Was the destruction of the twin towers scientifically possible on 9/11

This is just ridiculous. I ask for evidence and all you people give me is oh it couldn't have happened because too many people would have to be in on it. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WTC 7. STAY ON THE SUBJECT. I have yet to see a single person post any evidence on how wtc 7 just suddenly collapsed. Now please stop avoiding my question. I looked on the NIST website and all i got was "The NIST investigation of the WTC 7 building collapse is not yet complete. The report on the WTC 7 collapse investigation will be released in draft form for public comment and posted on this web site as soon as it is available." Don't you guys find it a little strange that its been 6 years? Now please provide this evidence everyone keeps talking about. Video's, picture's, article's, interview's whatever.Btw it seems all you are pretty passionate about this subject, it doesn't seem like just some crazy conspiracy theorist posting wacky things anymore. It shows in the writing of everyone. All you have to do is question things, which is what science is all about. Everyone still has the mind set that its impossible because its too big of a set up, however you just need to think about this critically and from a scientific point of view. Ignore all the hard questions right now and focus on the scientific ones. The ones we CAN prove.

He speaks! (sigh)Sometimes you just gotta wonder.NIST: And under the snip he quotemined from NIST: Here's the link for the .pdf that I referenced last night:World Trade Center Investigation | NISTWell. I'll say this much. You clicked a link. Congrats.Look. Lost. Open the .pdf. Look at the pictures. Then open your fat mouth.Edited by AdminAsgara, : fixed link

For which you evidently have no counter-argument. And yet the thread title seems to be about the Twin Towers.Gosh golly, did someone more the goalposts? I wonder who that could have been. Everyone reading this thread can read post #66, you know. It's no point pretending that you haven't been presented with evidence, because we all know that you have.---Oh look, here's another one to add to the "why CTs are like creationists" list: BWAHAHAHAHA!Yup, it's the old "you wouldn't argue with me unless you thought I was right" dodge.I wonder why you're arguing with us? You seem, ah, "pretty passionate".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And what evidence do you have? Some guy somewhere saw puffs of smoke in a video, and you can't see how falling debris will make a building collapse.- Sure. We're trying to be scientific here. Hypothesis-prediction-observation.Hypothesis: The WTC was destroyed by internally placed explosives.Prediction: This would be a logistically intense undertaking. Many people would be involved. People talk, things get said, records become discovered (think Watergate, Iran-Contra, Valery Plame, etc).Observation: No signs that anyone, anywhere was involved.Without some sort of explanation, this counts as a refutation. All the other objections that we raised are in the same vein.- No, science is all about the testing of hypothesis. So far, I have seen no sign that the conspiracy theorists have made definite predictions based on their hypothesis that can be tested.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

Just curious. Do you question the moon landings, too?I heard a great conspiracy theory once about Hillary Clinton sabotaging JFK Jr's plane so she wouldn't have to face him in the primary for NY senator. Did you buy into that one? I hope so, because I've always had a question about it I've been hoping someone would answer.Why would Hillary go to such lengths to take out a cupcake like JFK Jr who wasn't even running for the job and leave people like Rudy and Barack walking around today? And if that's how Hillary does business, you'd think Bill and Monica would be wearing more of a deer-in-the-headlights look these past few years as well. What's the official CT word on that?

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

This is the biggest bunch of poopey on the net, forget it, the buildings fell on their own from the planes crashing into them. Did they collapse, or did the free fall, which was it?
The key word in your incorrect statement, is NEAR free fall speed. The concrete had almost no structural value in holding the building up, it was used only as protection from fire, and for the floors.Being a total dumbass, you can plainly see that the buildings collapsed from the top down, and if the supporting columns throughout the building were demolished, then the whole building would have fell at the same time, not from the top down, collapsing each floor with an unbelievable force.Ever see a building being demolished? The whole building falls at the same time, not from the top down.I spent 11 years fireproofing NYC hospitals, and everything I saw, as it happened is consistent with everything I learned about the way a building collapses in a fire. I even predicted the collapse to my wife on the phone, almost to the minute, as we watched the buildings burn. This was easy to predict, knowing that the fireproofing has been stripped from the beams, and that the fire was burning hot enough to warp the metal. It is simple science. The only thing I got wrong was, I thought the buildings were going to fall over, due to the angle of the slice in the building, because I did not know they were designed to fall straight down.What I never understood, is why the fire dept. sent the firefighters into that inevitable collapse. They are the ones who gave us the training on why buildings collapse, and fill with smoke.You are accusing the government of pulling this all off? I think you give them much more credit, than they deserve.Calling it a conspiracy theory, or whatever, is a discredit to everyone who lost their lives that day. Both my mother and brother worked there, and just missed being killed. I was also there exactly one week before the collapse, and drove right past them every day.{ABE}
Do you have any idea, the amount of work it would require to set charges in the Twin Towers? It would take them months of preparation to do something like this. Do you know how many people would have to be involved? And this would all go unnoticed by anyone who actually gave a crap about the people who worked there.Edited by riVeRraT, : unbelievable

I worked with a guy who did. What he said to me was, if we weren't on the moon already, then who took the picture of Neil Armstrong coming off the lunar lander?I told him, there must have been a camera on an arm or something. He just pointed at me, and with an authoritative voice said "YOUR RIGHT!"He also claimed to be sitting in the middle of the 69 Mets, after they won the world series, in a bar.What a quack.

