Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org

1234689

Comments

  • #152
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    weisses wrote: »
    Part of the facade ? when I view all the footage the building falls in one piece (leaving out the penthouse)

    So according to you what did free fall en what didn't ... based on the footage

    Leaving the penthouse out ... what part of the building doesn't collapse at the same time

    Look as King Mob said you can't choose to ignore half the collapse so that it looks like the video says it does. That's either dishonest or ignoring reality. The east penthouse disappears into the building, proving the internal structure is in full collapse. Several seconds before the supposed experts at 'Architect for 911 truth' say. No amount of these 'experts' saying otherwise will change reality.
    weisses wrote: »
    I have no trouble with the official view on wtc 1&2 ... not focussing on that atm ... although there seem to be loads of questions remaining

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4

    First 52 minutes

    For once why don't you tell me what these questions are?


  • #153
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    weisses wrote: »
    Why is that video false .... No one has debunked it yet .. The wtc7 part anyway, and if you agree with the tactics and lies used fine by me

    Ah holy jebus....
    • Most of the claims about WTC7 are based on how fast it fell, they say at free-fall speeds. However as we have discussed on this thread is didn't fall at free-fall speeds and that can be proven.
    • Many claim that it was a controlled demolition but by watching controlled demolition videos you can see the obvious problem that there are no sounds of the explosives needed. The sound of controlled demolition is very distinctive and very loud, but completely absent from the WTC.
    • They say there were very few fires in the buildings but again there is ample evidence that large parts of the building were on fire.
    • They say that only the central columns being cut at once could have caused it. Yet we can see from some of the video that the penthouses collapse from left to right, exactly as the NIST report says.

    These points alone show that video to be full of crap.


  • #154
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    meglome wrote: »
    Look as King Mob said you can't choose to ignore half the collapse so that it looks like the video says it does. That's either dishonest or ignoring reality. The east penthouse disappears into the building, proving the internal structure is in full collapse. Several seconds before the supposed experts at 'Architect for 911 truth' say. No amount of these 'experts' saying otherwise will change reality.

    I dont ignore the penthouse collapse i stated many times that the whole of building 7 came down in 14 seconds ... got a slap on the wrist there because it was 16 according to KM .... i think the confusion is that ... a lot of people using the free fall theory start counting at the time the main structure of wtc 7 starts to collapse


    meglome wrote: »
    For once why don't you tell me what these questions are?

    No i don't have any interest in discussing wtc 1and2 because we don't disagree much there i think


  • #155
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    meglome wrote: »
    Ah holy jebus....

    [*]Most of the claims about WTC7 are based on how fast it fell, they say at free-fall speeds. However as we have discussed on this thread is didn't fall at free-fall speeds and that can be proven.

    Were do i put this quote in the picture then Im a bit confused
    meglome wrote: »
    NSIT say that a section of the facade falls for a time at free-fall speeds. This is because the internal structure has already collapsed so there's basically nothing holding it up. They don't say the entire building falls at free-fall speeds.

    meglome wrote: »
    [*]Many claim that it was a controlled demolition but by watching controlled demolition videos you can see the obvious problem that there are no sounds of the explosives needed. The sound of controlled demolition is very distinctive and very loud, but completely absent from the WTC.
    [*]They say there were very few fires in the buildings but again there is ample evidence that large parts of the building were on fire.
    [*]They say that only the central columns being cut at once could have caused it. Yet we can see from some of the video that the penthouses collapse from left to right, exactly as the NIST report says.
    [/LIST]

    Yes your right there were some explosions but nothing is pointing in the direction of a ordinary controlled demolition
    meglome wrote: »
    These points alone show that video to be full of crap.

    do not agree with that statement


  • #156
    Squirrel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,374 ✭✭✭Squirrel


    weisses wrote: »
    Yes your right there were some explosions but nothing is pointing in the direction of a ordinary controlled demolition

    So you agree that it can't have been an ordinary controlled demolition? And on that note, how would you define an ordinary controlled demolition?

