Some 9/11 stuff doesn't makes sense

TangerTonyGreen said:
This will be my last input.
Two massive planes ( full of plane juice ) flew into two massive towers.
Massive fireballs we’re sent down stairwells and lift shafts.
The horror of which I couldn’t begin to imagine.
Resulting in 220+ of floors to come crashing down.
I can’t imagine why a nearby building might fail?🧐
Click to expand...
It takes all of two minutes to Google the answer. Tower 7 was badly damaged by falling debris from the North Tower. it was that debris that caused it to catch fire, fires that were left unchecked because the two towers collapsed and made it pretty much impossible to get near enough to fight them. If you put as much energy into doing research as you do into posting shite you'd do us all a favour.
 
Sighs loudly
do you not acknowledge two massive towers collapsing, might compromise nearby buildings?
If not I’m definitely out, good night 👍
 
TomGxPool said:
It takes all of two minutes to Google the answer. Tower 7 was badly damaged by falling debris from the North Tower. it was that debris that caused it to catch fire, fires that were left unchecked because the two towers collapsed and made it pretty much impossible to get near enough to fight them. If you put as much energy into doing research as you do into posting shite you'd do us all a favour.
Click to expand...
eh? That’s what I’m saying!
 
TangerTonyGreen said:
Sighs loudly
do you not acknowledge two massive towers collapsing, might compromise nearby buildings?
If not I’m definitely out, good night 👍
Click to expand...
And then you wonder why I came out with the comment I did last night.

The official story is that WTC 7 collapsed due to a normal fire… (not because it was doused in jet fuel and not because of damage caused by falling debris)
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
And then you wonder why I came out with the comment I did last night.

The official story is that WTC 7 collapsed due to a normal fire… (not because it was doused in jet fuel and not because of damage caused by falling debris)
Click to expand...
But not the stones to follow it through.
Pint on Saturday? Yeah thought not keyboard gobshite.👌
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
As you will know, the cause of collapse is attributed to fire and it was fire that is supposed to have caused the structural collapse.

What I have said is that was an unusual event, in fact, not only unusual, but unprecedented. Our other poster seems to think that repeating his own ‘made up’ theories can answer the question that NIST have already answered in a different way….
Click to expand...

I'm still not sure what your point is, are you saying that tower 7 wasn't brought down due to fire?


TangerTonyGreen said:
Sighs loudly
do you not acknowledge two massive towers collapsing, might compromise nearby buildings?
If not I’m definitely out, good night 👍
Click to expand...

In this case, beyond starting the fires, the damage doesn't appear to have directly caused the collapse.
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
He wasn't an amateur, he had a commercial pilot's licence, how many more times does this need saying?

If you can't get simple facts about the day right what's the point?
Click to expand...
abcnews.go.com

FAA Received Alert About 9/11 Hijacker

abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com


"Federal aviation authorities were alerted inearly 2001 that an Arizona flight school believed one of theeventual Sept. 11 hijackers lacked the English and flying skillsnecessary for the commercial pilot's license he already held,flight school and government officials say. A Federal Aviation Administration inspector even sat next to thehijacker, Hani Hanjour, in one of the Arizona classes, checkedrecords to ensure Hanjour's 1999 pilot's license was legitimate butconcluded no other action was warranted, FAA officials told TheAssociated Press. Hanjour is believed to have piloted the plane that crashed intothe Pentagon on Sept. 11. The Arizona flight school manager told authorities the FAAinspector called her when Hanjour's name became public after thehijackings and declared "your worst nightmare has just beenrealized," officials said. The operations manager for the now-defunct JetTech flight schoolin Phoenix said she called the FAA inspector that oversaw herschool three times in January and February 2001 to express herconcerns about Hanjour. "I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had,"


"The ELS Language Center at Oakland University said Hanjour reached a level of proficiency sufficient to "survive very well in the English language". However, in January 2001, Arizona JetTech flight school managers reported him to the FAA at least five times because his English was inadequate for the commercial pilot certificate he had already obtained. It took him five hours to complete an oral exam meant to last just two hours, said Peggy Chevrette. Hanjour failed UA English classes with a 0.26 GPA and a JetTech manager said "He could not fly at all." The certificate was a requirement for him to join the Saudi Arabian pilot's academy.[19] His FAA certificate had become invalid late in 1999 when he failed to take a mandatory medical examination."

