Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?

1…6667697172…102

Comments

  • #2042
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    This what I posted, this Kingmob believes is me plagiarising:rolleyes:

    From his bio.
    During the 1950s he wrote two books about the Holocaust: The SS: Alibi of a Nation and The Final Solution, both of which achieved large sales. In the latter book, he alleged that Soviet claims of the Auschwitz death toll being 4 million were "ridiculous", and he suggested an alternative figure of 800,000 to 900,000 dead; about 4.2 to 4.5 million was his estimate for the total number of Jewish deaths in the Holocaust.[2] Subsequent scholarship has generally increased Reitlinger's conservative figures for death tolls, though his book was still described in 1979 as being "widely regarded as a definitive account"
    .

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Reitlinger
    Nope. Not this time.

    However it was the first time as you didn't provide a link or indicate that the quote wasn't your words.
    The concept is very simple to understand.

    You are also still deflecting your dishonest editing.
    As well as deflecting for pretty much every point made against your racist bull****.


  • #2043
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Nope. Not this time.

    However it was the first time as you didn't provide a link or indicate that the quote wasn't your words.

    You are also still deflecting your dishonest editing.
    As well as deflecting for pretty much every point made against your racist bull****.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057919635&page=135

    Link and Everything provided. People can see for themselves if I edited the post and see Kingmob lies for themselves.


  • #2044
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057919635&page=135

    Link and Everything provided. People can see for themselves if I edited the post and see Kingmob lies for themselves.
    Again, you link a page not a post. Do you just not know how to do that?

    The post I am refering to is:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109359238&postcount=2018
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You are full of it. You told me 6 million died in the Holocaust.

    Gerald Reitlinger his book was still described in 1979 as being "widely regarded as a definitive account".[3]

    So is he a holocaust denier a racist for questioning the 6 million figure?
    There is no link there. There is no indication that you are taking it from another author.
    It is also edited as it's not the full quote.
    The full quote reads:
    Subsequent scholarship has generally increased Reitlinger's conservative figures for death tolls, though his book was still described in 1979 as being "widely regarded as a definitive account"

    You edited out the first part of the quote as it refutes the point you were trying to make.

    This is getting even more pathetic than usual cheerful.
    This is nothing but deflection from the other dishonest **** you've been called out on. You aren't fooling anyone. No one is that stupid.


  • #2045
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again, you link a page not a post. Do you just not know how to do that?

    The post I am refering to is:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109359238&postcount=2018


    There is no link there. There is no indication that you are taking it from another author.
    It is also edited as it's not the full quote.
    The full quote reads:


    You edited out the first part of the quote as it refutes the point you were trying to make.

    This is getting even more pathetic than usual cheerful.
    This is nothing but deflection from the other dishonest **** you've been called out on. You aren't fooling anyone. No one is that stupid.

    I had already posted the full quote and provided the link to it in a post before that. You did not read it and not my problem.

    I edited nothing and people can see this for themselves.

    What are you saying there two different authors, who wrote the same sentence? You got found out for your lying.


  • #2046
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I had already posted the full quote and provided the link to it in a post before that. You did not read it and not my problem.

    I edited nothing and people can see this for themselves.

    What are you saying there two different authors, who wrote the same sentence? You got found out for your lying.
    Yup. More pathetic deflection from the lies you told.
    You plagerised. You also edited the quote to remove the part that refuted the point you were trying to make.

    Hey, let's play a little game:
    What's that little 3 next to the quote. Let's follow it!
    Oh, it's the source for the quote. I wonder what it says:
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/4467046?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    Oh, it also refutes the point you made...


  • Advertisement
  • #2047
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yup. More pathetic deflection.
    You plagerised. You also edited the quote to remove the part that refuted the point you were trying to make.

