I am not into the truther movement but I have a question

[LA RAM FAN]

I am done, it is starting to feel like pulling the wings off of flys;

The last thing i will address is that acuasation that there was nothing posted to counter the truther BS. These are the links I provided:

According to this site WTC 5 did partially collaspe. (tried to find an independent source)

Hughes Associates, Inc.

Here is a video of another buidling falling due to fire:
building collapses due to fire - YouTube
building collapses due to fire - YouTube



Here is an article that you may or may not find interesting: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - First Time In History

Here is one video of WTC 7 burning.

fires in WTC7

Here is an independent report:

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf

Finally a discussion on the fires at WTC 7

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...#39;scondition

Here is a site that directly addresses the video in the OP.

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

Here is another: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Pentagon - Flight 93 - Popular Mechanics

I hate to burst your bubble but like Dawgshit,you have provided ZERO evidence that it wasnt a controlled demolition.Excellent job of debunking them posting links that dont work and non existing videos you claim to have.

oh and hate to break your heart but that one link you did post that actually works,that DEBWUNKER link of popular mechanics has been debunked as well.The book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING,AN ANSWER TO POPULAR MECHANICS AND OTHER DEFENDERS OF THE OFFICAL CONSPIRACY THEORY debunks your ramblings.you might actually try and read the book.You wont because you are in denial and afraid of the truth but here is the book that debunks your insane ramblings.

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/dp/156656686X/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=9070405041&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16281883991318715977&hvpone=12.45&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&ref=pd_sl_94qmjw76c1_b[/ame]

Also watch this video.If you say the governments version is STILL correct,you are either one drugs or in complete denial.

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/dp/156656686X/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=9070405041&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16281883991318715977&hvpone=12.45&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&ref=pd_sl_94qmjw76c1_b[/ame]

you might also take a look at the information at this site cause it debunks all your pitiful ramblings as well.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

http://www.911expertsspeakout.org/the_trailer.html

oh and these are the REAL 9/11 myths that have been debunked by Griffins book.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/634-debunking-the-real-911-myths.html

you obviously have not read any of Mr Jones posts either because he has addressed all your ramblings and why do you even mention Obama,this thread is about 9/11? get with the program and stop being afraid of the truth.

you sir just like Dawgshit gets here everyday,have been taken to school and have had your ass handed to you on a platter.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

1..building 7 was not hit by an aircraft

2.a short lived fireball can not greatly effect the strength of steel that requires and is credited to sustained fires

WTC 7 burned for 7 hours, the chances are it was fed by pressurized diesel fuel that was there to supply generators. It is in the video.

Here is a video of another buidling falling due to fire: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h9TOFP7ViY]building collapses due to fire - YouTube[/ame]

Here is an article that you may or may not find interesting: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - First Time In History

You a joke...the building does not collapse a portion does and the steel frame is clearly still standing after the facade collapses...you constantly contrdict the NIST REPORT...which states desial fuel was not a factor in the collapse and that building 7 was the first steel framed building in history to suffer a complete collapse due to fire ...the more you post the clearer it becomes you have never read and have no understanding of the NIST report
and therefore have no credibility in your opinion of the validity of the report

This guy was such a miserable failure he ran off with his tail between his legs after getting his ass handed to him on a platter just like dawgshit always does.

This guy is so ignorant he doesnt even realise he just helped prove the case of the truthers in his OWN post with his OWN video in the fact that that inferiour building to the towers shows that it only PARTIALLY fell.the entire structure did not fall like the towers or building 7.Miserable fail this poster is.No wonder he ran away scared after humilating himself with that pathetic video.He knew he got his ass handed to him on a platter and only proved our case for us with his own video.Comedy gold.I love it.

 

[daws101]

I am done, it is starting to feel like pulling the wings off of flys;

The last thing i will address is that acuasation that there was nothing posted to counter the truther BS. These are the links I provided:

According to this site WTC 5 did partially collaspe. (tried to find an independent source)

Hughes Associates, Inc.

Here is a video of another buidling falling due to fire:
building collapses due to fire - YouTube
building collapses due to fire - YouTube



Here is an article that you may or may not find interesting: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - First Time In History

Here is one video of WTC 7 burning.

fires in WTC7

Here is an independent report:

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf

Finally a discussion on the fires at WTC 7

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...#39;scondition

Here is a site that directly addresses the video in the OP.

