain to you?

I'm a patent clerk

And yet, you're confident - in the absence of anything that remotely resembles a hint of a shred of evidence - that it was demolished. Allow me to anticipate your response by saying that "it looked like it" doesn't count as evidence, even if you had any qualification to judge by appearances, which you've yet to demonstrate that you have.

And your proof that they had MASSIVE DAMAGE or MASSIVE FIRES? Same thing - just ask NIST! The CD theory has signature characteristics and established precedent for said characteristics.

Whatever. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling at this stage

Unfounded! Can you justify that?

civdef

So are you still standing behind this statement or can we take it you admit it is unsupportable and are stepping away from it?

For a reminder:

WTC7’s “collapse” is a physical impossibility unless explosives severing the core columns were progressively removing all vertical support. End of story.

Enquiring minds want to know.

Flyingfish

civdef wrote:

So are you still standing behind this statement or can we take it you admit it is unsupportable and are stepping away from it?

Enquiring minds want to know.

LOL really! Hey I've got to hand it you - that is funny - If “unsupportable” were a condition for stepping away from a statement around here- this thread would contain one post – and that includes yours.

• Do I stand by my statement? Absolutely!
• Will I produce calculations simply because you stamped your feet and demanded calculations? Of course not! You’re the “expert” around here…remember?

So you're free to distort the meaning of that, as you will - I've nothing to prove - especially not to you!

So now, the real question... using your much talked of "expertise" .(which I've NEVER claimed BTW)..are you going to prove the contrary theory with some calculations? You know... the theory with only A LOW PROBABILITY OF OCCURANCE according to your FEMA bible code!

Thought so!

bonkey

Which is it....a physical impossibiity, or a possible-but-low-probability-of-occurrence?

Also, you'll generally find that no-one puts FEMA as a "bible code". NISTs work is what is generally held as the standard, and NISTs work on WTC7 is still ongoing.

Finally, even if someone cannot prove an alternate theory does not make your assertion correct. You maintain its an impossibility - thus the onus is on you to back up that claim.

Flyingfish

bonkey wrote:

Which is it....a physical impossibiity, or a possible-but-low-probability-of-occurrence?

Also, you'll generally find that no-one puts FEMA as a "bible code". NISTs work is what is generally held as the standard, and NISTs work on WTC7 is still ongoing.

Finally, even if someone cannot prove an alternate theory does not make your assertion correct. You maintain its an impossibility - thus the onus is on you to back up that claim.

First point - physical impossibiity! What would you chose out of interest?

Second: Read!

NIST WTC-7 Technical Approach and Status Summary
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id357.html#_ftnref5

Third - No I think you'll find that disproving that very statement will be NIST's greatest trick and ultimately where they'll slip up beyond recovery!

Gordon

FlyingFish - your posts written in black are unreadable on the Cloud skin.

Flyingfish

Gordon wrote:

FlyingFish - your posts written in black are unreadable on the Cloud skin.

OK cheers - I'll switch to the simple editor!

bonkey

Flyingfish wrote:

Second: Read!

That has nothing to do with the point I made. People are supporting NISTs work. Referring to a "FEMA bible code" has nothing to do with what is being supported.

If you want to attack NISTs work, then refer to NISTs bible code, that's all.

Third - No I think you'll find that disproving that very statement will be NIST's greatest trick and ultimately where they'll slip up beyond recovery!

Wrong. In order to need to disprove that statement, there has to be a reason to believe it to be true in the first place. There is no such reason. What is true is that the building would not have fallen the way it did without the failure of key supports. Suggesting that there can be only one cause for said failure requires proof - proof you fail to offer.

NISTs job is to show why the supports failed. They should not start from a position which says "only controlled demolition could do this" no more than they should start from positions which say "only extreme temperatures could do this", "only extreme stress could cause this", or any other limiting factor without sufficient reason to show that this reason is a valid assertion.

Flyingfish

bonkey wrote:

That has nothing to do with the point I made. People are supporting NISTs work. Referring to a "FEMA bible code" has nothing to do with what is being supported.