You keep missing the point. First, I agree with several others here who state that evidence has been provided that you are ignoring. However, even if there weren't a scintilla of evidence describing how WTC 7 fell, that doesn't mean that you can spin a cockamamie explanation that not only has no evidence in support of it, but beggars common sense as well.Why did WTC 7 fall? I have no idea. I know experts on one side say one thing, but people with more expertise than I have say it couldn't have fallen for those reasons. I'm not in a position to evaluate the competing claims. But I can think. And I can see several consequences flowing from the conspiracy theories being true that I find difficult to believe in the absence of any evidence explaining it.I don't have expertise in buildings falling down, but there are many, many people who do. If there were credible people who believed demolition must, or even might, have been involved, we'd never hear the end of it in the media. Instead, the only stories I've seen or heard in the media are about the nutball fringe movement of wackos who think it wasn't planes that brought the buildings down, but something else.Your insistence on ignoring the obvious holes in the conspiracy theory ideas and focusing instead on what you perceive as holes in the "official theory" demonstrates clearly that you are exactly the "True Believer" type that Percy described earlier in this thread.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Well I guess this is my last post since everyone seems so negative to me. I did look at that pdf a while ago and thought it was bullshit. But I guess thats my opinion. I mean there was a gash in the side of the building, dont you think it would come down sideways or at a slight angle not strait down. It weakened one side, not every side. And i find it hard to believe that fire initiated the collapse. Buildings have been on fire for over 24 hours, and when it does go out, the steel frame is still standing. Well maybe im just a little paranoid. However I do have one favor to ask, think of me when the truth comes out into the public. Ill have a huge smile on my face. Btw it will most likely be within the next 30 years.

Golly, what a detailed and trenchant critique. No, I don't.Buildings fall down. You know, the direction that gravity works in? There was also the little matter of all the other structural damage. Like the big hole in the building. Strawman much? Except in cases where this is not true, e.g. the Madrid skyscraper fire, where the steel frame collapsed and only the concrete core remained standing. Er ... this rubbish has been available to the public for years.They're just not buying it.---And, congratulations, you've adapted yet another bit of creationist rubbish to your cause. Some day ... everyone will see that you're right ... and then we'll all be sorry ... someday.They're still saying it 150 years after Darwin, so I don't see why the Cult of 9/11 Troof shouldn't last that long too.

It did come down somewhat sideways, and not straight down. This image shows that some of WTC 7 landed on top of a building across the street.Here is a series of pics from a video of WTC 7 coming down, taken from a different angle. These images show that it did not fall straight down, but was falling toward the south.Edited by Admin, : Narrow image width.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Our friend here seems to believe that all forms of combustion are exactly the same, that fire = fire, and that a housefire or even a fire in a skyscraper under other circumstances will reach the exact same temperatures and have the same characteristics as a fire fed by jet fuel.Here's a hint, lost: some fires get hotter than your stove or your campfire. And there's a reason blacksmiths heat metal (including steel) before they go pounding at it - it's more pliable when hot. And guess what they use to heat it up?Pretty sure it's fire. And they don't even use jet fuel.Your entire set of posts in this thread has been a massive argument from incredulity. You never post evidence, you simply say "that's bullshit!"So how's this: you haven't the faintest idea of what your talking about. If you're trying to convince anyone, you might want to start posting some actual facts and numbers instead of "that doesn't look right to me" and "this one guy said that can't happen" when it quite plainly did.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

I see that our friend, lost, has returned. I wonder what he has to say to subbie's last post.

Molten lava? Molten lava is a magma from beneath the earth's crust. I think you are confusing terms.I'd also like to see the alleged video of lava burning for weeks. Yes, which is an indication of how hot it was. What the Trade Centers were was a class D fire which happen all the time in Naval fleets. Its extremely difficult to stop a Class D fire. Its literally almost impossible. And what causes these Class D fires is powerful fuels like JP-5. It happens a lot. What sailors often end up having to do is to jettison the planes into the ocean, because once metal is burning, its too difficult to put the fire out in time without jeopardizing the entire ship.Your analogy of frying pans just doesn't match up with the sheer intensity of heat produced by many fuels. I don't think you are appreciating that fact. Okay, lets think about this objectively for a moment. Do you have any idea what the collusion factor must have been to pull off a stunt of this magnitude?There were about, what, 4,000 employees in both Trade Centers? And nobody noticed strange men wiring their building with explosives? I assume you understand that a project such as this would have taken weeks to accomplish.Seriously, try to imagine your scenario realistically. It is so far beyond implausible. You are saying that not only did no one know that people were wiring the Trade Centers, but also that the FAA and the virtually the entire Government was duped in to thinking that the planes were hijacked by terrorists.Who then was the culprit? I mean, I assume you've seen the footage where planes actually plow through the Trade Centers, right? So where do the explosives factor in, where the explosives did not detonate prematurely due to the fire from the aircraft? Tons of concrete and steel can pulverize anything too. I have seen it as well as a few others. I think it only changes the minds of extremely gullible people who have a general fascination for conspiracy to begin with. Why should the bottom floors still be intact? I don't think either of us need an engineering degree to know that tons upon tons of falling steel can, will, and did destroy the entire building. Yes, they are, but have you seen the whacko's that premiere on these conspiracy video's? Again, Occam's Razor is not on your side. What you are describing is based purely on circumstantial evidence. This feat is so nearly impossible that entertaining the notion is absurd to the point of being laughable.Based on the way a building fell, certain people have erected in its place a fantastic story to suit what they desire in their hearts-- controversy. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Heh. Too many movies, I think. Lost probably thinks that Ocean's Eleven can just put on workmen's coveralls and walk into the front door carrying explosives in gym bags.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders