Engineers Speak about World Trade Building 7

[Bonobo]

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/05/permission-to-speak-freely-regarding.html

I do not think this will change anyone's mind and I am not trying to do so, just posting this article for those interested.

-------------------------
Top Experts Say Official Explanation Makes No Sense

Numerous structural engineers - the people who know the most about office building vulnerabilities and accidents - say that the official explanation of why building 7 at the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11 is "impossible", "defies common logic" and "violates the law of physics":
Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)

Alfred Lee Lopez, with 48 years of experience in all types of buildings:
I agree the fire did not cause the collapse of the three buildings. The most realistic cause of the collapse is that the buildings were imploded

John D. Pryor, with more than 30 years experience:
The collapse of WTC7 looks like it may have been the result of a controlled demolition. This should have been looked into as part of the original investigation

Robert F. Marceau, with over 30 years of structural engineering experience:
From videos of the collapse of building 7, the penthouse drops first prior to the collapse, and it can be noted that windows, in a vertical line, near the location of first interior column line are blown out, and reveal smoke from those explosions. This occurs in a vertical line in symmetrical fashion an equal distance in toward the center of the building from each end. When compared to controlled demolitions, one can see the similarities

Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley and 30 years of engineering experience, says:
Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition

[BobbyBoring]

1. It doesn't change my mind

I questioned the official story ever since Attas passport was found. No black boxes, but the passport, made of paper, of a guy that was flying the plane was found??


Right!

[SDuderstadt]

2. Yes...

lightweight, paper objects never survive plane crashes!

Oh, wait...they do all the time. Duh.

[Ter]

16. A fiery crash like that?

And black boxes survive anything. For the record I don't believe it was an inside job, but I do believe the black boxes were found. They probably didn't want us to know that the hijackers all had guns and out security sucked.

[SDuderstadt]

17. How would a black box survive...

this?

http://www.google.com/m/search?q=wtc+meteor&pbx=1&aq=f&oq=&aqi=-k0d0t0&fkt=1851&fsdt=10383&cqt=&rst=&htf=&his=&maction=&site=images&gl=us&source=mog&csll=&action=<oken=9ddf1b56#i=0

[Ter]

19. How could a passport?

The only time any black box has not been found was on 9/11. Every one gone? Even the plane that crashed on the ground? Impossible.

[SDuderstadt]

20. It isn't "impossible"

First of all, passports are lightweight, paper articles that can easily blow free of an explosion.

As far as the black boxes, the picture I linked to was multiple floors fused together. How do think a black box would survive that?

The reality of the real world isn't limited by your incredulity.

[defendandprotect]

40. +1000% --

[jberryhill]

3. Not about changing minds, but here's the thing

That blog post which, if you take a chunk of it and Google in order to see where it has been blog-spammed to kingdom come, is recycled material from ae911truth.org.

Is there some point to re-posting the same stuff over and over and over...

Having looked over, picked over, and discussed the ae911truth material for a long time, I do find it odd to be accused of being "closed minded" or "unwilling to discuss", when in fact after all is said and done, the same stuff simply gets posted again and again and again.

[Bonobo]

5. I never said you were closed minded, but...

And like you said, it has been discussed over and over.

Frankly, my opinion is that the air is stale here in the dungeon --meaning that it is filled with people whose minds are even more made up and set in stone than the 'normal' population.

WT7 was an odd, odd thing and many more people have trouble with it than some might know.

One strategy to shut up conversation is to insult people by suggesting they are stupid or crazy...indeed the very existence of 9/11 questions -ANY QUESTIONS- being stuck with UFO sightings is a not-so-subtle jab at people who ask them.

WT7 falling without being struck by a plane is an oddity on the face of it. Read the words of the many engineers who also are troubled by it.

You and I discussing it has no real point and I don't want to get into an insulting contest. I am posting a link for those who wish to read it.

You won't change your mind and I do not believe it is likely that WT7 fell without some help.

[OnTheOtherHand]

8. there's a pretty high knowledge level down here

In order to gauge people's openness to new information, one would actually need some new information.

Hell, in order to gauge people's reaction to "the very existence of 9/11 questions -ANY QUESTIONS-" one would actually have to ask a question and care about the answer.

It seems to me that any "strategy to shut up conversation" would be largely irrelevant, because the 9/11 "questioners" have largely entombed themselves in meta. Believe it or not, I actually find this depressing.

[jberryhill]

10. "Believe it or not, I actually find this depressing"

I don't think they get that what really motivates skeptics is the desire to have their socks knocked off, their world rocked, and their beliefs changed.

"Depressing" is not so much the word as "disappointing". It's like having Lucy pull the football out from in front of Charlie Brown again and again. We are continually being promised startling new evidence that just doesn't do it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

12. I'm easily depressed -- but, yes, it's disappointment

Everything you said, plus the frustration of interacting with people who claim to care so much more than I do, yet actually seem to care so much less. These days, at least, there are just a few "critics of the official story" here who hold up their end of a conversation.

[defendandprotect]

35. We have "startling, new evidence" in the official conspiracy myth -- !!

[jberryhill]

54. Your "ignore" list is broken again D&P

[jberryhill]

9. It is unreasonable not to make up one's mind by the umpteenth rehash, though

I'd love some fresh material.

Taking UFO's as an example, I have some definite opinions on the subject, having been fascinated with it since I was knee-high to a grasshopper. I'd love there to be evidence of alien piloted craft visiting earth from afar. That is, in fact, why I still bother to READ the stuff.

I HAVE changed my mind about well documented UFO's being alien piloted craft. I used to believe they were. All I can say on the topic is that there is no evidence of such yet. My mind is open to changing, because I have changed it in the past. But because I would love to see evidence of alien visitation, I am cautious enough to be aware of my own enthusiasm for that result in reading the latest and greatest reports of UFO encounters.

In fact, the reason I started reading stuff in the dungeon years ago was because I found the "where is the plane at the Pentagon" stuff to be intriguing. I was certainly willing to be persuaded on that point. But I did not approach the subject by only reading one side of the argument from truther sites. Eventually, what I found was that while various truther arguments and representations were shown to be not well founded, and while the skeptics take new truther arguments into account and address them, it seems that the truthers don't improve their arguments or find new facts even when they have been long run to ground. Why? Because the tendency is to make up their mind, and then go to find arguments to support it. Then they re-hash the same stuff over and over from some website somewhere, precisely because they either can't or don't want to think for themselves.

I believe you'd get wide agreement here in the DUngeon that, for example, spooked911 is a wonderfully original thinker. At least he's applying what candlepower he has to the subject at hand.

Something as simple as the distance from the Shanksville site to the lake in which lightweight debris was found is a clear case in point. The as-the-bird-flies distance is much shorter than the driving distance along roads from one place to another, and you will STILL see people claiming the lake is miles away, when one only needs to look at a freaking map to realize the error. And yet, somehow, that is one of myriad facts which the truther sheep keep bleating, never bothering to THINK FOR THEMSELVES AND LOOK AT A DANGED MAP.

What do you do when something like that gets posted here for the 20th time?

What do you do when the same people, after years of discussion say, "burning jet fuel can't melt steel like it says in the Official Story"? That's not even ANY "Official Story", and it is simply amazing that there are minds resistant to learning anything about the relationship between the strength of non-molten, but heated, steel, and temperature. I spent several years studying material science, and to be told that I'm "closed minded" for not agreeing to arrant uninformed nonsense is tedious.

So I bothered to find the ORIGINAL SOURCE for the material that is quoted in the article you posted. Intellectually active and curious people do that sort of thing. The quotes are a collage from this page, where you STILL find stuff like:

http://www2.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_ENGSONLY_

"the fires, which could not possibly melt and cut the steel"

Honestly, Bonobo, you've been around long enough to know that's not even what is claimed to have happened. So, what do YOU think about the continued pummeling of that straw man? Do you think that a reasonable person continues to parade such ignorance as truth, or do you think that a scientific mind updates its theories in response to new data - or even knowing what the data is?