I dunno, he doesn't sound like he's even remotely skilled or even competent pilot capable of pulling off a very difficult maneuver under intense pressure and flying perfectly in 1 attempt, hitting a building only a few floors high side on without scraping the lawn in front.
 
The official story is that WTC 7 collapsed due to a normal fire… (not because it was doused in jet fuel and not because of damage caused by falling debris)

So nothing to see here, swim on bye.

I‘ve lost count how many times you’ve contradicted yourself on this one thread😉😂
 
Lost Seasider said:
I'm still not sure what your point is, are you saying that tower 7 wasn't brought down due to fire?
Click to expand...

My point is that the collapse of building 7 in particular was one of a number of unusual events that occurred in relation to 9/11.

As I said, it was unprecedented….


TTG and others seem to be under the impression that the unusual nature of the event can be easily explained away by simply making stuff up. It can’t and the NIST doesn’t offer up any ‘additional’ explanation… In fact they actually emphasise similarities to other non-collapsed buildings…

Clearly it is the nature of the collapse and the officially accepted cause, which is the subject of the controversy….

If the official explanation wasn’t so ‘unusual’ then we wouldn’t even be having the discussion…
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
My point is that the collapse of building 7 in particular was one of a number of unusual events that occurred in relation to 9/11.

As I said, it was unprecedented….
Click to expand...

Unusual, but not unexplained.

The events of the day meant that the fire was allowed to progress unchecked, this in itself is unusual and is something that very few buildings of similar construction would be subject to.

There appears to have been a serious construction flaw, the builders relied upon bolts that were only designed to hold the beams in place temporarily, and skipped the welding that they should have done, thermal expansion caused the bolts to shear which then left the beams unsupported, something that would not have happened if they had been properly installed, and everything else seems to follow from that: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/...destroyed-in-a-controlled-explosion/1376#1376


So the events of the day subjected a building of sub-standard construction to highly abnormal circumstances, which in the end exposed a short-cut taken by an unknown builder 15 years previously that would otherwise likely never have been noticed.


I guess the wider point is that the events of the day were so large and so unusual that it was inevitable that other unusual events and outcomes would follow from them.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Unusual, but not unexplained.

The events of the day meant that the fire was allowed to progress unchecked, this in itself is unusual and is something that very few buildings of similar construction would be subject to.

There appears to have been a serious construction flaw, the builders relied upon bolts that were only designed to hold the beams in place temporarily, and skipped the welding that they should have done, thermal expansion caused the bolts to shear which then left the beams unsupported, something that would not have happened if they had been properly installed, and everything else seems to follow from that: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/...destroyed-in-a-controlled-explosion/1376#1376


So the events of the day subjected a building of sub-standard construction to highly abnormal circumstances, which in the end exposed a short-cut taken by an unknown builder 15 years previously that would otherwise likely never have been noticed.


I guess the wider point is that the events of the day were so large and so unusual that it was inevitable that other unusual events and outcomes would follow from them.
Click to expand...

Well that’s the point really the ‘explanation’ itself requires acceptance that this particular and very ordinary (in the context of comparative events to the specific building) was unique in terms of outcome.

So this particular event wasn’t ‘large and unusual’ at all really apart from in the context of the explanation, hence the controversy.

Of course, I’m not arguing that the explanation isn’t valid (though that is the thrust of the argument put forward by other experts), I was simply saying it was one of a series of things that I consider to be odd.

Further it’s really not where I was coming from in regard to the discussion that you chose to involve yourself in with TTG at all (the context of which you have largely ignored).

In that instance, I was challenging a whole series of inaccurate statements:-

1. That it collapsed ‘because it was attached to the other buildings’

2. That 220 floors of buildings 1 & 2 had fallen on top of building 7.

3. That ‘gravity’ had caused Jet Fuel to ‘Fall’ onto building 7.

4. That debris had damaged the building causing collapse.

5. The assertion that collapse was obvious or inevitable, because 2 totally different buildings had also collapsed etc..

None of the above are valid and all are totally inaccurate. Some of them are borderline ridiculous.