    How would this seemingly extraordinary controlled demolition have happened?

    Have you an engineering or structural or demolition background, weisses by any chance?


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    weisses wrote: »
    Yes your right there were some explosions but nothing is pointing in the direction of a ordinary controlled demolition

    It seems obvious to me that if you're looking for evidence of explosions you'd use the many videos taken on 911 to prove it. Instead they quote people saying they either heard sounds like explosions or they heard what they described as explosions. The reason they don't show any of the video (with the sound intact) is there are no explosions recorded on any of the videos. Shaped charges for steel are even louder than the standard charges, a half deaf person would have heard this from a mile away. Of course it could be Harry Potter brand explosives.

    The whole premise of their video is wrong. Their main point is the speed of the fall, which they have completely wrong.

    What questions does the WTC7 video leave you with exactly?


  • #158
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    Squirrel wrote: »
    So you agree that it can't have been an ordinary controlled demolition? And on that note, how would you define an ordinary controlled demolition?

    No .. its not pointing in that direction ! is all i said
    Squirrel wrote: »
    How would this seemingly extraordinary controlled demolition have happened?


    I don't know Im not an expert ... ruling nothing out
    Squirrel wrote: »
    Have you an engineering or structural or demolition background, weisses by any chance?

    No .. I already stated that before ... And do i need one to disagree?


  • #159
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    meglome wrote: »
    It seems obvious to me that if you're looking for evidence of explosions you'd use the many videos taken on 911 to prove it. Instead they quote people saying they either heard sounds like explosions or they heard what they described as explosions. The reason they don't show any of the video (with the sound intact) is there are no explosions recorded on any of the videos. Shaped charges for steel are even louder than the standard charges, a half deaf person would have heard this from a mile away. Of course it could be Harry Potter brand explosives.

    Hey don't fully disagree with you there .. I even have questions about that whole nano thermite thing .... makes the whole thing even more confusing

    Can you explain to me the two quotes from you in post 155 ? about the freefall please ?
    meglome wrote: »
    What questions does the WTC7 video leave you with exactly?
    you mean the architects and engineers video?


  • #160
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    weisses wrote: »
    I don't know Im not an expert ... ruling nothing out

    But you are, you're ruling out the official report out of hand.
    weisses wrote: »
    Hey don't fully disagree with you there .. I even have questions about that whole nano thermite thing .... makes the whole thing even more confusing

    Ah nano thermite, another thing that they can't show exists. Even thermite is not used in controlled demolition ever, though the video implies it is. So then saying the building was a controlled demolition but using a material that isn't ever used in controlled demolition is contradictory. It's really not a mystery, even the fire-fighters had been expecting it to collapse for hours beforehand.
    weisses wrote: »
    Can you explain to me the two quotes from you in post 155 ? about the freefall please ?

    Let's look to the NIST report. They say the internal structure is weakened from the damage of the WTC1&2 collapses and further weakened from the extensive fires that lasted several hours. They say that some of the cross supports gave way thus giving less support to the main vertical beams. This caused the beams below the mechanical penthouse on the left of the full video to eventually collapse. This then loaded much more stress onto other beams which caused a total collapse.

    The full video of the collapse looks exactly like the NIST report says. But it doesn't look like the 'Architects for 911 truth' say which I assume is why they cut the first half of the collapse out.

    Probably the major point trotted out by the 'Architects for 911 truth' since 911 is the buildings fell at free-fall speeds. This is provably false, anyone with working eyes can see it's false. For WTC7 the only qualifications needed is the ability to count to about 16 seconds. Other than one piece of the façade NIST does not say WTC7 falls at free-falls speeds. Yet in 'Architects for 911 truth' say it over and over and claim NIST says it.
    weisses wrote: »
    you mean the architects and engineers video?

    I do.


  • #161
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    meglome wrote: »
    But you are, you're ruling out the official report out of hand.

