Come on. Steel buildings are interconected meshes wich try to distribute loads as evenly as possible. You don’t need to be Brunel to see that.
Was it ? or was it not ? That’s a matter of fact. So, can you produce your proofs ?
What for ? To make terrorist attacks easier ?
Do you realize that your argument is absurd ? I’m saying there was no such member. Now it’s your turn to prove that indeed there was such member. But you don’t. You just say we both can’t discuss it. Why ? Do we need to be state approved engineers ?
You’re doing the very same thing.
So, you look it up ? A statement from the designers of WTC7 explaining how/why the building had a self-destuction mechanism built in ?
Oh? Is that the same structure, makeup, height, etc? Come on. Is that supposed to prove something? Are you proposing it’s impossible for a building to collapse as a result of fire and debri damage?! Wow, so this is what I’m dealing with.
And what of WTC 4,5, and 6? They were directly under the towers, received much more damage from debris, and were gutted by fire, yet none collapsed into their own footprints.
DIFFERENT STRUCTURE, DIFFERENT LOCATION, DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE; why is this not obvious? If you give four people peanuts and one breaks out in hives and eventually dies do you assume that it was conspiracy theory? No, you assume it was the peanuts DESPITE the fact that the other three also ate peanuts and nothing happened to them. They’re DIFFERENT individuals. The sort of logic your using has no place in any sort of rational discussion.
This is an excellent point. Two objects should only be compared when they share all properties. We need to tell the pharma companies that they can only publish results where they’ve used human clones. What’s that? They won’t share time and space? Well, someone’s going to have to figure out how this infinite, multiple, parallel universes thing works. From now on, all experiments must be carried out in triplicate universes.
In response to the picture showing damage to the SW corner of WTC 7.
That picture was released in the NIST preliminary report. that was the first time anyone saw that photo, or really any clear photo of the SW corner of WTC 7. It is interesting to note that the report was only the preliminary report and the final report was due out a very long time ago. It seems as if they are never going to release an offical explanation for the collapse of this building. They promised a final report by the summer of either 2006 or 2007 (i forget which)… but the report is long overdue.
That picture, the only evidence of structural damage,… is FAKE!
compare the photo you posted to this photo taken by a random civilian named Amen Zapher.
compare those two photos. do you believe your government or your own two eyes? there have been detailed analysis done by some 911 truthers where they match up all the floors, and do all sorts of fancy stuff with computers to draw lines and grids… to show that clearly one of the photos are a fake. and we know that the Zapher photo is real because he is just a normal guy who made a website with a bunch of photos he took on 9/11. he wasn’t a 9/11 truther, but we stumbled upon his website because he had some very high quality pictures from that day. these are the only two knowns photos showing strucutral damage to WTC 7 on the SW corner. and don’t forget, the origional FEMA report on the collapse of WTC 7 said that there was no structural damage and that the fire was the only cause for the collapse, not strucural damage. now the offical story half changed since NIST released the preliminary report where they suggest that strucural damage also contributed… yet they never relesed the final report, so we don’t even really have an official explanation to debunk.
but i have a few questions for people who believe the offical story?
Do you agree that the WTC 7 damage photo is fake? why would they fake that photo?
what evidence is there that proves a Boeing 757 hit the pentagon on 9/11 ?
do you think it was a coincidence that the Pentagon was struck in the accounting section the day after Rumsfeld announced that they couldn’t track $2.3 trillion in transactions?
why was there no mention of “phantom AA 11” prior to the 9/11 commission report? do you really believe the commission’s story about “phantom AA 11” and the military’s response to the attacks? were the war games going on that day also just a coincidence or do you think that the war games confused the US military because they couldn’t tell the difference between the hijakced planes and the fake radar blips that were part of the war game?
you can debate whether WTC 7 was a controlled demolision until you are blue in the face. but how about showing me some evidence that AA 77 hit the pentagon?
That’s your ignorance and/or denial showing. There are tremendous differences between buildings. Which is something you can look up, along with the particulars of that building. It’s extremely telling that you’d rather make broad, untrue generalizations than look up your facts.
Exactly! And you choose not to look up the facts.
You’re attempting to shift the burden of proof. You need to prove your claim. I have only proven that your claim is not self-evident, which underscores the fact that you have to prove it. Instead you’re content to allege it without checking the facts. Hint: the facts in this case will come from blueprints, which are public record–not from peyote buttons.
I didn’t say we can’t discuss it. I said (not in so many words) that discussing it without educating yourself on the relevant facts is just mental masturbation. Yet you’re determined to discuss it without first learning the facts. Keep kleenex handy.
No. I guess I need to be especially clear about one point. I’m not arguing for or against controlled demolition of WTC7. I’m concerned at the moment only with the gaping flaws in your argument. That may frustrate you: you’re apparently still trying to discuss WTC7 with me, and I’m pointing out why you can’t until you stop the mental masturbation and start engaging reality–like, say, blueprints. You’re trying to argue whodunnit, and I’m trying to convince you to put the cart behind the horse and make sure you know what you’re talking about first.
I don’t have to look it up, because I’m not even concerned with the “whodunnit” in this case. You’re trying to shift the burden of proof. My sole interest is to rid the world of stupid reasoning, one person at a time. Today, my goal is to convince you to stop shifting the burden of proof.
You seem to be calling me stupid ? Thanks, that should hint how sound your ‘arguments’ are.
I am not ‘trying to’. I am shifting it. The ‘claim’ that, by chance, a building was hit by a piece of debris in a way that caused it to collapse as if by CD is ridiculous. You need to provide proof for such a ridiculous claim.
I said nothing about ‘whodunit’, so perhaps you should refrain from straw-man-attacks ? It ‘damages your credibility’, you know.
I’m only saying that the ‘official’ explanation is no explanation. You have no answer for that, except fancy ‘philosophical’ theories about ‘knowledge’ and ‘chance’. I think your classy ‘mental masturbation’ metaphor aptly describes your musings on knowledge and chance.
Please read what I actually said, not what you imagine I’m saying.
Logic lesson #1: you aren’t allowed to shift the burden of proof.
Sigh. You’re batting 1.000 here. You’re discussing the truth or falsehood of your claim. I don’t actually care much whether it’s true or false, and I emphatically am not talking about it at the moment. I’m discussing your lousy logic. In attempting to parse a straw man into that statement, you’re missing the forest for the trees (at best), or demonstrating that you don’t really know what a straw man is (at worst). Since the context is me schooling you on logic, it’s an ironic mistake for you to make.
The burden of proof is yours. You have to bear it. The only way you can bear it is to discuss the principles of structural engineering in general, and apply them to the actual design of WTC7 in particular. Since you don’t know anything about either topic, you’re going to have to educate yourself first. Until you do, your comments about that building’s collapse aren’t just useless; they bring discredit upon yourself.
I can be a mathematician with a PhD, it just so happens. Not only do you need schooling in logic here, but my home-schooled seven-year-old could give you a run for your money.
Now cowboy up and try to prove your claim that WTC7 had no vulnerable points that could have taken down the entire building.
You’re claiming that the official explanation is plausible. That’s a claim and is nonsense.
edit
I suggest you forget about your misguided interpretation of what logic is for a second and produce the proof that shows that WTC7 was designed to collapse the way it did. Too bad such a proof does not exist.