I’ll reiterate (for the third or fourth time on this thread - the second time specifically to you, I believe) that my finding the explanation odd or unusual and remaining somewhat skeptical is quite different from me accepting an alternative (for example - controlled demolition) explanation and a further ‘leap’ that this was some kind of internal U.S. plot…. In fact I’d categorically say that I’d find that very hard to believe.

Of course your link to a skeptic site that simply reiterated the ‘official’ explanation isn’t really very helpful. It is the official explanation that is in dispute and many of the key facts in that explanation have been questioned by other experts.


In fact that was a point I have made quite a few times too… That my skepticism in regard to some of the events is construed as a highly polarised position of then ‘believing in some wild conspiracy theory’, but of course that’s AVFTT… (A world where the JVCI would be called ‘Anti-Vaxxers’ and where political debate involves comparing anyone moderately left of centre to Stalin and anyone moderately right of Tony Benn to Hitler.)

So there you have it….
 
Last edited:
Lost Seasider said:
I'm still not sure what your point is, are you saying that tower 7 wasn't brought down due to fire?




In this case, beyond starting the fires, the damage doesn't appear to have directly caused the collapse.
Click to expand...
What about heat compromising the steel skeleton causing it to buckle?
 
I think that’s kind of the idea with conspiracy theories. Some people get them and some don’t, otherwise they’d just be ‘the answer’.

I’m pretty sure it’s not compulsory to get all of them, just because you might get others.
 
I just don't see it. Building 7 caught fire as debris from the WTC hit it. That's how the great fire of London spread, I'm sure the Israeli govt, CIA and the illuminati weren't involved in that.
 
Shandypants said:
I just don't see it. Building 7 caught fire as debris from the WTC hit it. That's how the great fire of London spread, I'm sure the Israeli govt, CIA and the illuminati weren't involved in that.
Click to expand...
Yes that’s how it caught fire, but I don’t think anyone has ever disputed that it was on fire have they?
 
Shandypants said:
But isn't the fact it collapsed part of the conspiracy theory?
It caught fire, fell down and that's it.
Click to expand...
Yes… the whole point of the conspiracy theory rests on the technical / structural impossibility / implausibility of the collapse, due to fire.

Of course it’s easy to understand why you wouldn’t ‘get it’, bearing in mind that the extent of your enquiring mind is satisfied with such a simplistic answer.

I mean Kennedy was shot, he died what else is there.

The moon landing was filmed and people saw it on telly, what else is there.


I’m afraid with an attitude like that, you’re not really getting into the spirit of conspiracies tbh.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Well that’s the point really the ‘explanation’ itself requires acceptance that this particular and very ordinary (in the context of comparative events to the specific building) was unique in terms of outcome.

So this particular event wasn’t ‘large and unusual’ at all really apart from in the context of the explanation, hence the controversy.
Click to expand...

Except this wasn't a very ordinary event was it?

In an ordinary fire the building is designed to contain the fire on one level, having multiple fires burning simaltaneously on different levels is far beyond ordinary.

In an ordinary fire the firefighters would've tackled the blaze and likely brought it under control relatively quickly, the events of the day meant this didn't happen and the fire was instead allowed to burn unchecked for 6 hours.

Thus a fire far worse than would be expected normally, was allowed to burn for far longer than would happen normally, and this fire of exceptional severity and exceptional duration in the end caused an event that was unusual, but not unique.


BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Of course, I’m not arguing that the explanation isn’t valid (though that is the thrust of the argument put forward by other experts), I was simply saying it was one of a series of things that I consider to be odd.
Click to expand...

Well it seems to me that these "odd" things have perfectly reasonable explanations, whether you want to find them is a different matter.

In fact, with an event this size it would be extremely unusual to not find "odd things", and the absence of these might in fact be evidence of a conspiracy itself.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Yes… the whole point of the conspiracy theory rests on the technical / structural impossibility / implausibility of the collapse, due to fire.

Of course it’s easy to understand why you wouldn’t ‘get it’, bearing in mind that the extent of your enquiring mind is satisfied with such a simplistic answer.

I mean Kennedy was shot, he died what else is there.

The moon landing was filmed and people saw it on telly, what else is there.


I’m afraid with an attitude like that, you’re not really getting into the spirit of conspiracies tbh.
Click to expand...
I don't get it because I'm a chartered surveyor who has dealt with many dangerous buildings post fires. Buildings collapse regularly during fires, what is unusual about building 7....
 