What you'll find, though, is that there are critics here who READ BOTH SIDES and apply knowledge and critical thinking to all of it. Oddly, that doesn't seem to be the case with some folks. There are extensive critiques of the AE911truth stuff which, I am willing to bet, the folks that show up and post "looky what I found" with a two-year old snippet of that material, HAVE NOT READ.

It is a very similar situation with Creationism. It is a set of ill-informed criticisms, and the people who promote it do not, in general, educate themselves about that which they are critiquing. They will spout on and on about radio-isotope dating methods, claiming that the original distribution of isotopes is unknown, and hence invalidates the methods. They will NEVER seek to understand how isochron methods are immune from the criticism they make, because they are not interested in seeking truth - they are interested in proving a point.

Have you read all of the birther criticisms of the newly-released Obama document, or do you simply buy into the official story? They have quite clever arguments based on armchair "analysis" of the .pdf file which was released and which, if you do not know a thing or two about preparing electronic documents, are quite impressive. Is your mind open to those arguments or have you simply made up your mind on the subject of Obama's birthplace?

[IScreamSundays]

11. Only people buying the OS for building 7 are the dungeon gatekeepers

From the OP's link

...

The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.

Harry G. Robinson, III - Professor and Dean Emeritus, School of Architecture and Design, Howard University. Past President of two major national architectural organizations - National Architectural Accrediting Board, 1996, and National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, 1992. In 2003 he was awarded the highest honor bestowed by the Washington Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, the Centennial Medal. In 2004 he was awarded the District of Columbia Council of Engineering and Architecture Societies Architect of the Year award. Principal, TRG Consulting Global / Architecture, Urban Design, Planning, Project Strategies. Veteran U.S. Army, awarded the Bronze Star for bravery and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam - says:
The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated. The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to implode as they did

A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why Building 7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition

[OnTheOtherHand]

13. you think Quintiere endorses controlled demolition?

Do you even have any idea what aspects of "the official conclusion" he is challenging?

As for Robinson and Griscom, if they know anything relevant, bring it on. But their existence hardly proves your point. Does that bother you at all?

[IScreamSundays]

15. Pardon me but....

yes I have read his critique...

What he is saying is this that the NIST report that the gatekeepers in the dungeon refer to as the go to authority on all things 911 is crap.

Quintiere says that the NIST report is incomplete and lacking (amongst other terms); he makes no bones about this.

He has tons of questions. Makes determinations based upon assumptions. And says that everything 9-11 needs another look.

Why would you be against that?

I will talk about Robinson and Grisom in another post.

[LARED]

18. Actually he has 10 questions found here;

http://www.enfp.umd.edu/documents/QuintiereNATOFinal.pdf

His conclusion hardly seems to support a CT.

Conclusions

I contend that the NIST analysis used a fuel load that was too low and
their fire durations are consequently too short. Only these short fires could
then heat the bare core columns as NIST reports. The fires were too short
to heat the insulated trusses to failure. The NIST analysis has flaws, is
incomplete, and has led to an unsupported conclusion on the cause of the
collapse.

An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says
was not an issue.

The two different hypotheses lead to very different consequences with
respect to recommendations and remedial action. I think the evidence is
strong enough to take a harder look at the current conclusions. I would
recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST
study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening
this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues.

[IScreamSundays]

21. He disagrees with NIST, offers an alternate theory, and is an advocate for

a new investigation. Certainly gatekeepers can get behind someone that doesn't support CT, and insists that a new investigation be launched.

snip

.....At the time, I told them NIST was the best organization to do
the job. Little did I realize that the NIST heart was not in it, and its efforts
would not be proactive, but reclusive. While NIST had public hearings
during the course of discharging their findings, they were limited to 5-
minute presentations by the public, and no response to submitted questions
or comments. There was no transparency of their effort, and even their
Advisory Board did not know when they would finally release conclusions
until October of 2004. The conclusion was formally contained in a report
consisting of a 10,000-page document that defies reading and analysis.
Although Sally and Monica were updated in bi-weekly conference calls
mandated by Congress from NIST, they very early became discouraged and
concerned with the NIST progress and style. I participated in all of the
NIST hearings, and the related Congressional hearings, and in that way
followed the NIST progress. In October of 2004 their conclusions on the
cause of the building collapse was a surprise to me. While I can find issues
with their investigation of the event in assembling information through the
lack of calling witnesses, issuing subpoenas, and applying normal proactive
legal processes, I will primarily focus on the issues related to the fire and
the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.
Specifically I will demonstrate why I believe the NIST conclusion is
deficient and I will offer an alternative conclusion....