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

Here is another: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Pentagon - Flight 93 - Popular Mechanics

I hate to burst your bubble but like Dawgshit,you have provided ZERO evidence that it wasnt a controlled demolition.Excellent job of debunking them posting links that dont work and non existing videos you claim to have.

oh and hate to break your heart but that one link you did post that actually works,that DEBWUNKER link of popular mechanics has been debunked as well.The book DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING,AN ANSWER TO POPULAR MECHANICS AND OTHER DEFENDERS OF THE OFFICAL CONSPIRACY THEORY debunks your ramblings.you might actually try and read the book.You wont because you are in denial and afraid of the truth but here is the book that debunks your insane ramblings.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/dp/156656686X/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=9070405041&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16281883991318715977&hvpone=12.45&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&ref=pd_sl_94qmjw76c1_b]Amazon.com: Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (9781566566865): David Ray Griffin: Books[/ame]

Also watch this video.If you say the governments version is STILL correct,you are either one drugs or in complete denial.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/dp/156656686X/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=9070405041&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=16281883991318715977&hvpone=12.45&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&ref=pd_sl_94qmjw76c1_b]Amazon.com: Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (9781566566865): David Ray Griffin: Books[/ame]

you might also take a look at the information at this site cause it debunks all your pitiful ramblings as well.

AE911Truth.org

911 Experts Speak Out - Virtual Action Kit

oh and these are the REAL 9/11 myths that have been debunked by Griffins book.

DEBUNKING THE REAL 9/11 MYTHS

you obviously have not read any of Mr Jones posts either because he has addressed all your ramblings and why do you even mention Obama,this thread is about 9/11? get with the program and stop being afraid of the truth.

you sir just like Dawgshit gets here everyday,have been taken to school and have had your ass handed to you on a platter.

the rambling of an idiot .
only in your delusions is any of what you just posted real....

 

[mamooth]

Try an experiment..light a fire with whatever you have handy and put a piece of steel channel directly over it, go ahead and put 100lbs of weight on top of it too, and come back when it "weakens" and is overcome by the heat.

I've done exactly that. When the fire gets hot enough, the steel weakens and collapses under the weight it's holding. The key is getting the fire hot enough. A simple wood bonfire isn't hot enough, but a big wood bonfire with a 20 mph wind constantly fanning it is hot enough.

Why on earth are you basing your whole arguement on denying something that can be so easily demonstrated? The fact that you deny steel softens under heat makes it difficult to believe you possess even the slightest knowledge of metalworking.

 

[daws101]

Try an experiment..light a fire with whatever you have handy and put a piece of steel channel directly over it, go ahead and put 100lbs of weight on top of it too, and come back when it "weakens" and is overcome by the heat.

I've done exactly that. When the fire gets hot enough, the steel weakens and collapses under the weight it's holding. The key is getting the fire hot enough. A simple wood bonfire isn't hot enough, but a big wood bonfire with a 20 mph wind constantly fanning it is hot enough.

Why on earth are you basing your whole arguement on denying something that can be so easily demonstrated? The fact that you deny steel softens under heat makes it difficult to believe you possess even the slightest knowledge of metalworking.

the post you've quoted is from mr jones not me...post #214..
but to answer I've accidentally done that too at the beach in the fire pits..
also I've shaped metal using heat on the sets I've built...

 

[mamooth]

the post you've quoted is from mr jones not me...post #214..

Ack. You are correct. I screwed up the attributions, and I apologize for that.

Please assume my light mockery was directed at Mr. Jones.

 

[eots]

Try an experiment..light a fire with whatever you have handy and put a piece of steel channel directly over it, go ahead and put 100lbs of weight on top of it too, and come back when it "weakens" and is overcome by the heat.

I've done exactly that. When the fire gets hot enough, the steel weakens and collapses under the weight it's holding. The key is getting the fire hot enough. A simple wood bonfire isn't hot enough, but a big wood bonfire with a 20 mph wind constantly fanning it is hot enough.

Why on earth are you basing your whole arguement on denying something that can be so easily demonstrated? The fact that you deny steel softens under heat makes it difficult to believe you possess even the slightest knowledge of metalworking.

so if you had a steel grill over a wood fire with a twenty mph wind in would soften and fail....lol

 

[eots]

"although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings"

OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[daws101]

the post you've quoted is from mr jones not me...post #214..

Ack. You are correct. I screwed up the attributions, and I apologize for that.

Please assume my light mockery was directed at Mr. Jones.

not a problem...

 

[daws101]

Try an experiment..light a fire with whatever you have handy and put a piece of steel channel directly over it, go ahead and put 100lbs of weight on top of it too, and come back when it "weakens" and is overcome by the heat.

I've done exactly that. When the fire gets hot enough, the steel weakens and collapses under the weight it's holding. The key is getting the fire hot enough. A simple wood bonfire isn't hot enough, but a big wood bonfire with a 20 mph wind constantly fanning it is hot enough.

Why on earth are you basing your whole arguement on denying something that can be so easily demonstrated? The fact that you deny steel softens under heat makes it difficult to believe you possess even the slightest knowledge of metalworking.

so if you had a steel grill over a wood fire with a twenty mph wind in would soften and fail....lol

ignorant as ever ... how do you think steel was heated before gas or electricity ?
wood or charcoal (essentially the same thing )and air
20mph is about the same speed as a bellows.

**** me!.... you're stupid.

 

[mamooth]

so if you had a steel grill over a wood fire with a twenty mph wind in would soften and fail....lol

Yep. Provided it's a bigass bonfire, the kind where if the wind suddenly shifts directions, you lose your eyebrows. And the steel grill needs to be down low in the fire, and you've got to have more wood loaded on top of the steel grill. I know it will happen, because I did it. Quite accidentally. I was just trying to burn some big hunks of a dead tree quickly.

 

[eots]

so if you had a steel grill over a wood fire with a twenty mph wind in would soften and fail....lol

Yep. Provided it's a bigass bonfire, the kind where if the wind suddenly shifts directions, you lose your eyebrows. And the steel grill needs to be down low in the fire, and you've got to have more wood loaded on top of the steel grill. I know it will happen, because I did it. Quite accidentally. I was just trying to burn some big hunks of a dead tree quickly.

so how do you explain the wood burning stove ???

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZCqB-S5kjQ]Defra approved Bohemia X 30 Woodburning stove for smoke control areas by Pevex Enterprises Ltd - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mr. Jones]

Try an experiment..light a fire with whatever you have handy and put a piece of steel channel directly over it, go ahead and put 100lbs of weight on top of it too, and come back when it "weakens" and is overcome by the heat.

I've done exactly that. When the fire gets hot enough, the steel weakens and collapses under the weight it's holding. The key is getting the fire hot enough. A simple wood bonfire isn't hot enough, but a big wood bonfire with a 20 mph wind constantly fanning it is hot enough.

Why on earth are you basing your whole arguement on denying something that can be so easily demonstrated? The fact that you deny steel softens under heat makes it difficult to believe you possess even the slightest knowledge of metalworking.

I've manipulated steel and metals with torches myself, and I can tell you, the massive beams and columns of the WTC would not under normal office fire temps have let go simultaneously at all the critical support points having the same heat and intensity. It is impossible to pinpoint the needed energy at all those points for the same time, as fire moves and steel dissipates the heat and moves it away from the source spreading throughout the connecting steel structure.

That is why you can't find another building with even more intense infernos collapsing at or near free fall speeds anywhere. That is why the questioning of the fire only scenario has undergone so much scrutiny.

Sure you morons can take a coat hanger or smaller piece of steel and bend it, but it wont turn into noodles and let go instantly either. It is a gradual process and with the massive steel beams and columns used in skyscrapers, if this would happen, it would take its time in weakening and the collapses would have been much slower, and staggered.

 

[Mr. Jones]

so if you had a steel grill over a wood fire with a twenty mph wind in would soften and fail....lol

Yep. Provided it's a bigass bonfire, the kind where if the wind suddenly shifts directions, you lose your eyebrows. And the steel grill needs to be down low in the fire, and you've got to have more wood loaded on top of the steel grill. I know it will happen, because I did it. Quite accidentally. I was just trying to burn some big hunks of a dead tree quickly.