If you want to attack NISTs work, then refer to NISTs bible code, that's all.

Yeah… as you said “NISTs work is what is generally held as the standard, NIST's work is still ongoing”. And the article I linked to, relates to...?

bonkey wrote:

Wrong. In order to need to disprove that statement, there has to be a reason to believe it to be true in the first place. There is no such reason. [Emphasis mine] What is true is that the building would not have fallen the way it did without the failure of key supports. Suggesting that there can be only one cause for said failure requires proof - proof you fail to offer.

WTF?? Ok then... so what in your opinion would explain the FACT that NIST ARE currently investigating a Controlled Demolition of WTC7 if as you just "claimed" there is NO reason to believe it to be true in the first place? You do understand that that makes NO LOGICAL SENSE WHATSOEVER right??? Especially considering the high esteem in which you hold the work of NIST!

As Griffin logically noted:

The collapse of building 7 is even more difficult to explain than the collapse of the towers in part because it was not struck by an airliner, so none of the theories about how the impacts of the airliners contributed to the collapses of the towers can be employed in relation to it.

Also, all the photographic evidence suggests that the fires in this building were small, not very hot, and limited to a few floors. Photographs of the north side of the building show fires only on the 7th and 12th floors of this 47-floor building. So if the south side, which faced the towers, had fires on many other floors, as defenders of the official account claim, they were not big enough to be seen from the other side of the building.

It would not be surprising, of course, if the fires in this building were even smaller than those in the towers, because there was no jet fuel to get a big fire started. Some defenders of the official story have claimed, to be sure, that the diesel fuel stored in this building somehow caught fire and created a towering inferno. But if building 7 had become engulfed in flames, why did none of the many photographers and TV camera crews on the scene capture this sight?

The extreme difficulty of explaining the collapse of building 7—-assuming that it is not permissible to mention controlled demolition---has been recognized by the official bodies. The report prepared under FEMA’s supervision came up with a scenario employing the diesel fuel, then admitted that this scenario had “only a low probability of occurrence.” Even that statement is generous, because the probability that some version of the official story of building 7 is true is the same as it is for the towers, essentially zero, because it would violate several laws of physics. In any case, the 9/11 Commission, perhaps because of this admission by FEMA, avoided the problem by simply not even mentioning the fact that this building collapsed.

This was one of the Commission’s most amazing omissions. According to the official theory, building 7 demonstrated, contrary to the universal conviction prior to 9/11, that large steel-frame buildings could collapse from fire alone, even without having been hit by an airplane. This demonstration should have meant that building codes and insurance premiums for all steel-frame buildings in the world needed to be changed. And yet the 9/11 Commission, in preparing its 571-page report, did not devote a single sentence to this historic event.

Yet another reason why the collapse of building 7 is especially problematic is that it was even more like the best-known type of conventional demolition—-namely, an implosion, which begins at the bottom (whereas the collapse of each tower originated high up, near the region struck by the plane). As Eric Hufschmid has written:

Building 7 collapsed at its bottom. . . . [T]he interior fell first. . . . The result was a very tiny pile of rubble, with the outside of the building collapsing on top of the pile.

Implosion World.com, a website about the demolition industry, states that an implosion is “by far the trickiest type of explosive project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience . . . to perform these true building implosions." Can anyone really believe that fire would have just happened to produce the kind of collapse that can be reliably produced by only a few demolition companies in the world? The building had 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns. To hold that fire caused this building to collapse straight down would mean believing that the fire caused all 81 columns to fail at exactly the same time. To accept the official story is, in other words, to accept a miracle.

So we can take it that your running with "possible-but-low-probability-of-occurrence" hypothesis or "miracle" in other words? Is that fair to say or am I being disingenuous?

bonkey wrote:

NISTs job is to show why the supports failed. They should not start from a position which says "only controlled demolition could do this" no more than they should start from positions which say "only extreme temperatures could do this", "only extreme stress could cause this", or any other limiting factor without sufficient reason to show that this reason is a valid assertion.