snip

1.1. MY INVOLVEMENT
I became involved in the WTC investigations as an observer and a fire
scientist. I followed the NIST activities throughout. In late September I
was invited to be part of the American Society of Civil Engineering team of
experts that were to attempt to investigate the scene. I was asked to be on a
backup team and began to receive emails on activities of the ASCE team at
the WTC site. The ASCE did not get easy access, and were initially
concerned about the pending and later actual sale of the steel debris from
the scene. This is where I began to speak out as the loss of the primary steel
elements that were coded according to location could provide vital
information about the temperatures achieved. Metallurgical analysis could
yield the temperatures and help to pinpoint the role of the fire in the
structural collapse. Needless to say, most all the steel was sold off, and
only little remained as a result of voluntary efforts of the Civil Engineers of
New York (CEONY). Subsequently, I never became part of the ASCE
team.

snip


2.8. QUESTION 8: WHY NO ACCOUNTABILITY?

Perhaps it was not the job of NIST to hold people or practices
accountable. But the style of their report should have had the sharpness of
focus to indicate where the faults were. Instead, NIST has produced a long
list of recommendations, most of which do not tie to the root cause of the
disaster. Let me list some of the more notable issues that needed sharpness
of focus to bring appropriate accountability and corrective actions:
• Loss of the steel as evidence of temperature
• Documentation and analysis of the process for the fire resistance
design
• Radio communication of the fire service.
NIST had subpoena authority that was not used, and had the ability to
hold hearings under oath that was not invoked. This lack of authority
should have been a vital part of the investigation.

2.9. QUESTION 9: WHY NOT OFFER SEVERAL HYPOTHESES ON
COLLAPSE AS NIST INITIALLY SAID?
From the start of the investigation NIST continually stated that the end
point of the process would be to present hypotheses according to their
probability of occurrence.7 NIST orriginal objectives stated:
• What is the most probable collapse sequence?
• What is the probability of the possible collapse sequences?
Instead, NIST lists one cause without equivocation. What happened to their
original plan?

2.10. QUESTION 10: WHAT ABOUT WTC 7?
As we know WTC 7 collapsed many hours later. It was hit by falling
debris from the towers, and that caused damage and fires to occur. NIST
has yet to produce a report on the cause of its collapse. Little has been
reported. At the NIST NSTAR Advisory Board meeting I attended in
December of 2005, discussion centered on whether it was worthwhile for
NIST even to pursue WTC 7. As I understand, the report is still a work in
progress, 6 years after the event. As the removal of insulation by the
impact of the aircraft would not be an issue here, it is imperative to find the
cause of the WTC 7 collapse that was solely due to its fires. Some believe
diesel oil tanks within the building fed the fires. I contend that these tanks
would have played the same role as the aircraft jet fuel that ignited the
contents of WTC 1 and 2. This jet fuel burned quickly, and the building
contents were the primary source of the fires. The same would apply to
WTC 7. Hence, an ordinary building fire, unattended by the fire service,
led to a collapse. The design of fire resistance in a building is supposed to
prevent the heating of the structure to failure over the expected duration of a
fire. This apparently was not the case. Do we have a design flaw?

snip>

[LARED]

23. I think he raises some interesting points

Where I think CT'er have gone astray is reading into this critique the need for a new investigation. Quintiere wants to reevaluate the data and get additional information about the collapse mechanism relating to a loss of insulation scenario. His concern is not centered around a half baked fantasy that something other than fire or structural damage was the root cause of the collage, he thinks the insulation or lack thereof played a far more important role than the NIST determined. I don't see anything wrong with reviewing that conclusion in the least.

CT'er simply grab on to Quintiere's reputation in order to make their fantasy seem credible to folks that don't take the time or are incapable of understanding the issues.