Lost Seasider said:
Except this wasn't a very ordinary event was it?

In an ordinary fire the building is designed to contain the fire on one level, having multiple fires burning simaltaneously on different levels is far beyond ordinary.

In an ordinary fire the firefighters would've tackled the blaze and likely brought it under control relatively quickly, the events of the day meant this didn't happen and the fire was instead allowed to burn unchecked for 6 hours.

Thus a fire far worse than would be expected normally, was allowed to burn for far longer than would happen normally, and this fire of exceptional severity and exceptional duration in the end caused an event that was unusual, but not unique.




Well it seems to me that these "odd" things have perfectly reasonable explanations, whether you want to find them is a different matter.

In fact, with an event this size it would be extremely unusual to not find "odd things", and the absence of these might in fact be evidence of a conspiracy itself.
Click to expand...

As far as WTC 7 was concerned it was an ordinary event. In fact that was the conclusion of NIST. Insomuch as there was nothing remarkable about the fire and there were more similarities than differences in regard to other events.

Whether they have ‘reasonable’ explanations or not is part of the debate. I find some of the explanations quite extraordinary and there are clearly experts out there who feel the same.

I’m OK with you accepting the official line in it’s entirety and I can confirm I don’t require you to agree with my view.

That said, if you do have any compelling evidence or (in particular) examples of where the subject has been debated by experts, I’d be interested to take a look👍
 
Shandypants said:
I don't get it because I'm a chartered surveyor who has dealt with many dangerous buildings post fires. Buildings collapse regularly during fires, what is unusual about building 7....
Click to expand...
Actually they don’t and that’s the point… even NIST accept that the collapse was unique.

Remind me not to bother asking you for a house survey btw 😂
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Actually they don’t and that’s the point… even NIST accept that the collapse was unique.

Remind me not to bother asking you for a house survey btw
Click to expand...
You're actually telling me that buildings don't collapse in fire??? Really, I'd give up right now if I were you. BTW I don't do house surveys but I was on call for dangerous buildings for over 15 yrs for fire, vehicle damage etc so I'd hazard a guess that I know more than you. I was involved in Paris casino and that was teetering on the edge, the front elevation was ready to go and consequently the street was shut until a demolition contractor could take it all down to a safe height. That was a minscule incident compared to 9/11 so how can anyone suspect building 7 is a fishy incident.
 
I was just going to write....does ANYBODY have any expertise in surveying buildings.....and here comes Shandy
BUT.....does ANYONE have any expertise or know any building codes for the USA......I doubt it.....it's ALL just supposition or guess work...no real idea.
That was one of the explanations put through by US media at the time, that the building wasn't up to 'Code' above a certain height as it wasn't requiredand the reason it crashed down so quickly......

It does amaze me the The Bifster will try to discredit a 'reasonable' explanation...a common sense explanation...because some wild supposition can fit the question.

So why did you fight Fracking so hard......were you backed by big energy companies.....did Gazprom offer you another 2p off gas prices.
Because of your business...Youre an insider, someone who has a financial stake in keeping prices high as it could have effected profits and lost you customers......You had to stop it.....for Money

Or (as I believe) that's just a wild supposition that can fit the question......but that's how conspirator theories start.....The 'answer' doesn't have to be true..it just needs to fit the answer.......The good thing is most can see and (whether they know it or not) go for Occams razor
 
Shandypants said:
You're actually telling me that buildings don't collapse in fire??? Really, I'd give up right now if I were you. BTW I don't do house surveys but I was on call for dangerous buildings for over 15 yrs for fire, vehicle damage etc so I'd hazard a guess that I know more than you. I was involved in Paris casino and that was teetering on the edge, the front elevation was ready to go and consequently the street was shut until a demolition contractor could take it all down to a safe height. That was a minscule incident compared to 9/11 so how can anyone suspect building 7 is a fishy incident.
Click to expand...

No, I’m telling you that buildings with the same structure as WTC 7 hadn’t previously collapsed due to fire, that the collapse was unique the first of its kind) and that the official reason for the collapse has been challenged based on technical rounds by experts.

You may know ‘more than ne’ but you seem remarkably ill informed about the specifics of this particular incident, if you don’t mind me saying.

