"The same guy that claims he can't be bothered w/ this subject came back again to remind us that he can't be bothered w/ this subject."Process vs. content. I'm not inclined to show you evidence that you've already seen. It's pointless. This subject has already been discussed extensively in several threads. All of the conspiracy nonsense has thoroughly been disproven. Yet here you are with it again, asking for the same evidence again, acting like it never happened. It's obvious that you have an emotional need to believe in this. Let's look at some of the evidence. "Building 7 was badly structurally compromised and on fire before it fell:"This is Dal's description of B7 and an accurate one. And yet you characterize these same circumstances as minor damage, and the fire at the level of something that might occur in a small trash can. This is your way of minimizing reality. But looking more directly at the neuro-linguistic programming aspects of your argument, let's examine the language you use to present your case. "nearly free fall speed" Do collapsing, burning buildings fall at some other speed? Of course not. It's a nonsensical statement. Yet you repeat it, not for it's evidentiary value, but for it's emotional impact. You heard it, it had an emotional impact on you, so you assume it will have the same effect on others. And that's what's really going on here, you're trying to twist reality to fit a decision you've already made based on emotion. That's what actually interests me here, the way the mind can twist and distort logic to support something that has already been decided by the subconscious, not your idiotic theories, Moonbeam. Of course, the most damning part of your argument is that you refuse to even present one, absurdly insisting that the burden of proof has been shifted onto those who support the obvious conclusion, while no such obligation exists for explanations so far fetched you're scared to even present them. One of your fellow whackjobs hints at it, though. He's not quite sure there actually was any conspiracy, but if there was one, then he is sure that GWB was behind it. And like most of the cuckoo for cocoa puffs crowd, he's capable of holding two diametrically opposed ideas at the same time, and still believe both of them. GWB, you see, was a bumbling imbecile, barely capable of tying his own shoes. But he was also the greatest criminal mastermind who ever lived, and absolutely capable of pulling this off. How can he be both? Once you've decided at an emotional level that you dislike him, then you can use whichever of the imbecile/mastermind theories you need to "logically" justify that decision made by the subconscious using no logic whatsoever.This is how the slaves of the world navigate through life, all the while convincing themselves there is some outside nefarious power, never realizing it is their own mind doing it to them.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, was tasked with officially explaining how WTC 7 fell. Their theory is documented in the report entitled Final Report of the Collapse of Building 7[1]. Many people are under the mistaken impression that NIST’s theory of how WTC 7 fell down is a valid scientific theory. In science however, a valid theory must be the simplest theory available that best explains all the available empirical data.[2] This article will show that the NIST theory is a highly convoluted theory that cannot explain important observationsA major piece of evidence in the WTC 7 collapse is the fact that WTC 7 underwent free-fall acceleration for a period of at least 2.25 seconds.[3] A free-falling building means there is no supporting structure whatsoever below to slow the building’s fall. The NIST theory does not explain this astounding fact. However, if their theory is to believed, the 2.25 seconds of free fall must have resulted from near-simultaneous buckling and breaking of the 58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over eight stories. The only evidence NIST provides to support their theory is in the form of a computer model. While it could possibly be argued that the model does show some buckling occurring over eight stories, it most certainly does not show a period of free-fall. So NIST’s theory has absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for the fact of free-fall. In other words the NIST theory cannot explain key empirical data.Another requisite for a scientific theory is that the empirical data the theory is based on must be reproducible by others. Other scientists must be able to perform the exact same experiments and obtain the exact same results. Unfortunately, NIST’s only empirical data to explain the eight story buckling, the data their computer model is based on, is unavailable to independent researchers. It is unavailable because NIST refuses to release it. NIST has stated that releasing the data “might jeopardize public safety”.[4] So because the NIST model cannot be verified, it is meant to be taken on faith. The NIST model, then, is faith-based, not science-based. Since NIST’s theory does not explain fundamental facts of the WTC 7 incident and other important facts are so far un-replicated, we can categorically state that NIST’s theory is in no way scientific. At best, it could be referred to as faith-based pseudo-science. Since the NIST theory is in no way scientific, competent conscientious scientists must reject it in favor of a science-based theory.