[OnTheOtherHand]

24. I guess it depends on the meaning of "investigation"

As this thread again evinces, "investigation" is a shibboleth employed by people who (1) paper over their disagreements and/or cluelessness about the events of 9/11 by emphatically yet vacuously calling for a New Investigation Of Everything, and (2) apparently construe that the Evil Gatekeepers are opposed to Investigation and will self-destruct if forced to admit that anything merits investigation.

Meanwhile, it seems to me that most of the "Gatekeepers" have spent a lot more time investigating 9/11 than our critics have, and are more interested in learning about it.

I don't know how Quintiere's thinking has evolved over the past five or six years, but if he would like further investigation of, e.g., how hot the fires burned in the Twin Towers and whether the fireproofing was adequate, why not? It's not as if I'm somehow opposed to better fireproofing.

Unfortunately, as jberryhill pointed out in #14, IScreamSundays appears to be looking for excuses to ignore the NIST report, not to improve upon it. It's the difference between scientific inquiry and special pleading.

[BeFree]

25. Oh?

It is more than clear that what Quintiere is saying is that the NIST did a slipshod investigation and that a new through review needs to take place. And that the disbursement of the steel before being properly examined was a mistake.

The man has creds. If he says the NIST screwed up, yall just need to suck it up, admit to a lackluster investigation and get with the program of having a new review.

Of course that poses a huge problem for yall. I almost feel sorry for yall, but then read the asswipe comments that are never fucking ending, and any condolence i might have goes out the window.

Every time new info comes out the OCTers blather on and on to obfuscate and derail, making foolish attempts to berate folks who want nothing more than what this top scientist also claims should be done.

Is there no shame from the OCTers? Will they ever make any progress? Any at all? Or are they just stuck on teh stupid?

[OnTheOtherHand]

26. a new thorough review of what, specifically?

When I strip the insults and pot-stirring from your comment, there's nothing left. Is it possible that you don't know what you're talking about? :shrug:

[zappaman]

27. +1 n/t

[BeFree]

28. Hahaha

That's hilarious. It is you who doesn't seem to know what he is talking about.

The scientist laid out his qualms about the NIST and his concerns were totally ignored!!

It's right there in ISS's post, relaying his feelings that the NIST botched the investigation.
read it again.... for the first time, apparently.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

30. will you answer my question?

Quintiere's criticisms were specific. Your comments are general. There's a disconnect.

[Make7]

31. I think BeFree is saying that a new thorough review of all original WTC steel is needed.

Perhaps he would be gracious enough to propose a method for doing such a thing.
 

[BeFree]

32. Of course not

That would be impossible. That steel is gone. So, totally wrong again. That makes7, oh, say, times a 100?

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. "says that everything 9-11 needs another look"

O RLY? I thought he was a hell of a lot more specific than that.

Is there a reason why you were unable or unwilling to answer my questions? Were they too complicated for you somehow?

[defendandprotect]

43. Especially given the fact that NIST is dependent upon government contracts ... !!

[jberryhill]

14. Have you ever bothered to find out what, specifically, Quintiere was criticizing?

That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

You haven't the foggiest notion who is Dr. Quintiere and what he was criticizing, do you?

This is PRECISELY what Creationists do with disputed issues among evolutionary biologists. They cherry pick the criticisms AMONG evolutionary biologists in order to support the specious proposition that evolution does not occur.

Congratulations for proving my point.

HERE's a novel idea for a conversation. How about if you, yourself, write something responsive to anything in my post, instead of copying and pasting stuff from somewhere that doesn't address a thing I said.

How about if you THINK and SPEAK for yourself.

[defendandprotect]

36. NIST itself is questionable -- since it does business with US government .... of course demolition!!

[defendandprotect]

38. As for 9/11 "gatekeepers" ......

it is really very few -- the problem is really that making this a taboo subject

gives those "few" the ability to monopolize a thread.