    Hey, let's play a little game:
    What's that little 3 next to the quote. Let's follow it!
    Oh, it's the source for the quote. I wonder what it says:
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/4467046?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    From his bio.
    During the 1950s he wrote two books about the Holocaust: The SS: Alibi of a Nation and The Final Solution, both of which achieved large sales. In the latter book, he alleged that Soviet claims of the Auschwitz death toll being 4 million were "ridiculous", and he suggested an alternative figure of 800,000 to 900,000 dead; about 4.2 to 4.5 million was his estimate for the total number of Jewish deaths in the Holocaust.[2] Subsequent scholarship has generally increased Reitlinger's conservative figures for death tolls, though his book was still described in 1979 as being "widely regarded as a definitive account"
    .

    How can you not tell it was a sentence from the bio? You really are losing it Kingmob.


  • #2048
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    From his bio.
    During the 1950s he wrote two books about the Holocaust: The SS: Alibi of a Nation and The Final Solution, both of which achieved large sales. In the latter book, he alleged that Soviet claims of the Auschwitz death toll being 4 million were "ridiculous", and he suggested an alternative figure of 800,000 to 900,000 dead; about 4.2 to 4.5 million was his estimate for the total number of Jewish deaths in the Holocaust.[2] Subsequent scholarship has generally increased Reitlinger's conservative figures for death tolls, though his book was still described in 1979 as being "widely regarded as a definitive account"
    .

    How can you not tell it was a sentence from the bio? You really losing it Kingmob.
    Ok, what are you talking about?
    You've stopped being coherent now and it's getting very tiring trying to decipher your terrible grammar all in aid of you deflecting from your lies.

    The operative parts of the quote are:
    Subsequent scholarship has generally increased Reitlinger's conservative figures for death tolls
    And
    in 1979

    This author is not good support for your racist nonsense. He'd probably be rolling in his grave if he knew his books (which you haven't read) were being used to promote holocaust denial.
    You also believe he's wrong/part of the jewish conspiracy as he does not agree with your figure of 3 million that you plucked out of your backside.

    Quoting, plagerising and selectively editing his biography isn't helping you and it doesn't change the fact you lied and continue to lie to support your insane racist nonsense.


  • #2049
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok, what are you talking about?
    You've stopped being coherent now and it's getting very tiring trying to decipher your terrible grammar all in aid of you deflecting from your lies.

    The operative parts of the quote are:

    And


    This author is not good support for your racist nonsense. He'd probably be rolling in his grave if he knew his books (which you haven't read) were being used to promote holocaust denial.
    You also believe he's wrong/part of the jewish conspiracy as he does not agree with your figure of 3 million that you plucked out of your backside.

    Quoting, plagerising and selectively editing his biography isn't helping you and it doesn't change the fact you lied and continue to lie to support your insane racist nonsense.

    You were exposed two times in this thread. Sorry but you are a liar and you don't know even remember what you write most of the time. That worse than having bad grammar.

    I edited nothing and people can see that Kingmob, I provided the links.


  • #2050
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You were exposed two times in this thread. Sorry but you are a liar and you don't know even remember what you write most of the time. That worse than having bad grammar.

    I edited nothing and people can see that Kingmob, I provided the links.
    And deflection again. Pathetic and transparent.

    So, those quotes where I said:
    6 million people were gassed?
    That anyone who doesn't agree with the 6 million figure is a racist like you?

    Still not able to find them?
    You said I said those things. But you weren't able to show them
    Care to do so now?
    I have trouble remembering where I said those things...


  • #2051
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    And deflection again. Pathetic and transparent.

    So, those quotes where I said:
    6 million people were gassed?
    That anyone who doesn't agree with the 6 million figure is a racist like you?

    Still not able to find them?
    You said I said those things. But you weren't able to show them
    Care to do so now?
    I have trouble remembering where I said those things...

    Did I not say I might be mistaken about you saying that yesterday even gave you this :)


  • Advertisement
  • #2052
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Did I not say I might be mistaken about you saying that yesterday even gave you this :)
    Yes, you said that about one quote.
    Are you now saying it about both?

    Why did you argue that i did say those things for several pages before it became apparent you lied?
    Why did you insist that I had indeed said those things when you knew it wasn't true?
    Why did you also claim that real historians also claimed that 6 million people were gassed?
    (All rhetorical, btw. You're not going to answer them and everyone knows the reason.)

    Your little smiley face is cute, but it doesn't deflect from your dishonesty.
    You lied. You were caught out.
    You trying to pass it off as an innocent mistake is yet more proof of your dishonesty. No one is dumb enough to buy that.

    And again, this is all just deflection on top of deflection on top of deflection for the dozens of points you've been called out on.

    If you have to be this dishonest and evasive, then maybe it's not worth defending racist propaganda.


  • #2053
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes, you said that about one quote.
    Are you now saying it about both?

    Why did you argue that i did say those things for several pages before it became apparent you lied?
    Why did you insist that I had indeed said those things when you knew it wasn't true?
    Why did you also claim that real historians also claimed that 6 million people were gassed?
    (All rhetorical, btw. You're not going to answer them and everyone knows the reason.)

    Your little smiley face is cute, but it doesn't deflect from your dishonesty.
    You lied. You were caught out.
    You trying to pass it off as an innocent mistake is yet more proof of your dishonesty. No one is dumb enough to buy that.

    And again, this is all just deflection on top of deflection on top of deflection for the dozens of points you've been called out on.

    If you have to be this dishonest and evasive, then maybe it's not worth defending racist propaganda.

    You need to be honest and stop pretending. You went full attack mode because I disputed the 6 million number. To claim otherwise is a lie. You even dropped a link in your own post, stated people who deny the 6 million are holocaust deniers. You not fooling anyone but your supporters on here.

    Yep 6 million gassed was Holocaust dogma pre-90s. The numbers were even higher back then.

    You and Dohnjoe believed the 6 million is correct, you can't go back now.

    I found a Holocaust researcher, recognised and respected who also disputed the 6 million number.

    You trying to claim just because he work is from 1979 it should be discarded, nonsense. He did his research and even debunked the Auschwitz 4 million nonsense in the late 70s and got a figure just over 4 million Jewish deaths during the Holocaust.


  • #2054
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You even dropped a link in your own post, stated people who deny the 6 million are holocaust deniers. You not fooling anyone but your supporters on here.
    Where does it state this?
    Please quote the exact part it states that.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Yep 6 million gassed was Holocaust dogma pre-90s. The numbers were even higher back then.
    You claimed that, but you can't provide a single source that shows this. Because it isn't true. It's a lie.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You and Dohnjoe believed the 6 million is correct, you can't go back now.
    Yes. 6 million dead. Not 6 million gassed.
    We are also in agreement with the majority of researchers and research bodies.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    I found a Holocaust researcher, recognised and respected who also disputed the 6 million number.
    Sure. One.
    He also disputed that number using real research, not using racist propaganda, youtube and a general ignorance of math and history.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You trying to claim just because he work is from 1979 it should be discarded, nonsense. He did his research and even debunked the Auschwitz 4 million nonsense in the late 70s and got a figure just over 4 million Jewish deaths during the Holocaust.
    The biography you are quoting from says that his research is out of date.
    Subsequent scholarship has generally increased Reitlinger's conservative figures for death tolls
    Similarly, the source for that is this paper:
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/4467046?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
    Which was published in the 70's and details some of the issues with the 4 million number.

    And even that aside, you believe that historian is wrong as you do not agree with his numbers.

    So you have one researcher who doesn't agree with your position using old, out of date research that has several problems.
    That doesn't help you.


  • #2055
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Where does it state this?
    Please quote the exact part it states that.


    You claimed that, but you can't provide a single source that shows this. Because it isn't true. It's a lie.


    Yes. 6 million dead. Not 6 million gassed.
    We are also in agreement with the majority of researchers and research bodies.


    Sure. One.
    He also disputed that number using real research.