If you’re interested, then perhaps read the NIST report and the basis for challenge. As a structural engineer, you’re probably better placed than most to grasp it.

However you’ll forgive me for not respecting a professional opinion that clearly has no insight into the facts and who’s response is “I don’t get it” …

Well you wouldn’t “get it” would you… because essentially you haven’t t got a clue and obviously haven’t spent any time attempting to “get it”
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
No, I’m telling you that buildings with the same structure as WTC 7 hadn’t previously collapsed due to fire, that the collapse was unique the first of its kind) and that the official reason for the collapse has been challenged based on technical rounds by experts.
Click to expand...
The circumstances surrounding the collapse of the building were also unique and unprecedented. Occam's razor.
What other reasonable scenario is there?
 
B_Side_The_C_Side said:
I was just going to write....does ANYBODY have any expertise in surveying buildings.....and here comes Shandy
BUT.....does ANYONE have any expertise or know any building codes for the USA......I doubt it.....it's ALL just supposition or guess work...no real idea.
That was one of the explanations put through by US media at the time, that the building wasn't up to 'Code' above a certain height as it wasn't requiredand the reason it crashed down so quickly......

It does amaze me the The Bifster will try to discredit a 'reasonable' explanation...a common sense explanation...because some wild supposition can fit the question.

So why did you fight Fracking so hard......were you backed by big energy companies.....did Gazprom offer you another 2p off gas prices.
Because of your business...Youre an insider, someone who has a financial stake in keeping prices high as it could have effected profits and lost you customers......You had to stop it.....for Money

Or (as I believe) that's just a wild supposition that can fit the question......but that's how conspirator theories start.....The 'answer' doesn't have to be true..it just needs to fit the answer.......The good thing is most can see and (whether they know it or not) go for Occams razor
Click to expand...
I’m not trying to discredit anything though B side. I’m just saying I haven’t yet seen an explanation that I can rest on. There are two contrasting opinions and as I don’t have the technical ability to make my own mind up and I’ve seen no debate between the two opposing views, I will retain an open mind.

I’m not sure where you are coming from on the Fracking thing, so maybe you could help by explaining what you mean?
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
The circumstances surrounding the collapse of the building were also unique and unprecedented. Occam's razor.
What other reasonable scenario is there?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what that has to do with it?

The situations are unrelated… In fact if anything the preceding events (two collapsed towers) make the probability of a third collapse in different circumstances even more improbable.

I can’t see how Occams Razor is relevant?

For starters, it’s a poor methodology to use where human intervention might be involved, but secondly you need two competing theories… and even then, the Occams Razor could only be used if both ‘equally’ explained the full extent of the same event. In the case of the official answer it is claimed to be technically inaccurate and on that basis Occams Razor is out of the window.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I’m not sure what that has to do with it?

The situations are unrelated… In fact if anything the preceding events (two collapsed towers) make the probability of a third collapse in different circumstances even more improbable.

I can’t see how Occams Razor is relevant?

For starters, it’s a poor methodology to use where human intervention might be involved, but secondly you need two competing theories… and even then, the Occams Razor could only be used if both ‘equally’ explained the full extent of the same event. In the case of the official answer it is claimed to be technically inaccurate and on that basis Occams Razor is out of the window.
Click to expand...
That is a funny way to look at probability theory, but it is a mistake that has been made before (most notably in a case where a mother was convicted of murdering her two babies instead of them being actually the victims of two cot deaths). In this case the 'experts' multiplied the probability of the a cot death in a family with another cot death in a family to get very, very high odds of two events happening in the same family and the prosecution argued that the mother therefore must have murdered her own babies. This was wrong because they completely ignored that the two events were not independent (i.e. that genetic factors could play a role in cot deaths).

Like the expert in the case above, you are treating each incident as if it was independent of the other incidents. They are not, they are all part of a larger incident and to argue that they are not is fanciful given that a fire in building 7 was set by one or both of the other events.

If the events were actually independent events (which they are not), the odds of the second building (or third) collapsing would remain the same regardless of whether the first had collapsed or not (it would not be lower or higher as you state). It's the equivalent of rolling a second dice, the odds of a number 6 remain the same regardless of the outcome of rolling a dice previously.
 
Last edited:
ElBurroSinNombre said:
That is a funny way to look at probability theory, but it is a mistake that has been made before (most notably in a case where a mother was convicted of murdering her two babies instead of them being actually the victims of two cot deaths). In this case the 'experts' multiplied the probability of the a cot death in a family with another cot death in a family to get very, very high odds of two events happening in the same family and the prosecution argued that the mother therefore must have murdered her own babies. This was wrong because they completely ignored that the two events were not independent (i.e. that genetic factors could play a role in cot deaths).

Like the expert in the case above, that you are treating each incident as if it was independent of the other incidents. They are not, they are all part of a larger incident and to argue that they are not is fanciful given that a fire in building 7 was set by one or both of the other events.

If the events were actually independent events (which they are not), the odds of the second building collapsing would remain the same regardless of whether the first had collapsed or not (it would not be lower as you state). It's the equivalent of rolling a second dice, the odds of a number 6 remain the same regardless of the outcome of rolling a dice previously.
Click to expand...

The incidents are independent insofar as the specifics of the collapse are concerned. There was nothing ‘related’ that contributed to the collapse of Building 7 (apart from the other buildings being a source of ignition).

The odds, however of three buildings collapsing (largely due to fire), given the historical context are extremely low.

It is what it is…. An event that includes a number of curious / unusual / questionable circumstances or factors (whichever way you want to look at it). To that extent it remains open to conspiracy theory and a better, more convincing future explanation.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
The incidents are independent insofar as the specifics of the collapse are concerned. There was nothing ‘related’ that contributed to the collapse of Building 7 (apart from the other buildings being a source of ignition).
Click to expand...
Apart from ..... - talk about tying yourself in knots
It seems like you don't really understand what independent means.
I'm out anyway.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
That is a funny way to look at probability theory, but it is a mistake that has been made before (most notably in a case where a mother was convicted of murdering her two babies instead of them being actually the victims of two cot deaths). In this case the 'experts' multiplied the probability of the a cot death in a family with another cot death in a family to get very, very high odds of two events happening in the same family and the prosecution argued that the mother therefore must have murdered her own babies. This was wrong because they completely ignored that the two events were not independent (i.e. that genetic factors could play a role in cot deaths).

Like the expert in the case above, you are treating each incident as if it was independent of the other incidents. They are not, they are all part of a larger incident and to argue that they are not is fanciful given that a fire in building 7 was set by one or both of the other events.

If the events were actually independent events (which they are not), the odds of the second building (or third) collapsing would remain the same regardless of whether the first had collapsed or not (it would not be lower as you state). It's the equivalent of rolling a second dice, the odds of a number 6 remain the same regardless of the outcome of rolling a dice previously.
Click to expand...

This. There is quite a lot of very flawed, nonsensical stuff on this thread that is being offered up as being based on science.

I can never understand why people ignore the reasonable, orthodox explanation for things in favour of fairy tales.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
Apart from ..... - talk about tying yourself in knots
It seems like you don't really understand what independent means.
I'm out anyway.
Click to expand...

I understand perfectly well…

There is nothing in the relationship between the two events that would have changed the outcome, when compared to an unrelated fire in a building.

So whilst I appreciate the events happened together, that makes no difference when drawing comparisons.
 
TomGxPool said:
This. There is quite a lot of very flawed, nonsensical stuff on this thread that is being offered up as being based on science.

I can never understand why people ignore the reasonable, orthodox explanation for things in favour of fairy tales.
Click to expand...
They do so because history has consistently shown that the ‘initial’ and official explanations for disastrous events are frequently found to be flawed.

You don’t have to believe in fairy tales to recognise that. It’s wholly evidence based.

In fact there’s barely an event of this nature that doesn’t turn out to be shrouded in inaccuracy amd some form of ‘cover up’.
 
Last edited:
TomGxPool said:
This. There is quite a lot of very flawed, nonsensical stuff on this thread that is being offered up as being based on science.

I can never understand why people ignore the reasonable, orthodox explanation for things in favour of fairy tales.
Click to expand...
said it before bfc3 genuinely believes he is a master of all trades and jack of none whereas the reality is he is jack of all trades and master of none. He enjoys writing waffle and deliberately taking the opposite pov and his posts on here are a prime example of that. He loves being so far up his own....
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
As far as WTC 7 was concerned it was an ordinary event. In fact that was the conclusion of NIST. Insomuch as there was nothing remarkable about the fire............
Click to expand...