Wrong. a controlled demolition hypothesis, while unthinkable and admittedly horrific, IS the most reasonable and logical hypothesis to begin with. This first however requires the authors of the NIST WTC7 report to adopt a truly scientific attitude and separate themselves from any notions or preconceptions of what they “believe” the US government "would or would not do" to it's own people.

As also noted:

Glanz (2001) wrote that “[e]xperts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.”

Therefore the order of the lead working "fire" hypothesis being adopted by NIST and the relegation of CD or “Blast Hypothesis” to the status of a secondary (or lower) hypothesis is biased and unscientific - unless of course you believe in miracles!

So...do you believe in miracles Bonkey?

Diogenes

So if we have this clear you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your claim the pentagon had missile defence.


[QUOTE=Flyingfish

WTF?? Ok then... so what in your opinion would explain the FACT that NIST ARE currently investigating a Controlled Demolition of WTC7 if as you just "claimed" there is NO reason to believe it to be true in the first place? You do understand that that makes NO LOGICAL SENSE WHATSOEVER right??? Especially considering the high esteem in which you hold the work of NIST!
[/quote]

Okay you understand that OscarBravo isn't the NIST, right? So there's nothing odd about him claiming there's no evidence of a CD while the NIST does investigate the claim.

As Griffin logically noted:

I have issue with the words Griffin and logically in the same sentence.

Also, all the photographic evidence suggests that the fires in this building were small, not very hot, and limited to a few floors. Photographs of the north side of the building show fires only on the 7th and 12th floors of this 47-floor building. So if the south side, which faced the towers, had fires on many other floors, as defenders of the official account claim, they were not big enough to be seen from the other side of the building.

As has been pointed out on this thread there are reports froms dozens of FDNY and NY emergency workers who report fires throughout the building. You've ignored photographic evidence of smoke billowing out the building and photos of the huge gash in the building.

So...do you believe in miracles Bonkey?

I think I'll let bonkey handle this.

oscarBravo

Flyingfish wrote:

a controlled demolition hypothesis, while unthinkable and admittedly horrific, IS the most reasonable and logical hypothesis to begin with.

As I understand it, your basis for asserting that it's the most reasonable and logical hypothesis is that from certain angles, to untrained eyes, the collapse appeared to exhibit some of the characteristics of a controlled demolition. Or have I missed something?

I'm glad NIST has real scientists. You know, people who actually understand what the words reason and logic mean.

bonkey

Flyingfish wrote:

WTF?? Ok then... so what in your opinion would explain the FACT that NIST ARE currently investigating a Controlled Demolition of WTC7 if as you just "claimed" there is NO reason to believe it to be true in the first place?

I never said there is no reason to believe it may have been a controlled demolition. I said there is no reason to believe it could only have been a controlled demolition, which is what you are asserting.

You do understand that that makes NO LOGICAL SENSE WHATSOEVER right???

I'm afraid it does make logical sense. I disagree with your assertion that only a controlled demolition could have caused the collapse. I did not say that the correct starting position is to assume that a controlled demolition could not have caused the collapse.

So logically, my position says they should consider the possibility.

That you see this position as illogical doesn't fill me with confidence in your method of reasoning.

So we can take it that your running with "possible-but-low-probability-of-occurrence" hypothesis or "miracle" in other words? Is that fair to say or am I being disingenuous?

You're being disingenuous, equating "low probability" with "miracle" without knowing exactly what "low" means in this case.

Wrong. a controlled demolition hypothesis, while unthinkable and admittedly horrific, IS the most reasonable and logical hypothesis to begin with.

Why? Surely the most logical and reasonable position to start from is to examine what is unquestionably known to have happened - large structural damage from falling debris, followed by unctrolled fires. Only if this combination can be shown to be insufficient to explain all factors does one need to search for additional causes.

Furthermore, the complete lack of overpressure suggests that explosives alone are an insufficient explanation, as they would require additional signs to be present (seismic / air-borne pressure waves) which were not detected. Thermal cutting suffers similar problems.