    No I have questions with parts of the conclusions
    meglome wrote: »
    So then saying the building was a controlled demolition but using a material that isn't ever used in controlled demolition is contradictory. It's really not a mystery

    1 of my questions as well .... doesn't rules it out though
    meglome wrote: »
    even the fire-fighters had been expecting it to collapse for hours beforehand.

    You could here them say It will come down i think or something like its about to come down ... but were does it state that it was hours beforehand ??
    meglome wrote: »
    Let's look to the NIST report. They say the internal structure is weakened from the damage of the WTC1&2 collapses and further weakened from the extensive fires that lasted several hours. They say that some of the cross supports gave way thus giving less support to the main vertical beams. This caused the beams below the mechanical penthouse on the left of the full video to eventually collapse. This then loaded much more stress onto other beams which caused a total collapse.

    But you do accept that the damage from the debris had nothing to do with the collapse ?
    meglome wrote: »
    The full video of the collapse looks exactly like the NIST report says. But it doesn't look like the 'Architects for 911 truth' say which I assume is why they cut the first half of the collapse out.

    47:54 in the video ... Did you actually watch it ?
    meglome wrote: »
    Probably the major point trotted out by the 'Architects for 911 truth' since 911 is the buildings fell at free-fall speeds. This is provably false, anyone with working eyes can see it's false
    .

    So what do you mean when you say the quote below, is there a video you can point out that NIST conclusion?.
    meglome wrote: »
    NSIT say that a section of the facade falls for a time at free-fall speeds. This is because the internal structure has already collapsed so there's basically nothing holding it up. They don't say the entire building falls at free-fall speeds.
    meglome wrote: »
    For WTC7 the only qualifications needed is the ability to count to about 16 seconds. Other than one piece of the façade NIST does not say WTC7 falls at free-falls speeds. Yet in 'Architects for 911 truth' say it over and over and claim NIST says it.

    No i don't agree ...for the determination if that building fell with free fall speed the actual collapse of the building is enough to calculate that i think ...


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Squirrel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,374 ✭✭✭Squirrel


    weisses wrote: »
    But you do accept that the damage from the debris had nothing to do with the collapse ?

    From my understanding of meglome's post I would say he thinks the debris had a lot to do with the collapse.
    meglome wrote:
    Let's look to the NIST report. They say the internal structure is weakened from the damage of the WTC1&2 collapses and further weakened from the extensive fires that lasted several hours. They say that some of the cross supports gave way thus giving less support to the main vertical beams. This caused the beams below the mechanical penthouse on the left of the full video to eventually collapse. This then loaded much more stress onto other beams which caused a total collapse.
    weisses wrote:
    No I have questions with parts of the conclusions

    What questions with which parts of the conclusions? I would imagine believing that there was a controlled demolition would lead one to have to completely dismiss the official report as opposed to raising "questions with parts of the conclusions".


  • #163
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    weisses wrote: »
    No I have questions with parts of the conclusions

    What exactly are those questions?
    weisses wrote: »
    1 of my questions as well .... doesn't rules it out though

    Let's look at two facts. Thermite is never ever used in controlled demolition. No one has shown that nano thermite even exists. Doesn't look good for the thermite theory.
    weisses wrote: »
    You could here them say It will come down i think or something like its about to come down ... but were does it state that it was hours beforehand ??

    I don't how long before for sure in all honestly. But as far a I can tell it was back at least when the fire-fighters pulled out which was a good two hours.
    weisses wrote: »
    47:54 in the video ... Did you actually watch it ?

    I did watch it. As I said already I can't say for sure that everything NIST says is correct, I don't have the skills. I can only check things that are easily provable either way. Which is why I'm so against that 'Architects for 911 truth' video. Most of the major points they raise are based on things that are either provably wrong or based on faulty logic.

