Real 9-11 Research

[Galileo]

These people who say the earth is round... how do they know? My experience and my own two eyes tell me the earth is flat. I don't need some authority figure to tell me otherwise. I have high self-esteem.

The burden of proof was on the people to prove that the earth was round, since it appears flat to the common man. The ancient Greeks supplied that proof.

Likewise, WTC 7 looks like a controlled demolition. But in this case, no evidence has been presented contradicting what people can see with their own eyes.

[ChumpDumper]

Wow! You have great respect for authority.

You faked a PhD for one of your sources. You have a great respect for fantasy authority about whose credentials you lied.

Please keep us posted when your friends explain how taking out column # 79 makes WTC 7 fall like a house of cards.

Please email those people and tell them how wrong they are with the research and analysis you personally did using physical evidence and computer modeling. I'm sure you have a PhD in engineering like the one you made up for your cited authority.

[Galileo]

I remember one time how Bill Frist diagnosed Terri Schiavo's condition by watching her on a video. Since he is a doctor, we should believe him.

I'm all for looking for other explanations for WTC 7. But no evidence contradicting controlled demolition has been produced.

[Extra Stout]

The burden of proof was on the people to prove that the earth was round, since it appears flat to the common man. The ancient Greeks supplied that proof.

Likewise, WTC 7 looks like a controlled demolition. But in this case, no evidence has been presented contradicting what people can see with their own eyes.

The ancient Greek writings have been corrupted by the powers that be. The Flat Earth Society has the straight scoop. They have lots of obvious reasons why the world can't be round.

[Galileo]

You faked a PhD for one of your sources. You have a great respect for fantasy authority about whose credentials you lied.Please email those people and tell them how wrong they are with the research and analysis you personally did using physical evidence and computer modeling. I'm sure you have a PhD in engineering like the one you made up for your cited authority.

I have a 4-year college degree in mathematics, which included significant physics and engineering credits.

I already told you, the press release is making the assertions about no evidence for controlled demolition. The press releases are written by political and media people, not scientists.

Press releases are not evidence.

If a press release claims there is no evidence for something, that is irrelevant. Anything can be claimed in a press release.

[Galileo]

The ancient Greek writings have been corrupted by the powers that be. The Flat Earth Society has the straight scoop. They have lots of obvious reasons why the world can't be round.

Galileo also proved the Flat Earthers were wrong. I am the re-incarnation of Galileo Galilei, speaking to you through a time warp.

[ChumpDumper]

I have a 4-year college degree in mathematics, which included significant physics and engineering credits.

So you have no engineering experience whatsoever.

I already told you, the press release is making the assertions about no evidence for controlled demolition. The press releases are written by political and media people, not scientists

The article was not a press release. I understand you are easily confused. You think a bachelors degree is a PhD after all.

[ChumpDumper]

Galileo also proved the Flat Earthers were wrong. I am the re-incarnation of Galileo Galilei, speaking to you through a time warp.

You're a math major who has no theory about what really happened on 9/11.

[Galileo]

Ah, so you're an engineer and a demolitions expert. Cool! I had no idea.


No, but in the presence of competing and plausible theories, it's nice to base my conclusions on scientific evidence...particularly when I have no expertise in the area being debated.


This immediately stood out in your post becuase, I'll be "God damned America" if it wasn't contained in my post quoting NIST earlier today.


Maybe you should have a) read my post and b) not made the mistake of cherry-picking your quote and calling it a "NIST progress report" after just denegrating the same remarks as merely being a "NIST Press Release.

Additionally, taking the quote out of context -- and particularly leaving off the last portion, bolded above, is the type of selective fact-finding that has led you idiots off the bridge on this issue.

Nice play, Einstein.

The NIST press release makes no sense, no matter how much context you include.

"NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."

Again, hypothetical blast events don't have a magnitute that can lead to structural failure, only actual events do.

[Yonivore]

The NIST press release makes no sense, no matter how much context you include.

"NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."

Again, hypothetical blast events don't have a magnitute that can lead to structural failure, only actual events do.

It makes a lot of sense if you're going to try and explain to nutjobs like you how science proves a controlled demolition didn't occur.

If they want to make that determination, they're going to have to hypothesize about what kind of blast it would have taken. No?

But, alas, I'm not surprised it makes no sense to you.

[Galileo]

So you have no engineering experience whatsoever.

The article was not a press release. I understand you are easily confused. You think a bachelors degree is a PhD after all.

Your article was total bull . If you take out column # 79 out of WTC 7, it won't make the building fall. And an office fire can't take out column # 79.

Nor does your article explain why WTC 7 fell suddenly, straight down, at free fall speed, just like a controlled demolition.

Your article doesn't explain why demolition charges are seen going up the side of the building.

Your article doesn't explain why there was a countdown over the radio just before it fell.

Your article doesn't explain why there was a huge explosion inside WTC 7 at about 9:45 in the morning.

Your article doesn't explain why the fire alarms were truned off shortly before some fires broke out.

Your article doesn't expalin anything. Get your goddam politics out of science.

[Yonivore]

I'm all for looking for other explanations for WTC 7. But no evidence contradicting controlled demolition has been produced.

What are you talking about? A huge chunk of a big ing building hit it, weakening the structure and leading to its eventual collapse.

There's an alternative explanation you're not acknowledging.

[Galileo]

It makes a lot of sense if you're going to try and explain to nutjobs like you how science proves a controlled demolition didn't occur.

If they want to make that determination, they're going to have to hypothesize about what kind of blast it would have taken. No?

But, alas, I'm not surprised it makes no sense to you.

Why did all 81 columns of WTC 7 fail at exactly the same time?

[Galileo]

What are you talking about? A huge chunk of a big ing building hit it, weakening the structure and leading to its eventual collapse.

There's an alternative explanation you're not acknowledging.

How can gravity throw a huge chunk over 355 feet horizontally?

Are you not aware that gravity works up and down?

[ChumpDumper]

Your article was total bull . If you take out column # 79 out of WTC 7, it won't make the building fall. And an office fire can't take out column # 79.

And which physical evidence and computer models did you analyze to reach this conclusion?

Nor does your article explain why WTC 7 fell suddenly, straight down, at free fall speed, just like a controlled demolition.

It didn't fall at free fall speed.

Your article doesn't explain why demolition charges are seen going up the side of the building.

Why would there be demo charges on the side of the building near the very top? Why would those even be necessary?

Your article doesn't explain why there was a countdown over the radio just before it fell.

There wasn't.

Your article doesn't explain why there was a huge explosion inside WTC 7 at about 9:45 in the morning.

Right, the huge explosion that was timed to bring down the building at 5:20 PM when the small charges designed to look just like glass breaking were set off on the upper floors. -- just like every controlled demolition you have ever seen.

Your article doesn't explain why the fire alarms were truned off shortly before some fires broke out.

There was no water pressure since a large amount of the infrastructure of lower Manhattan was destroyed.

Your article doesn't expalin anything.

It explains quite a lot actually. A failure of this one column in the lower floors could have caused the entire collapse that you saw on 9/11.

Get your goddam politics out of science.

You first.

[ChumpDumper]

Why did all 81 columns of WTC 7 fail at exactly the same time?

They didn't. One failed first, then the load redistributed over the other columns and overwhelmed them causing multiple failures and global collapse.

[ChumpDumper]

How can gravity throw a huge chunk over 355 feet horizontally?

There was quite a but of mass under the chunk that the chunk struck as it fell, deflecting it.

Are you not aware that gravity works up and down?

Willful ignorance is the hallmark of the twoofer.

[Galileo]

They didn't. One failed first, then the load redistributed over the other columns and overwhelmed them causing multiple failures and global collapse.

The 80 columns were overwhelmed without the help of their friend, Column # 79?

God forsake!

WTC 7 has no redundancy!!!

[Galileo]

There was quite a but of mass under the chunk that the chunk struck as it fell, deflecting it.

Willful ignorance is the hallmark of the twoofer.

Really? Most scientists who have studied the issue say the explosions in WTC 1 threw out the chunks.

[Galileo]

So, where are the NIST scientists saying their political managers misrepresented the data they were analyzing? Better yet, where are the NIST findings to the contrary?

Politicians misrepresent what scientists say all the time.

Have you never read a press release & government report on Global Warming or Second-hand Smoke?

Same goes with economic data.

[ChumpDumper]

The 80 columns were overwhelmed without the help of their friend, Column # 79?

I'm beginning to think you don't even understand the article.

WTC 7 has no redundancy!!!

In this case, probably not.

Still waiting to hear about your personal analysis of the physical evidence and the computer models you used in conjunction with your advanced engineering degree.

[ChumpDumper]

Really? Most scientists who have studied the issue say the explosions in WTC 1 threw out the chunks.

Are these more of your fake PhDs?

Please provide a link.

[ChumpDumper]

Politicians misrepresent what scientists say all the time.

So the NIST scientists can't actually say anything to anyone ever. They are being repressed?

[Yonivore]

I have a 4-year college degree in mathematics, which included significant physics and engineering credits.

So, you're neither an engineer or a demo expert. Got it.

I already told you, the press release is making the assertions about no evidence for controlled demolition. The press releases are written by political and media people, not scientists.

Press releases are not evidence.

If a press release claims there is no evidence for something, that is irrelevant. Anything can be claimed in a press release.

Much more can be claimed in a political forum.

[Extra Stout]

How can gravity throw a huge chunk over 355 feet horizontally?

Are you not aware that gravity works up and down?

How can the earth be round and rotate as they say? If it were so, I should be able to fly up in a balloon, and just wait in the air until my destination rotates under me!