Glanz (2001) wrote that “[e]xperts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.”

So...do you believe in miracles Bonkey?

Glanz's comment does not suggest that a miracle occurred, as "unccontrolled fire" does not accurately describe what happened to WTC7 - it is a strawman argument, dismissing a hypothesis that no-one seriously suggests is what happened in the first place.

One should more valiadly say that no modern, steel-reinforced high-rise has ever withstood the combination of structural damage and unctrolled fire which WTC7 all suffered. Indeed, the only two comparable structural-damage-and-fire situations both collapsed on the same day - those being WTC 1 and 2. No other buildings are comparable in having suffered both significant structural damage and uncontrolled fire.

Speaking of miracles, though, do you believe that this would not be a miracle in being the first high-rise, modern skyscraper brought down by explosives without weeks of preparation (cutting of key supports and so forth), without explosions being detectable through overpressure, without massive wiring of the explosives to ensure correct timeing, with uncontrolled fires raging simultaneously, with premature explosions allegedly occurring but not disturbing the careful pattern, etc.? Because your theory requires all of this to have happened, but you seem to have no problem believing that none of that needs explaining even though it has never once occurred before.....but at the same time trot out the "never before" line as though it means something is impossible (even if the something you apply it to is a strawman in the first place).

Flyingfish

oscarBravo wrote:

As I understand it, your basis for asserting that it's the most reasonable and logical hypothesis is that from certain angles, to untrained eyes, the collapse appeared to exhibit some of the characteristics of a controlled demolition. Or have I missed something?

• If by "certain angles" you actually mean ALL the angles we've got - then yes!
• Also to trained eyes right? - how else would YOU explain the fact that NIST ARE investigating it as a valid hypothesis??? (Even if as a secondary working hypothesis) - or do you in fact assert that NIST are untrained and so as a result not properly qualified to carry out the investigation?
• And I'll think in the case of WTC7 you'll find that it's factually ALL of the characteristics.

You might actually HAVE a point in that case

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm glad NIST has real scientists. You know, people who actually understand what the words reason and logic mean.

Really you think so? So you think NIST have all the answers? No partiality? No preconceived notions? - that really worries me on a number of levels, but it is your opinion and I accept that- so fair enough! But I must then ask how much do you really know about them? An honest question now - HOW SURE ARE YOU?

Take a look at this please:

NIST engineer, John Gross, denies the existence of Molten Steel.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501&q=NIST
John Gross, one of the lead engineers of the NIST report is questioned about the existence of molten steel at the WTC buildings, the collapse of Building 7, and also explains how the NIST report did not do any analysis of the collapse of all three buildings.

In anticipation of your reply - you might say they did not need to explain such issues as the collapse as they "explained" the initiation sequence right? Given the eyewitness testimony "molten steel, like you were in a foundry, like lava, like a volcano" as only one example - do you still think Gross has the authority to be so flippantly dismissive or ignorant of eyewitness testimony? Or more importantly the CD hypothesis??? He seemed fairly short on info or answers to me!

bonkey wrote:

Also, you'll generally find that no-one puts FEMA as a "bible code". NISTs work is what is generally held as the standard, and NISTs work on WTC7 is still ongoing.

My advice to you oscarBravo, Bonkey and Diogenes: Be just a little more careful about where you place so much trust - especially when the stakes are so high!

I'll come back to Bonkey and Diogenes posts ASAP - apologies, very short on time ATM!

civdef

how else would YOU explain the fact that NIST ARE investigating it as a valid hypothesis???

My guess is it is a probably futile attempt to shut dumbass whiny conspiracy theorists up enough for them to go off and find another windmill to tilt at.

Diogenes

Flyingfish wrote:

In anticipation of your reply - you might say they did not need to explain such issues as the collapse as they "explained" the initiation sequence right? Given the eyewitness testimony "molten steel, like you were in a foundry, like lava, like a volcano" as only one example - do you still think Gross has the authority to be so flippantly dismissive or ignorant of eyewitness testimony? Or more importantly the CD hypothesis??? He seemed fairly short on info or answers to me!