"The same guy that claims he can't be bothered w/ this subject came back again to remind us that he can't be bothered w/ this subject."Process vs. content. I'm not inclined to show you evidence that you've already seen. It's pointless. This subject has already been discussed extensively in several threads. All of the conspiracy nonsense has thoroughly been disproven. Yet here you are with it again, asking for the same evidence again, acting like it never happened. It's obvious that you have an emotional need to believe in this. Let's look at some of the evidence. "Building 7 was badly structurally compromised and on fire before it fell:"This is Dal's description of B7 and an accurate one. And yet you characterize these same circumstances as minor damage, and the fire at the level of something that might occur in a small trash can. This is your way of minimizing reality. But looking more directly at the neuro-linguistic programming aspects of your argument, let's examine the language you use to present your case. "nearly free fall speed" Do collapsing, burning buildings fall at some other speed? Of course not. It's a nonsensical statement. Yet you repeat it, not for it's evidentiary value, but for it's emotional impact. You heard it, it had an emotional impact on you, so you assume it will have the same effect on others. And that's what's really going on here, you're trying to twist reality to fit a decision you've already made based on emotion. That's what actually interests me here, the way the mind can twist and distort logic to support something that has already been decided by the subconscious, not your idiotic theories, Moonbeam. Of course, the most damning part of your argument is that you refuse to even present one, absurdly insisting that the burden of proof has been shifted onto those who support the obvious conclusion, while no such obligation exists for explanations so far fetched you're scared to even present them. This is how the slaves of the world navigate through life, all the while convincing themselves there is some outside nefarious power, never realizing it is their own mind doing it to them.
I'll keep this quick and short.Your buddy Dal's song and dance about major structural damage & some diesel storage nonsense as a part of the collapse theory. 100% PURE BUNK. It's laughable. Here read this from your own holy grail, NIST, it states clearly that "the damage caused" from falling debris and diesel fuel had NOTHING to do w/ the collapse of B7.
"The investigation team considered the possibility of other factors playing a role in the collapse of WTC 7, including the possible use of explosives, fires fed by the fuel supply tanks in and under the building, and damage from the falling debris of WTC 1.""As for fuel fires, the team found that they could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to fail a critical column, and/or would have produced "large amounts of visible smoke" from Floors 5 and 6, which was not observed.""Finally, the report notes that "while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.""NIST's conclusion."Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event," said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. "Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down."That's right! Just as I told you from the start "office fire", no jet fuel, no diesel fuel, no airplane, no structure damage causing collapse. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc-082108.cfm
As for your "all buildings come down at free fall speed". This assertion is so profoundly stupid it's mind boggling.In fact it was the A&E 9/11 community that contradicted NIST when they claimed it did not fall at free fall speed. NIST was forced to acknowledge that it did. But tried to couch it. Freefall is an embarrassment to the official story, because freefall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building. In a natural collapse there would be an interaction between the falling and the stationary sections of the building. This interaction would cause crushing of both sections and slowing of the falling section. I have done measurements on several known demolitions, using similar software tools, and found that they typically fall with accelerations considerably less than freefall. Building 7 was not only demolished, it was demolished with tremendous overkill.Freefall was so embarrassing to NIST that in the August 2008 draft release for public comment of their final report, the fact of freefall was denied and crudely covered up with the assertion that the collapse took 40% longer than "freefall time." "They asserted that the actual collapse, down to the level of the 29th floor, took 5.4 seconds whereas freefall would have taken only 3.9 seconds. They arrived at their figures with only two data points: the time when the roofline reached the level of the 29th floor and an artificially early start time several seconds prior to the beginning of the obvious, sudden onset of freefall. They started their clock at a time between the collapses of the east and west penthouses when the building was not moving. They claimed they saw a change in a "single pixel" triggering what they asserted was the onset of collapse, but anyone who has worked with the actual videos will recognize that the edge artifacts in the image of the building make this an unrealistic standard. Furthermore, even if there was a tiny motion of the building at that point, it continued to stand essentially motionless for several more seconds before the dramatic onset of freefall collapse. The fact of a cover up in NIST's measurement is underlined in that the formula they point to as the basis for their calculation of "freefall time" is valid only under conditions of constant acceleration. They applied that equation to a situation that was far from uniform acceleration. Instead, the building remained essentially at rest for several seconds, then plunged into freefall, then slowed to a lesser acceleration. " http://www.ae911truth.org/news/57-news-releases-by-others/426-freefall-and-building-7-on-911.html
Wow, that was straight out of the CBW handbook. First, assert that someone or something is the other side's "God," and then attack that in lieu of establishing an argument. Feel free to take a shot at Von Mises as well. He, apparently, is my libertarian god.At least in your previous statements you were smart enough to add a qualifier and say "near" free fall speed. I've already debunked the assertions from your gods at loose change that the towers fell at free fall speed. They didn't. Now it's the same nonsense with building 7. So, where is this evidence that B7 fell at that speed?
All this because getting a permit to demo a building in NYC takes forever ..........