In what sense was the fire unremarkable, other than it consumed fuel and oxygen and was hot?

Was it unremarkable that the fire raged on multiple floors simaltaneously? That seems to me highly unusual.

Was it unremarkable that the fire was allowed to burn largely unchecked for in excess of 5 hours? Again that seems highly unusual, especially in the western world.

Is the combination of the two factors an ordinary event? To me it seems highly extraordinary, especially in the western world.

If the terrorists on the day had instead started fires of a similar scale in 19 similar buildings around Manhattan how many of those buildings do you think would've collapsed?
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
They do so because history has consistently shown that the ‘initial’ and official explanations for disastrous events are frequently found to be flawed.

You don’t have to believe in fairy tales to recognise that. It’s wholly evidence based.

In fact theirs barely an event of this nature that doesn’t turn out to be shrouded in inaccuracy amd some form of ‘cover up’.
Click to expand...

Define "of this nature". There haven't been any others remotely like this.

I'm afraid you assert a lot, but you just can't back it up with an evidence based argument. You're not the only one, but you do get a bit shirty when people point it out to you.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Was it unremarkable that the fire raged on multiple floors simaltaneously? That seems to me highly unusual.

Was it unremarkable that the fire was allowed to burn largely unchecked for in excess of 5 hours? Again that seems highly unusual, especially in the western world.

To me it seems highly extraordinary, especially in the western world.
Click to expand...
In the first place : the debris was falling from various different places, as the impact area was enormous, hence causing fires in multiple areas. Maybe because it was caused by a a jet plane hitting something solid at hundreds of miles an hour. In your words - highly unusual.

In the second place : I should imagine that fires were allowed to burn for several hours partly because a good many of the people who might have been fighting them were dead. Others had had to withdraw because there were huge clouds of smoke and dust making even normal breathing problematic, let alone fighting fires. You have watched the footage, haven't you?

"To me it seems highly extraordinary". No shit, Sherlock.
 
The fire was unremarkable in the sense that there were no extraordinary features that might have resulted in a different outcome, when drawing comparisons.

‘Of this nature’

Is really any incident that results in harm to the public and where state, authority or corporations might be compromised.

There’s literally shedloads of examples…
 
Lost Seasider said:
Do you think putting water on the fire might have resulted in a different outcome?
Click to expand...

I don’t see it as an extraordinary factor, based on what I’ve read. Fires have burned for longer and hotter without compromising the structure.

Like I said, you’re not offering up anything that particularly helps me to jump off the fence.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I don’t see it as an extraordinary factor, based on what I’ve read. Fires have burned for longer and hotter without compromising the structure.

Like I said, you’re not offering up anything that particularly helps me to jump off the fence.
Click to expand...

Enjoy your fence, frankly I've no idea what you're talking about or what you think happened.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Enjoy your fence, frankly I've no idea what you're talking about or what you think happened.
Click to expand...
I don’t have a particular opinion on what happened, hence why I haven’t expressed one.

That’s what sitting on the fence means👍

I’ve gone to some lengths to explain my position…. The fact that you are frustrated by your inability to offer any evidence at all to bring me round to your opinion is not my issue.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I don’t have a particular opinion on what happened, hence why I haven’t expressed one.

That’s what sitting on the fence means👍

I’ve gone to some lengths to explain my position…. The fact that you are frustrated by your inability to offer any evidence at all to bring me round to your opinion is not my issue.
Click to expand...

So you're basically just wasting everyone's time, okay thanks for clearing that up.
 
Lost Seasider said:
So you're basically just wasting everyone's time, okay thanks for clearing that up.
Click to expand...
No… I’ve been quite clear about where I stand, from my first post on the subject. You’ve wasted your own time.

Apologies for not being the Straw Man you were looking for.
 
I thought the Twin Towers came down because they were built on a herringbone structure? With the floors coming off a central core and not too much support externally. And then the floors, joined to the central structure but without much support at the other end, collapsed on each other after the impact and the fire. Bringing everything down like dominos.

Older skyscrapers were more conventional. All the strength on the outside with big girders; with more girder support inside.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top