Please provide evidence of molten steel at ground zero. Not pictures of metal glowing white hot. I mean evidence that such metal has been proven to be steel.

My advice to you oscarBravo, Bonkey and Diogenes: Be just a little more careful about where you place so much trust - especially when the stakes are so high!

i'd start humming Ms Morrisette "ironic" seeing as a man is asking us to trust a professor of theology, and a professor who was forced to retire in an obscure form of cold fusion, description of the buildings collaspe, is asking us to be careful where we place my trust.

I'll come back to Bonkey and Diogenes posts ASAP - apologies, very short on time ATM!

I wait with baited breath.

el rabitos

christ, this has deleloped into a major tit for tat war.

some of the conspiracy stuff is beyond stupid and is not even worth considering.

of course those planes were hijacked
of course they crashed into the towers

those things happened, the conspiracys that suggest otherwise on those 2 counts are just idiotic.

they questions are weather or not the incidents were preventable, and if so was there an attempt to prevent them, the suggestion that no attempt to prevent the events from taking place would be to suggest the american government wanted to use the attacks as an excuse to go about invading afghanistan and iraq etc.

on the pro conspiracy side, surely if the government had knowledge of when the event would take place and wanted the towers to come down for whatever reason, they could have had key area's of the structures wired for a controlled demolition, given the structure of the towers and the complex they were built on, i doubt it would have taken every floor of the buildings to be wired with explosives to make sure those buildings fell into their footprints. the planes crashing into the buildings could have looked like the cause for structural collapse whilst the "real" reason that the buidings failed was the controlled explosions at key points in the structure.

but all of that is just me trying to be a half assed physicist and offering my only possible take on the pro-conspiracy side.

on the other side of the fence, can anyone imagine how many people it would take to implement such an act. there would be too many people required to wire those buildings. and if you were told to wire 2 massive buildings to fall and kill thousands of people, would you do it? 1 or 2 weirdo's might, but not the amount of people required for that kind of job.

most of the conspiracys can be debunked with a dose of reality.

as for the pentagon, i've no idea, the american goverment have cctv footage they could release and debunk all of those conspiracys in 2 seconds - ive no idea why they dont.

again, i've no idea what happened to flight 93. i'm sure it was hijacked, but weather if was shot down or otherwise is anyones guess

theres no way of knowing what the conditions were like in building 7 unless you were there and have any idea of the inner workings of a structure like that - the phrase used by Larry Silverstein to "pull it" is very odd however, and the manner in which the building fell is comparable to how a building would fall under a controlled demolition.

however, in the cases of the towers and building 7 falling there is no other event to compare both collapses to in order for anyone to say, "oh the were definitely demolished". a plane has never flown at those speeds into a building before, and no other building has had two 110 story builds collapse around it before. alot more evidence is needed to support the conspiracys, but i dont see it ever coming forward tbh

Flyingfish

Diogenes wrote:

So if we have this clear you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your claim the pentagon had missile defence.

Don't you mean my reasonable assertion? Or have you been reduced to disagreeing with yourself? Seriously... "GoldFish" as your new username - it's kind of catchy... no?

Diogenes wrote:

Okay you understand that OscarBravo isn't the NIST, right? So there's nothing odd about him claiming there's no evidence of a CD while the NIST does investigate the claim.

Don't you mean Bonkey?

Diogenes wrote:

I have issue with the words Griffin and logically in the same sentence.

Really you have issues? Now why does that not shock me! Would you like to expand on that comment? Maybe I'll just file it under Ad Hominem attack 65 - Diogenes.

Diogenes wrote:

As has been pointed out on this thread there are reports froms dozens of FDNY and NY emergency workers who report fires throughout the building. You've ignored photographic evidence of smoke billowing out the building and photos of the huge gash in the building.