I'd rather see them put on "IGNORE" -- since their purpose seems mainly to be to

disrupt threads and their original discussions --

[defendandprotect]

37. Not really, not when the information isn't acknowledged and dealt with honestly ...

[defendandprotect]

41. Agree -- and the argument you are making points to the need to

put the few here who are trying to disrupt threads on IGNORE --

it would help the rest of us if you would do that --

[defendandprotect]

42. Of course there is, when the information is never honestly challenged ---

[Ohio Joe]

4. Waaaaaaahhhh, we're being repressed

"Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7"

building 7 - 320,000,000 hits on google

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&source=hp&q=building+7&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=65d2260741c8e199

The repression is shocking!

[SDuderstadt]

6. Jesus, you...

crack me up, OJ.

Here's my new slogan: "Just because everyone laughs at your ideas, doesn't mean you are being 'repressed', dude".

[Ohio Joe]

7. It is one of the things the "truth" movement loves to repeat over and over

and it is simply not true. The fear the irony of what they chose to name their movement is lost on them.

[MrMickeysMom]

33. "A more realistic cause of the collapse ... bldgs imploded...

Yes, it is in the case of building 7.

[defendandprotect]

39. All of the buildings came down the same way ... no difference -- demolition -- !!

[Ohio Joe]

34. I wonder why RIBA and AIA do not agree?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x317071

I also wonder why those that believe in CD do not address this?

[Ter]

44. Are there really people who honestly believe WTC7 went down without explosives?

All kidding aside, who?

[BeFree]

45. Our self described 'enemies'?

Meaning that someone here recently described themself as an enemy of the movement.

I laughed at them then, but it may be an accurate depiction. Just wait and see.

[William Seger]

47. As usual, you can't make a point without distorting

I said that apparently, trying to help you sort out the bullshit in your "inside job" evidence made me the natural movement of your "truth movement." I said that because that's how I get treated when I point out obvious bullshit. You, in particular, accuse anyone and everyone who points out that you're spewing bullshit of being in league with BushCo. My point was the irony of calling it a "truth movement" when truth is your enemy, but irony is something you seem to never have any appreciation for.

[BeFree]

49. My gawd

Wow. Why not just say you are not an enemy? Are you a friend? Or foe? What are you?
Have you, can you decide?

Frankly, your 'help' as you call it, is the epitome of ironic. You are right, I don't appreciate it.
But I sure am glad to get such a rise from the likes of you.

[zappaman]

50. my gawd

instead of calling people who disagree with you "enemies", why not call them "knowledgeable guys who aren't impressed by fairy tales"?
you're welcome!

[William Seger]

51. That's because you don't want help finding the truth

You want help spreading manure. That's why "truther" should always be put in quotes.

[BeFree]

52. That is not true

You are the one spreading manure.

Like I said, your so called 'help' is the epitome of ironic. And dishonest.

Go ahead and post an OP about your 'help' and see how far it flies. Do it in GD, it is allowed there, right? So, what are you waiting on? Why do you just hang here in the dungeon? Spread your wings and see what other DUers think. Or just stay hidden. Your choice.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

46. of course there are

I've been following the arguments for years now, and the arguments for explosives seem remarkably weak. I grant that the collapse of WTC 7 looks more like a demolition than the collapses of the twin towers do, but I see no real evidence that explosives were used, no real evidence against the NIST account, and no plausible narrative involving demolition. So, to say the least, I have no basis for confidence that explosives were used -- and I haven't been able to establish that anyone else in the world does, either.

[William Seger]

48. Absolutely

There is not a single shred of evidence for explosives being used to bring down WTC7, and the evidence that ought to be there if it was -- such as the distinctive sound of explosives -- just isn't there. That's why Richard Gage switches to thermite when anyone points out the lack of noise from explosives. Then, he switches back to explosives when he wants to explain the "suddenness" of the collapse. Somehow, he seems to think this little two-step makes for a convincing argument, totally unaware that it's really just ordinary cognitive dissonance. The facts refute both theories.

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that some people who believe WTC7 went down without explosives simply have a higher resistance to being sucked in by bullshitters and frauds like Richard Gage.

[chrisa]

55. What would be the point of demolishing it with explosives?

It fell long after WTC1 and WTC2 already fell. The damage was already done. There would not have been a point to demolishing it.