    Let's look at some...
    • Free-fall speeds - wrong.
    • Collapses all once - wrong
    • Showing an edited video of only half the collapse - Dishonest
    • Controlled demolition - no sounds of explosives whatsoever.
    • Thermite - never ever used in controlled demolition.
    • nano thermite... can't show it even exists
    • Claims that steel buildings can't fall like this... Never in history have buildings like these been hit by planes and left to burn so no one has any reference. To say otherwise is a lie.
    • Comparing fires tests or fires in structures with a completely different design to the WTC buildings - Dishonest
    • Saying that the debris couldn't be ejected the way it in the WTC1&2 collapses without explosives - This would need explosives planted on most of the floors and quite simply this is impossible in a building with 20 thousand people working in it.

    I could go on.
    weisses wrote: »
    So what do you mean when you say the quote below, is there a video you can point out that NIST conclusion?.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwCAcG7aI4I

    It's zoomed in so not great quality. But you can clearly see the collapses start to the left of both penthouses.
    weisses wrote: »
    No i don't agree ...for the determination if that building fell with free fall speed the actual collapse of the building is enough to calculate that i think ...

    It's very simple... if the building falls in 6 or 7 seconds that is roughly free-fall speed but it actually falls in more than double that. So no free-fall.


  • #164
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    meglome wrote: »
    [*]Comparing fires tests or fires in structures with a completely different design to the WTC buildings - Dishonest
    And don't forget rejecting fires in structures with different designs that did collapse.


  • #165
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    meglome wrote: »
    I did watch it. As I said already I can't say for sure that everything NIST says is correct, I don't have the skills. I can only check things that are easily provable either way. Which is why I'm so against that 'Architects for 911 truth' video. Most of the major points they raise are based on things that are either provably wrong or based on faulty logic.

    but they did show the whole collapse and you kept saying they didn't


    meglome wrote: »
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwCAcG7aI4I

    It's zoomed in so not great quality. But you can clearly see the collapses start to the left of both penthouses.

    Thats the biggest BS i have seen so far in relation to any free fall theory (and this is the nist conclusion?? )

    meglome wrote: »
    It's very simple... if the building falls in 6 or 7 seconds that is roughly free-fall speed but it actually falls in more than double that. So no free-fall.

    No you are wrong ...the total collapse is about 16 seconds the outer walls are coming down in 7 secs (free fall) its in every video!!


  • #166
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    Squirrel wrote: »
    From my understanding of meglome's post I would say he thinks the debris had a lot to do with the collapse.

    No it didn't (NIST conclusion not mine)

    Squirrel wrote: »
    What questions with which parts of the conclusions? I would imagine believing that there was a controlled demolition would lead one to have to completely dismiss the official report as opposed to raising "questions with parts of the conclusions".

    Discussed already in this thread


  • #167
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    but they did show the whole collapse and you kept saying they didn't
    Once compared to how many times?
    And there the fact that in all of their websites and leafets they clearly claim that the collapse started after the penthouse fell.
    weisses wrote: »
    No you are wrong ...the total collapse is about 16 seconds the outer walls are coming down in 7 secs (free fall) its in every video!!
    So again, if we ignore a part of reality we can believe the conspiracy?
    Or is it the other way around? To believe the conspiracy you have to ignore a part of reality?

    But then even if you do ignore that inconvenient bit of reality, you're still getting the time wrong. The façade didn't fall in 7 seconds either, just out of sight in that time, which Gage and his band of liars let you think is the total collapse.


  • #168
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    weisses wrote: »
    but they did show the whole collapse and you kept saying they didn't

    I watched an hour and a half but I didn't see any showing for the full 16-17 second collapse. When do they show it?
    weisses wrote: »
    Thats the biggest BS i have seen so far in relation to any free fall theory (and this is the nist conclusion?? )

    Don't get you. Read this page. http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/wtc7videoincludingeastmechanicalpenthous
    weisses wrote: »
    No you are wrong ...the total collapse is about 16 seconds the outer walls are coming down in 7 secs (free fall) its in every video!!

    Look even NIST say that some of the façade (i.e. the outside glass with some steel) partly fell at free fall speeds. This actual makes sense looking at the full video as you can see the internal structure collapsing.


  • #169
    Squirrel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,374 ✭✭✭Squirrel


    weisses wrote: »
    No it didn't (NIST conclusion not mine)
    meglome wrote:
    Let's look to the NIST report. They say the internal structure is weakened from the damage of the WTC1&2 collapses

    I would take that as saying that there was damage caused by the collapse of WTC1&2. So how pray tell is that a NIST conclusion and not your own?


  • #170
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    meglome wrote: »
    I watched an hour and a half but I didn't see any showing for the full 16-17 second collapse. When do they show it?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4

    47:54 in the video
    meglome wrote: »
    Don't get you. Read this page. http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/wtc7videoincludingeastmechanicalpenthous

    Will read that thanks


  • #171
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Squirrel wrote: »
    I would take that as saying that there was damage caused by the collapse of WTC1&2. So how pray tell is that a NIST conclusion and not your own?

    There's a quote he's found were the NIST says that the building would have collapsed by the fires alone, even if there wasn't any damage.
    He, taking the word of the NIST as gospel now that it suits him, believes this to mean that they said that the damage played no role.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    Squirrel wrote: »
    I would take that as saying that there was damage caused by the collapse of WTC1&2. So how pray tell is that a NIST conclusion and not your own?

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

    also discussed in the building 7 thread


  • #173
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    weisses wrote: »
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4

    47:54 in the video

    As I said I watched an hour and a half and didn't see the whole collapse, and I still haven't. Though I am amused when they show the start of the collapse and the NIST animation which look identical to me then wheel on the 'experts' saying it's wrong.


  • #174
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    meglome wrote: »
    As I said I watched an hour and a half and didn't see the whole collapse, and I still haven't. Though I am amused when they show the start of the collapse and the NIST animation which look identical to me then wheel on the 'experts' saying it's wrong.

    What part do you believe is missing? i did see the penthouse collapse


  • #175
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,244 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Not sure if it was discussed already , only making my way through the thread but somethign I never thought of before watching the edward current video. If it was dropped in a controlled explosion, how come the fires that burned for 7 hours didnt damage the explosives or the cabling to them?


  • #176
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Not sure if it was discussed already , only making my way through the thread but somethign I never thought of before watching the edward current video. If it was dropped in a controlled explosion, how come the fires that burned for 7 hours didnt damage the explosives or the cabling to them?

    A huge fireball and fire burning over a few floors and somehow the explosives don't go off. Harry Potter brand explosives.


  • #177
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    meglome wrote: »
    A huge fireball and fire burning over a few floors and somehow the explosives don't go off. Harry Potter brand explosives.

    correct and after that they used his wand to level wtc7 in a magically symmetrical collapse .. see now it all makes sense when you bring in Harry potter


    Question still remains valid though


  • #178
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    weisses wrote: »
    What part do you believe is missing? i did see the penthouse collapse

    Yes you did see the penthouse collapse, shown once. But the 16 seconds of the whole collapse is never shown in once piece, not that I saw anyway. By not showing it in one go there is no way for anyone watching the video to see how long the collapse takes.
    weisses wrote: »
    correct and after that they used his wand to level wtc7 in a magically symmetrical collapse .. see now it all makes sense when you bring in Harry potter

    Question still remains valid though

    Okay I'll try once more. You can see the east mechanical penthouse falls into the building left to right. Then the penthouse falls in mostly left to right. The building completely falls after that but it's falling slightly to one corner. How is that a symmetrical collapse exactly in the way the truthers mean?
    weisses wrote: »
    Question still remains valid though

    How do you think all these fires burned and didn't set off anything?


  • #179
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    meglome wrote: »
    Yes you did see the penthouse collapse, shown once. But the 16 seconds of the whole collapse is never shown in once piece, not that I saw anyway. By not showing it in one go there is no way for anyone watching the video to see how long the collapse takes.

    What clip would be acceptable for you ? (showing as much detail as possible of the collapse)

    meglome wrote: »
    Okay I'll try once more. You can see the east mechanical penthouse falls into the building left to right. Then the penthouse falls in mostly left to right. The building completely falls after that but it's falling slightly to one corner. How is that a symmetrical collapse exactly in the way the truthers mean?

    Please watch the video from 34.30 to 47.30 ... what do you not accept and why is it impossible
    meglome wrote: »
    How do you think all these fires burned and didn't set off anything?

    I don't know

    That's one off the things i don't like in that video ... if you want to proof something then get your (nano) thermite find some derelict steel structure place the damn things and see what happens

    But hey even if they managed to demolish it you get the skeptics saying that its not the exact same structure .... etc

    What i don't get From the NIST report (claimed by makers of the video)

    Is that they couldn't get information about the parameters used in the simulation 49.50 in the video

    If true then this is not science but politics imo


  • #180
    Squirrel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,374 ✭✭✭Squirrel


    weisses wrote: »
    That's one off the things i don't like in that video ... if you want to proof something then get your (nano) thermite find some derelict steel structure place the damn things and see what happens

    But hey even if they managed to demolish it you get the skeptics saying that its not the exact same structure .... etc

    And no doubt if the building didn't fall you'd have the truthers saying it's not the exact same structure, swings and roundabouts really.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    weisses wrote: »
    What clip would be acceptable for you ? (showing as much detail as possible of the collapse)

    Look I don't know what's confusing here... they don't show the full clip - in one peice. So there is no way anyone can count how long the full collapse takes. They say it happens at free-fall speeds and they day it must have been controlled demolition but the full video shows a different scenario.
    weisses wrote: »
    Please watch the video from 34.30 to 47.30 ... what do you not accept and why is it impossible

    It might be difficult to believe NIST if you take what this video is telling you as true. The problem is you can see that there is a massive internal failure before the façade crashes down. So I have no issue believing that the façade can collapse at partially free-fall speeds when there's nothing really holding it up.
    weisses wrote: »
    I don't know

    For explosives to be set-up there would need to be cables and/or control systems. Now the explosives idea might be plausible (ignoring the lack of sounds of course) if there are very few fires in the building like 'Architects for 911 truth' say. However we can see from the available pictures and video (the ones they don't show for some reason), plus the eyewitness testimony from the fire-fighters that there are fires burning all over WTC7. Yet somehow explosives (or thermite) don't go off prematurely. Do you not see just how unlikely that is?
    weisses wrote: »
    That's one off the things i don't like in that video ... if you want to proof something then get your (nano) thermite find some derelict steel structure place the damn things and see what happens

    The first problem is nano thermite doesn't exist as far as I can tell. People have gotten thermite to cut steel in experiments but not without a lot of effort and set-up. Which somehow wasn't seen in, for example, WTC1 which had over 20 thousand people working in it. Same goes for explosives.
    weisses wrote: »
    But hey even if they managed to demolish it you get the skeptics saying that its not the exact same structure .... etc

    No building in history with the design of the WTC has been hit by a plane and left to burn. They didn't have what you'd might call a standard steel cube construction, they were a cone in a cone effectively. The CT's want it both ways... showing structures that are different not collapsing through fire, but refusing to accept that other steel structures that collapsed from fire are relevant.
    weisses wrote: »
    What i don't get From the NIST report (claimed by makers of the video)

    Is that they couldn't get information about the parameters used in the simulation 49.50 in the video

    If true then this is not science but politics imo

    Well I have no idea why NIST wouldn't give them the raw data, governments are often secretive for no real reason. I'm not assuming anything as I have no information either way. Of course that won't take way from the fact that the 'Architects for 911 truth' video is full of mistakes, half-truths and misdirections.


Advertisement