1. So you think I should take the eyewitness accounts seriously? Out of interest, why should I do that can you please tell me?
2. Bullcrap - I've not ignored any photographs - I've shown that the majority of that "billowing" smoke was NOT coming from building 7
2. I'll definitely come back to that "huge gash" photo - note SINGULAR - I'd better be sure to refer to the correct folder too ;]

Diogenes wrote:

I think I'll let bonkey handle this.

Agreed! I think you should use that sentence more often.

Flyingfish

civdef wrote:

My guess is it is a probably futile attempt to shut dumbass whiny conspiracy theorists up enough for them to go off and find another windmill to tilt at.

TBH that clearly says more about you than any other group!

oscarBravo

Flyingfish wrote:

"GoldFish" as your new username...

Flyingfish wrote:

Maybe I'll just file it under Ad Hominem attack...

I think that speaks for itself.

Flyingfish wrote:

2. Bullcrap - I've not ignored any photographs - I've shown that the majority of that "billowing" smoke was NOT coming from building 7

"Claimed" is not the same as "shown". What's your evidence for this assertion? Does it fit into the same category as Pentagon missile defences - "I believe they exist, therefore they do"?

ZorbaTehZ

Handbags !

Nick_oliveri

ZorbaTehZ wrote:

Handbags !

Indeed!! As much as i'd love to pursue this argument, i must decline. And link you to teh cuckoo's nest!

Gladrags!

Diogenes

Flyingfish wrote:

? Maybe I'll just file it under Ad Hominem attack 65 - Diogenes.

Flyingfish wrote:

Or have you been reduced to disagreeing with yourself? Seriously... "GoldFish" as your new username - it's kind of catchy... no?

Irony thy name is Flyingfish.


Stupidity thy Name is David Ray Griffin.

Flying Fish Re DR Griffin wrote:

Really you have issues? Now why does that not shock me! Would you like to expand on that comment?

Griffin had a Q&A session on his website. Someone posed this question

The Question wrote:

A major issue for the 911 Truth movement has been the lack of any substantial support from the academic and professional communities best placed to consider the underlying causes of collapse; in particular architects, fire engineers, and structural engineers.

Given the amount of qualified people in these fields, in particular world-wide and hence outwith the US immediate sphere of influence, it seems inconceivable that any serious errors in the NIST/FEMA analysis would not have been highlighted.

In contrast, there are a number of papers by various groups such as Ove Arup, Edinburgh University, and Sheffield University which have confirmed (or largely confirmed) key parts of the "official" analysis.

Why do you consider this situation has arisen, and why has the Truth movement been unable to respond with detailed engineering analyses?

David answered;

David Ray Griffin wrote:

Architects and engineers are not necessarily, as you suggest, “best placed to consider the underlying causes of the collapse.” They build things; they do not destroy things.

Thats right David Ray Griffin a Professor of theology is saying Architects and Engineers are not the best quailified to discuss the collaspe of a building. Because you don't need to know how something falls apart to put it together. And you wonder why I have such a low opinion of this guy?


http://www.rinf.com/forum/911-truth-...ns-t431.0.html

Don't you mean my reasonable assertion?

Yes Flyingfish it's a reasonable assertion. Many people would imagine the pentagon had some form of missile defence. However where your assertion speeds towards unreasonable, is when you reject evidence that contradicts it. Not by presenting any evidence to support your assertion, but by rejecting any evidence which disproves your assertion, on the most suprious grounds.

You've now several pages in, been incapable of providing any evidence to support your claim re Pentagon Missile Defence. And instead you've rejected out of hand any evidence that disproves it, not by offering evidence or proof that these defenses exist, but rather by casting dubious assertions at the sources of the evidence that demostrates they didn't exist.

Put simply Flyingfish, when you told us "not to get me started on the pentagon missile defence" it seems like you were begging us not to get you started because you had nothing of merit to say about these imaginary defenses in the first place.

1. So you think I should take the eyewitness accounts seriously? Out of interest, why should I do that can you please tell me?

Are you really trying to tell me that the accounts of people, like senior members of FDNY, of how widespread a fire was in a building, aren't relevant?

2. Bullcrap - I've not ignored any photographs - I've shown that the majority of that "billowing" smoke was NOT coming from building 7

By "shown" I think you mean "claimed". I did enjoy that guff about lower pressure fronts and foreshortening. But did you prove anything? No.

The photos support the eyewitnesses' (many of whom had decades of experience fighting fires) claims that WTC 7 was fully involved in fire.

2. I'll definitely come back to that "huge gash" photo - note SINGULAR - I'd better be sure to refer to the correct folder too ;]

This is going to be fun.

Agreed! I think you should use that sentence more often.

I think it's funny how you accuse me of using ad homien's, while you bookend your post with them.

This is par for the course for you Flyingfish. You seem to think you don't need to provide evidence to support your claims (NORAD standdown, missile defence) etc, you just attempt to vilify the source of contradictory evidence, you don't even bother to attack the evidence. You make claims about photos you don't even try to substantiate.

Flyingfish I sincerely hope you have as little contact as possible with our legal system, the thought of you anywhere near a jury box is genuinely terrifying.

Flyingfish

Diogenes wrote:

Are you really trying to tell me that the accounts of people, like senior members of FDNY, of how widespread a fire was in a building, aren't relevant?

Not at all! Your comments on the eyewitness testimony in the following video please?

NIST engineer, John Gross, denies the existence of Molten Steel.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5092501&q=NIST
John Gross, one of the lead engineers of the NIST report is questioned about the existence of molten steel at the WTC buildings, the collapse of Building 7, and also explains how the NIST report did not do any analysis of the collapse of all three buildings

Ciaran500

Flyingfish wrote:

Not at all! Your comments on the eyewitness testimony in the following video please?

You seem to be cherry picking what parts of posts you are answering.

Diogenes

So I take this to mean you accept that senior FDNY members state that WTC7 was fully involved in fire?

Good.

Flyingfish wrote:

Not at all! Your comments on the eyewitness testimony in the following video please?

Who exactly were these eye witnesses? The (yet again) anonymous person, who challenges John Gross doesn't name names. Thats not "testimony". Testimony is a statement someone swears by. 2nd hand anonymous questions, which don't quote the exact original claim, with no supporting evidence? Do you think those compare to the statements I provided? I've given the names of each my eyewitnesses, and verbatim quotes with links to the original sources. Can you do the same, for your "testimony"?

I quoted extremely experienced FDNY members, more than qualified to assess whether a building was fully involved in fire. Are the unnamed eyewitnesses in your video experts in metallurgy? Could they tell if the "molten metal" was steel? Or aluminum? How could they tell?

tunaman

plazzTT wrote:

Good show just over on BBC2 called: "9/11: The Conspiracy Files". Had plenty of clips from "Loose Change" included in it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6160775.stm

Had interviews with the maker of "Loose Change", a guy from "Popular Mechanics", Alex Jones and others.
Debunked a lot of the theories (including many theories central to "Loose Change"), and ended suggesting that the only government conspiracy was after 9/11 and not before. (in not being open about warnings, and breakdown of communication between FBI and CIA about leads, etc...)

Hopefully should be online somewhere soon.

That guy from popular mechanics is a reporter called Davin Coburn, who was given free reign to spout his incredibly biased and uninformed opinions, which were then presented as fact.

He even claimed to know what happened to building 7, so he should get onto NIST, as they still haven't been able to explain it more than five years later...

Here is a recording of a recent interview he did with an agnostic radio host, who showed him up for the clueless idiot he really is.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XLx5GATh_z0

Just like people on here defending the official theory he has no real answers...

Where exactly are all the structural engineers?

It is repeatedly claimed that thousands of them all support the official theory, yet I still haven't seen a detailed explanation from a structural engineer...

It would only be understandable for them to keep quiet if there really were serious problems with the official theory...

Diogenes

tunaman wrote:

That guy from popular mechanics is a reporter called Davin Coburn, who was given free reign to spout his incredibly biased and uninformed opinions, which were then presented as fact.

Dylan and Fetzer are also free to spout their incredibly biased opinions. "Uninformed" Though? David Colburn came off like he knew what he was on about, Dylan needed to have what a simile is explained to him. Fetzer came off like a bug eyed loon.

He even claimed to know what happened to building 7, so he should get onto NIST, as they still haven't been able to explain it more than five years later...

Tunaman the NIST is compiling and checking their final incredibly detailed report ready for you to read and ignore later this year. It's not inconcievable for other people to offer their opinion as to what happened. Christ you conspiracy theorists have been doing it for half a a decade now. It's just unfortunate Popular Mechanics has physics, science and maths behind their opinion, while conspiracy theorists have insane speculation about "thermite/thermate".

Here is a recording of a recent interview he did with an agnostic radio host, who showed him up for the clueless idiot he really is.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XLx5GATh_z0

Just like people on here defending the official theory he has no real answers...

Christ fool me once...

Tunamana I actually wasted ten minutes of my life on that. The host just goes off into a polemic about how popular mechanics shouldn't be debunking the conspiracy theorists, Popular mechanics, according to the host "should be leading the charge" to get the gubiment "to release the evidence". There was no real merit to any of his complaints. And he spluttered with outrage when Coburn explained there was a photo they didn't have permission to re publish.

Where exactly are all the structural engineers?

It is repeatedly claimed that thousands of them all support the official theory, yet I still haven't seen a detailed explanation from a structural engineer...

nist.gov.org? Who do you think wrote the NIST report? What about Ove Arup, also the Edinburgh University, and Sheffield Universities studies?

What's that you need more?

Here's a colloquium of engineers discussing the fall of the WTC towers. They're all too dumb to see the bombs:
http://mae.ce.uiuc.edu/publications/newsletters/Summer_2005.pdf

A collection of essays by researchers at MIT:
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/

A bibliography of analyses of the collapse:
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/wtc/wtctragedy.html#Analysis%20of%20Collapse

Architecture Week on the engineering forensics of the collapse:
http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1017/news_1-2.html

On WTC7:

http://www.rit.edu/~smo5024/papers/wtc/
http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0515/news_1-1.html
http://southerncrossreview.org/41/9-11.htm
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/wtc/wtctragedy.html
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../011119fa_FACT
http://www.ncsea.com/articles/seerp/wtcseerp.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ce.../0502feat.html

In this article, the author, Anne Elizabeth Powell, describes in detail how civil engineers quickly mobilized and led the efforts to evaluate not only the performance of the structures involved in the two assaults but also the vulnerability of the nation's infrastructure to future attacks in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon:
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline01/0111feat.html

All thanks to perrylogan.org

So Tunaman are you going to read these links, all of these "silenced" engineers "not talking" about WTC7 and 911?

It would only be understandable for them to keep quiet if there really were serious problems with the official theory...

They aren't quiet. You're just ignoring them. Tunaman your hit n run posting is getting tiresome.



[edit]
I'd feel bad about firing off so many scholarly articles at tunaman if I didn't remember all the unreferenced video he's flung at us.
[/edit]

civdef

It would only be understandable for them to keep quiet if there really were serious problems with the official theory...

Keeping quiet eh? I realise you may not have much contact with engineers, but you don't think that this hasn't been pretty much the main topic of dicsussion among structural & fire engineers since the day it happened?

Yet again the level of inadequate understanding and lack of common sense astounds me.

miju

civdef wrote:

Keeping quiet eh? I realise you may not have much contact with engineers, but you don't think that this hasn't been pretty much the main topic of dicsussion among structural & fire engineers since the day it happened?

outta complete curiousity civdef whats the split like among structural & fire engineers and what is the main point of debate?

Diogenes

miju wrote:

outta complete curiousity civdef whats the split like among structural & fire engineers and what is the main point of debate?

Conspiracy theory supporting structural engineers: 1.

Engineers who support the NIST: The rest of the world.