    The biography you are quoting from says that his research is out of date.

    Similarly, the source for that is this paper:
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/4467046?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
    Which was published in the 70's and details some of the issues with the 4 million number.

    And even that aside, you believe that historian is wrong as you do not agree with his numbers.

    So you have one researcher who doesn't agree with your position using old, out of date research that has several problems.
    That doesn't help you.

    The link and quote you dropped in your post.
    Key denial assertions are that the murder of approximately six million Jews during World War II never occurred, that the Nazis had no official policy or intention to exterminate the Jews, and that the poison gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp never existed. Common distortions include, for example, assertions that the figure of six million Jewish deaths is an exaggeration and that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery.

    Look up Washington post 2017 11 million killed in the Holocaust. They are even trying to increase the numbers in recent times. The numbers in the past were about 11 to 15 million.

    I would not cry foul if turned out to be 4 million. His leaving near two million to have survived, died from natural causes and winter. It made no sense the 6 million and never will. Not out of date research, again assuming you know more than he did.

    Again as the bio said though his book was still described in 1979 as being "widely regarded as a definitive account"


  • #2056
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    The link and quote you dropped in your post.
    Key denial assertions are that the murder of approximately six million Jews during World War II never occurred, that the Nazis had no official policy or intention to exterminate the Jews, and that the poison gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp never existed. Common distortions include, for example, assertions that the figure of six million Jewish deaths is an exaggeration and that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery.
    Yes. No where does that state:
    "people who deny the 6 million are holocaust deniers"

    You are having trouble with reading comprehension. Again.

    I've also pointed out the difference between historians who do real research and the "research" you and your neo-nazi buddies do.
    That is an important distinction you are ignoring.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    T
    Look up Washington post 2017 11 million killed in the Holocaust. They are even trying to increase the numbers in recent times. The numbers in the past were about 11 to 15 million.
    Again, you are being deliberately dishonest.

    Post examples of researchers claiming that 6 million Jews were gassed.
    Post a research paper.
    Post a quote.

    I'm not googling something for you just to find out it's something you're making up again.

    Edit: I did google it. You are conflating the figure of 6 million Jewish deaths with the figure of 11 million people which includes Jews, Roma, Jehovah's Witnesses etc etc. This has always been the approximate number accepted by the vast majority of real researchers.
    Cheerful, you have read enough about the holocaust to know why there are two numbers. There's no way to chalk this up to your usual ignorance. This is a deliberate lie and distortion typical with holocaust deniers.

    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    T
    I would not cry foul if turned out to be 4 million.
    Just as long as it's lower. You don't care. What's important to you is that there's a conspiracy that confirms your racism.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    T
    Again as the bio said though his book was still described in 1979 as being "widely regarded as a definitive account"
    Yes. And this year is 2019.
    Something being definitive in 1979 doesn't make it definitive in 2019.
    There has been 40 years of research between now and then.
    This is reflected in the rest of the quote. But I think this is because that part uses difficult words you don't understand.

    You also neglect the fact that the source used for that quote states that there were problems with the 4 million figure.

    It is either due to your dishonesty, or because that passage was too difficult to read.


  • #2057
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes. No where does that state:
    "people who deny the 6 million are holocaust deniers"

    You are having trouble with reading comprehension. Again.

    I've also pointed out the difference between historians who do real research and the "research" you and your neo-nazi buddies do.
    That is an important distinction you are ignoring.

    Again, you are being deliberately dishonest.

    Post examples of researchers claiming that 6 million Jews were gassed.
    Post a research paper.
    Post a quote.

    I'm not googling something for you just to find out it's something you're making up again.


    Just as long as it's lower. You don't care. What's important to you is that there's a conspiracy that confirms your racism.

    Yes. And this year is 2019.
    Something being definitive in 1979 doesn't make it definitive in 2019.
    There has been 40 years of research between now and then.
    This is reflected in the rest of the quote. But I think this is because that part uses difficult words you don't understand.

    You also neglect the fact that the source used for that quote states that there were problems with the 4 million figure.

    It is either due to your dishonesty, or because that passage was too difficult to read.

    Yep anyone who does not believe 6 million died during the Holocaust is a denier. You keep saying it yourself that's true. Anyone who goes lower is a denier.

    There no problem with 4 million figure. He used common sense, logic, and good detective work. You lack all these traits, you would not notice :)

    I done with the holocust if you want to debate the holocaust with others make another thread.


  • #2058
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No Cheerful, you don't get to ditch the discussion because you're losing.

    Quote where I say what you claim I say.
    You claimed this before, but gave up trying to back it up.
    You can't back it up though.
    We all know why.

    Ditto with researchers.
    Provide a single one that claims 6 million Jews were gassed.

    Provide a single researcher who isn't a raging idiot or racist that agrees with your made up number.


  • #2059
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,820 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Translation "I can't believe the building fell due to fire so it didn't"

    Cool, but it means nothing. Feel free to present your unique version

    You support the theory that the the failure was NOT the result of the buckling of Column 79 which then lead to the collapse of the building


  • #2060
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,221 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    You support the theory that the the failure was NOT the result of the buckling of Column 79 which then lead to the collapse of the building

    I support the findings of the NIST that fire ultimately brought the building down (weakened steel, thermal expansion, etc)

    Do you believe Larry Silverstein had the building secretly blown up? Or do you just believe it was blown up and you don't care about the "details" or who did it?


  • #2061
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I support the findings of the NIST that fire ultimately brought the building down (weakened steel, thermal expansion, etc)

    Do you believe Larry Silverstein had the building secretly blown up? Or do you just believe it was blown up and you don't care about the "details" or who did it?

    You don't understand the findings. You blindly support it. You think the evidence the truthers found is nonsense, yet you never looked at it, have you?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardington_test.

    If you read this study, you learn quickly about steel stresses caused by office fire. They heated steel to above 1000c and Steel only sagged. It did not buckle and the building they constructed did not collapse.

    If NIST was positive about fire causing the collapse, they would have released their data for other groups to verify and acknowledge.


  • Advertisement
  • #2062
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    weisses wrote: »
    You support the theory that the the failure was NOT the result of the buckling of Column 79 which then lead to the collapse of the building

    You have to look at it to notice no raging fire inferno when the building collapsed.

    NIST also ignored the loud audible bang heard on the video. This was heard street blocks away from the building.



  • #2063
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Richard Gage claims the Hulsey study is finished and complete. There just doing a preliminary review internally and will be going out to all the universities for peer review. We close now to seeing the final release.



  • #2064
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,221 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You don't understand the findings. You blindly support it.

    Nope, you don't understand the findings, you don't understand the concept of "consensus", you clearly don't understand the definition of evidence, you believe you "know more" than world historians, the list goes on and on

    All you blindly support is there "has to be a conspiracy" which turns out to be whatever you can cobble together in your head


  • #2065
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,221 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Richard Gage claims the Hulsey study is finished and complete.

    Richard Gage is a loon 911 truther who the AIA have distanced themselves from. Great, can't wait to see the result of Hulsey's "proving a negative" study, should be interesting.


  • #2066
    jeremyj1968
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,331 ✭✭✭jeremyj1968


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    All you blindly support is there "has to be a conspiracy" which turns out to be whatever you can cobble together in your head

    I think when something deviates hugely away from the norm, particularly when it comes to building safety, then it should be questioned. We are still building tall structures from steel. If a small fire can take down a steel framed building, then it should be fully investigated to find out how and why this happened to prevent it from happening again. In the same way that a plane crash would be investigated.

    If it not a controlled demolition, then it is very unusual how it looks more symmetric than known controlled demolitions. But people are free to believe what ever they want. I just find it disappointing that nobody finds it at least worthy of a few questions.


  • #2067
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    jeremyj1968 wrote: »
    I think when something deviates hugely away from the norm, particularly when it comes to building safety, then it should be questioned. We are still building tall structures from steel. If a small fire can take down a steel framed building, then it should be fully investigated to find out how and why this happened to prevent it from happening again. In the same way that a plane crash would be investigated.
    There were such investigations.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_NIST_World_Trade_Center_Disaster_Investigation#Reforms_and_Lessons_Learned
    The steel columns of the WTC buildings significantly lost strength when they were subjected to the heat of the fire. Concrete heated to the same temperature, however, loses no strength at all.[22] As a result, new high-rise buildings, including One World Trade Center, are being constructed with reinforced, high-strength concrete.[23]
    jeremyj1968 wrote: »
    If it not a controlled demolition, then it is very unusual how it looks more symmetric than known controlled demolitions.
    Well for one, it's not symmetric.

    For two, there's a ton of lingering questions from the first post on that zero conspiracy theorists have been able to answer.
    Do you not find it disappointing that conspiracy theorists don't seem to want to ask or answer these questions?


  • #2068
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    There were such investigations.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_NIST_World_Trade_Center_Disaster_Investigation#Reforms_and_Lessons_Learned



    Well for one, it's not symmetric.

    For two, there's a ton of lingering questions from the first post on that zero conspiracy theorists have been able to answer.
    Do you not find it disappointing that conspiracy theorists don't seem to want to ask or answer these questions?

    For one time pay attention. NIST believes the building collapsed like this.

    NIST image of Northside Collapse of WTC7
    473122.png



    No, it collapsed like it shown on Video. Northside view of the collapse of WTC7.

    Are you blind?


  • #2069
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,221 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    jeremyj1968 wrote: »
    I think when something deviates hugely away from the norm, particularly when it comes to building safety, then it should be questioned. We are still building tall structures from steel. If a small fire can take down a steel framed building, then it should be fully investigated to find out how and why this happened to prevent it from happening again. In the same way that a plane crash would be investigated.

    A few things

    Planes flying into buildings, subsequent debris damage and those buildings burning unchecked for hours doesn't happen very often
    Fires were burning across multiple floors and were not "small" according to firefighters and experts
    Fire was instrumental in collapsing or partially collapsing 4 buildings that day (WTC 1, WTC 2, WTC 5 and WTC 7)
    Other buildings and structures have collapsed or partially collapsed due to fire

    There were several investigations, including one which took years and involved approx 200 investigators, experts and structural engineers. It's one of the most studied events of the 21st century. More in depth than any aircrash investigation I've come across
    If it not a controlled demolition, then it is very unusual how it looks more symmetric than known controlled demolitions.

    Unusual to a layman perhaps, but to those who investigated and the wider engineering and architectural community there is nothing "strange" about how the buildings fell (despite being such a unique event)
    I just find it disappointing that nobody finds it at least worthy of a few questions.

    It's been investigated and written about extensively. There is a lot of indepth info about it (I can link some award winning studies and post-fact reports about it) but since some of it is heavy the average person generally isn't interested. What is far more intriguing for the general public are the many fantastical conspiracy theories about the event


  • #2070
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,221 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »


    No, it collapsed like it shown on Video. Northside view of the collapse of WTC7.

    Are you blind?

    We can add computer modeling and "representation" to the long list of things you simply don't understand

    If they would have released a CGI model of the building falling that looked like the video footage and a lot of conspiracy theorists would be a lot less confused


  • Advertisement
  • #2071
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    We can add computer modeling and "representation" to the long list of things you simply don't understand

    If they would have released a CGI model of the building falling that looked like the video footage and a lot of conspiracy theorists would be a lot less confused

    I understand WTC7 corner side walls did not crush in on way down. NIST is claiming the building fell down looking like a crushed soda can. Its nonsense especially when you have a video of the real collapse.

    You actually see on the video, a kink occurs where the core columns got taken away. You can hear the boom ie explosion before the Penthouse fell.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement