I see you've given up on the ignorance about the Twin Towers. I don't have a hypothesis about Building 7, nor does anyone. An independent report assigned the collapse to a global failure of the building. Questions are not answers.
By the way, I have been very careful not to read any of the "MSM narrative," whatever that is supposed to be, simply to maintain my independence on this topic.
You tout yourself as such a 'highly educated' person, but Building 7 is just sooooo confusing and 'I can't answer your questions' then refer to the known fraudulent 9/11 commission report about 'global failure'. You are too easy to pick apart honestly.....
The report I read was independent of the 9/11 commission. I have no idea what the commission said.
This is amusing. You cave on the Twin Towers and think your trump card is to bully me about Building 7, for which no one has a "satisfactory" explanation...including you. I know the limits of what I know, and I don't have anything to offer about Building 7, which collapsed in a different way (upper stories collapsed onto lower stories; in the Twin Towers, the lower stories collapsed beneath the upper stories). But I'm sure you were aware of this, right?
They haven't caved on the twin towers. It is obvious that bldg 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions take weeks to months to set up. Therefore, since bldg 7 was apparently planned to be brought down through controlled demolition, and just happened to happen on 9/11, it is not a huge stretch to consider that the twin towers were also planned for controlled demolition, which happened to happen on the same day jets flew into them.
Nothing has been proven about Building 7. And, yes, it is a stretch to extend an unproven hypothesis about Building 7 to the completely different collapse dynamic of the Twin Towers. At least you admit that jets did fly into them. (Others deny it even happened.) What about the statistical impossibility of such a coincidence? I guess that argument gets suspended when it gets in the way.
I didn't ask you about the Twin Towers ....nice stawman through. You have touted yourself for years as the expert on jet fuel/melting steel which has been debunked time and time again. Now you are playing the victim card to 'bullying' because you can't explain Building 7's collapse. Again, you proclaim yourself as a total expert on the TT's but can't seem to come up with ANY explanation for Building 7. You don't have anything to offer because you really don't know shit and/or a complete fraud.....take your pick...
Did you not? I thought the remark about burning office furniture was about that, since you did not preface your remark. Okay, I'm happy to leave them out of the discussion. Since I have not offered any hypothesis about building 7, what was your point at all? Why berate me for something I did not claim to know? Just picking a fight?
The jet fuel vs. steel issue is bogus. I never claimed that steel was even melted, only that it was weakened to a shadow of its normal strength at 600 C. Even so, the adiabatic flame temperature of burning kerosene is 2,093 C and the melting point of iron is 1,538 C, so where is the debunk? On you, I think. Every time the question is raised, I come out on top because I know my physical chemistry and the "mainstream" conspiracists only know urban mythology.
I've heard about that, but there seems to be no verification that it was either a real order, or that it was carried out. Was that where they were contemplating what to do with a building of dubious structural integrity? In which case, I don't understand the obscurity and mystery over the whole thing. It wasn't clear that they had time to conduct the demolition emplacement.
You did not watch the movie where you'd hear Silverstein say it in his own words. There was no dubious structural integrity at Bldg 7. The guy who did the movie is a structural engineer himself. Had you watched the movie you'd have known there was plenty of time for sabotage for the two towers and Bldg 7. When you post without investing the necessary time to do the research you just sound confused and stupid.
I see you've given up on the ignorance about the Twin Towers. I don't have a hypothesis about Building 7, nor does anyone. An independent report assigned the collapse to a global failure of the building. Questions are not answers.
By the way, I have been very careful not to read any of the "MSM narrative," whatever that is supposed to be, simply to maintain my independence on this topic.
You tout yourself as such a 'highly educated' person, but Building 7 is just sooooo confusing and 'I can't answer your questions' then refer to the known fraudulent 9/11 commission report about 'global failure'. You are too easy to pick apart honestly.....
The report I read was independent of the 9/11 commission. I have no idea what the commission said.
This is amusing. You cave on the Twin Towers and think your trump card is to bully me about Building 7, for which no one has a "satisfactory" explanation...including you. I know the limits of what I know, and I don't have anything to offer about Building 7, which collapsed in a different way (upper stories collapsed onto lower stories; in the Twin Towers, the lower stories collapsed beneath the upper stories). But I'm sure you were aware of this, right?
They haven't caved on the twin towers. It is obvious that bldg 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions take weeks to months to set up. Therefore, since bldg 7 was apparently planned to be brought down through controlled demolition, and just happened to happen on 9/11, it is not a huge stretch to consider that the twin towers were also planned for controlled demolition, which happened to happen on the same day jets flew into them.
Nothing has been proven about Building 7. And, yes, it is a stretch to extend an unproven hypothesis about Building 7 to the completely different collapse dynamic of the Twin Towers. At least you admit that jets did fly into them. (Others deny it even happened.) What about the statistical impossibility of such a coincidence? I guess that argument gets suspended when it gets in the way.
I didn't ask you about the Twin Towers ....nice stawman through. You have touted yourself for years as the expert on jet fuel/melting steel which has been debunked time and time again. Now you are playing the victim card to 'bullying' because you can't explain Building 7's collapse. Again, you proclaim yourself as a total expert on the TT's but can't seem to come up with ANY explanation for Building 7. You don't have anything to offer because you really don't know shit and/or a complete fraud.....take your pick...
Did you not? I thought the remark about burning office furniture was about that, since you did not preface your remark. Okay, I'm happy to leave them out of the discussion. Since I have not offered any hypothesis about building 7, what was your point at all? Why berate me for something I did not claim to know? Just picking a fight?
The jet fuel vs. steel issue is bogus. I never claimed that steel was even melted, only that it was weakened to a shadow of its normal strength at 600 C. Even so, the adiabatic flame temperature of burning kerosene is 2,093 C and the melting point of iron is 1,538 C, so where is the debunk? On you, I think. Every time the question is raised, I come out on top because I know my physical chemistry and the "mainstream" conspiracists only know urban mythology.
Watch CODEX 911. Sliverstein admits he essentially gave the order to pull Building 7 down
I've heard about that, but there seems to be no verification that it was either a real order, or that it was carried out. Was that where they were contemplating what to do with a building of dubious structural integrity? In which case, I don't understand the obscurity and mystery over the whole thing. It wasn't clear that they had time to conduct the demolition emplacement.
You did not watch the movie where you'd hear Silverstein say it in his own words. There was no dubious structural integrity at Bldg 7. The guy who did the movie is a structural engineer himself. Had you watched the movie you'd have known there was plenty of time for sabotage for the two towers and Bldg 7. When you post without investing the necessary time to do the research you just sound confused and stupid.
I don't have access to this wonderful movie, and I am not much concerned about Building 7. If the case is open and shut, why is there any controversy?
Since the Twin Towers had no signs of demolition, I see no point in chewing on that one. That "conspiracy" is a fantasy.