Assuming You are correct, this would have had to of happened at all of the critical support structure points in the Wtc buildings, not once but 3 times, in the history of modern steel hirise
buildings. There were tons of steel in those buildings and the heat spreads to the cooler parts, meaning the critical points that instantly let go and is being blamed for the collapses, had to have been subjected to a constant and intense amount of heat, at the same time. NIST has provided no evidence of this and the samples they did recover showed significantly lower temps. Even in their testing with the help of UL the mocked up structures they used did not fail when subjected to even more heat, for longer times then the WTC underwent.

If the WTC experienced the intense heat at the critical points, there had to be something else other then office materials and left over "jet fuel" doing it. This is where the questioning of the intense heat in the rubble piles comes in, they lasted for 3 months and even with thousands of gallons of Pyro-Cool, they could not be extinguished until December.
Again I ask you to consider the report from someone who was on the scene and was reporting on the demise of WTC 7, when he said he was told that Silverstein was on the phone with his insurance company asking for permission to destroy his building CD style.

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.


Shame On Jesse Ventura! | Fox News

There was no way that building could have been rigged for a CD in such short time, therefore one can conclude it was rigged prior to the 9-11 attacks.

Any of you ever use an oxy acetylene torch to cut long steel channel? You have to use a very hot intense flame point, on the specific part you want to cut, and if you were to use another accelerant like natural gas it would take a shit load longer time to even start cutting through it. Jet fuel is kerosene, and it burns cooler. NIST even agrees that most of it was consumed in the initial impacts of the planes.
Combining this fuel with the massive steel, and taking steels ability to dissipate the heat, those buildings should not have come down with all the characteristics of a CD, if "jet fuel" and office materials were the accelerant and fuel used.

Then getting into the demise of WTC 7 were it wasn't hit by a plane with accelerants and
but came down in a CD style....well there is no getting around the fact that something ans someone else was involved in making that happen, it Al Qaeda and Islamic fanatics couldn't have been the only ones to do such a precise and well executed attack on the US.

 

[mamooth]

I've manipulated steel and metals with torches myself, and I can tell you, the massive beams and columns of the WTC would not under normal office fire temps have let go simultaneously at all the critical support points having the same heat and intensity.

But they didn't need to let go simultaneously and have the same heat and intensity. A bunch of beams gradually weakened to various degrees. Nothing needed to be "simultaneous". And it certainly wasn't a normal office fire, as the showers of molten aluminum demonstrated. Temps that can melt aluminum can also soften steel.

That is why you can't find another building with even more intense infernos collapsing at or near free fall speeds anywhere.

There are many examples of steel-framed buildings collapsing from fire alone. So much for the "but steel conducts heat away!" theory. And when they do collapse, it's at 'near free fall' speeds.

Again I ask you to consider the report from someone who was on the scene and was reporting on the demise of WTC 7, when he said he was told that Silverstein was on the phone with his insurance company asking for permission to destroy his building CD style.

I consider it, and find it to be meaningless unsupported rumors. And it doesn't even make sense as a conspiracy theory. What, the government planted the explosives, but wouldn't finish the job until they got Silverstein's approval?

 

[Mr. Jones]

I've manipulated steel and metals with torches myself, and I can tell you, the massive beams and columns of the WTC would not under normal office fire temps have let go simultaneously at all the critical support points having the same heat and intensity.

But they didn't need to let go simultaneously and have the same heat and intensity. A bunch of beams gradually weakened to various degrees. Nothing needed to be "simultaneous". And it certainly wasn't a normal office fire, as the showers of molten aluminum demonstrated. Temps that can melt aluminum can also soften steel.

They critical support structure, in order for the collapse to be initiated seemingly at once, all of a sudden going from stable to violent collapse mode, and continue to descend downward, at or near FF speeds in the symmetrical manner witnessed, all of these support points below the collapsing upper parts had to lose their resistance simultaneously. If like you assume they did not have to, then indeed we would have witnessed the staggered, slower collapse and descent the physicists who studied the demise of the buildings concluded would have occurred. Even NIST initially said this publicly, especially when discussing WTC 7, then changed their story and report to include the 2.25 secs. of FF.
Nist has not explained the molten metal, and their spokesman denied it even existed when confronted with it. No office fire could attain the levels of heat required to over come steels strength to the extent of the WTC complex did. Again even NIST said the "jet fuel" was consumed in the initial fireball, so the molten metal in the rubble piles remains unanswered by NIST. Clearly there was some sort of accelerant that was used to achieve the high temps, but it was left up to independent study to hypothesis what it could have been, as NIST provided only evasive answers, or ignored this fact altogether.
Aluminum has a lower melting point then steel. Take a torch to a piece of aluminum and a corresponding size of steel and you would see the aluminum would melt faster, that is why welding aluminum is trickier then welding steel for first timers.

That is why you can't find another building with even more intense infernos collapsing at or near free fall speeds anywhere.

There are many examples of steel-framed buildings collapsing from fire alone. So much for the "but steel conducts heat away!" theory. And when they do collapse, it's at 'near free fall' speeds.

Lets compare apples to apples shall we? We are talking about massive fortified skyscrapers, not toy factories in third world countries.Please post any valid comparisons as no one has ever been able to. You would be the first.

Again I ask you to consider the report from someone who was on the scene and was reporting on the demise of WTC 7, when he said he was told that Silverstein was on the phone with his insurance company asking for permission to destroy his building CD style.

I consider it, and find it to be meaningless unsupported rumors. And it doesn't even make sense as a conspiracy theory. What, the government planted the explosives, but wouldn't finish the job until they got Silverstein's approval?

The point here is that it was reported, he said it and was swept under the rug. This was reported to explain why the building came down in a CD fashion, and how Silverstein "saved" lives for initiating it.

 

[eots]

so if you had a steel grill over a wood fire with a twenty mph wind in would soften and fail....lol

Yep. Provided it's a bigass bonfire, the kind where if the wind suddenly shifts directions, you lose your eyebrows. And the steel grill needs to be down low in the fire, and you've got to have more wood loaded on top of the steel grill. I know it will happen, because I did it. Quite accidentally. I was just trying to burn some big hunks of a dead tree quickly.

I the case of wtc 7 we are talking about industrial steel rated for high temperatures and covered with fireproofing and subjected to scattered fires...and yet it fell like a house of cards in secs

 

[Mr. Jones]

so if you had a steel grill over a wood fire with a twenty mph wind in would soften and fail....lol

Yep. Provided it's a bigass bonfire, the kind where if the wind suddenly shifts directions, you lose your eyebrows. And the steel grill needs to be down low in the fire, and you've got to have more wood loaded on top of the steel grill. I know it will happen, because I did it. Quite accidentally. I was just trying to burn some big hunks of a dead tree quickly.

I the case of wtc 7 we are talking about industrial steel rated for high temperatures and covered with fireproofing and subjected to scattered fires...and yet it fell like a house of cards in secs

Some people can't get that through their heads, and a lack of knowledge of fire and steels properties, combined with an unwillingness to research these things is why they end up treating this unprecedented disaster as if the WTC was made out of wood, or pasta.

 

[mamooth]

They critical support structure, in order for the collapse to be initiated seemingly at once, all of a sudden going from stable to violent collapse mode, and continue to descend downward, at or near FF speeds in the symmetrical manner witnessed, all of these support points below the collapsing upper parts had to lose their resistance simultaneously.

Totally wrong. For starters, it wasn't a symmetrical collapse. The collapse begins with the top section tipping sideways towards the damaged section.

If like you assume they did not have to, then indeed we would have witnessed the staggered, slower collapse and descent the physicists who studied the demise of the buildings concluded would have occurred.

Structural engineers say the exact opposite of these few "physicists" that someone cherrypicked. As does common sense.

Even NIST initially said this publicly, especially when discussing WTC 7, then changed their story and report to include the 2.25 secs. of FF.

Why would I believe the wild claims about NIST, when I can simply look at the report myself?

Clearly there was some sort of accelerant that was used to achieve the high temps

Clearly there's zero evidence for such a bizarre unsupported claim. And again, it doesn't even make sense as a conspiracy.

Lets compare apples to apples shall we? We are talking about massive fortified skyscrapers, not toy factories in third world countries.Please post any valid comparisons as no one has ever been able to. You would be the first.

And so the conspiracy theory is made unfalsifiable. Any steel building that collapses from a fire isn't a valid comparison, as it's not "fortified". Unless someone builds an exact twin of WTC1 and burns it down, it's not a "valid comparison".

The point here is that it was reported, he said it and was swept under the rug. This was reported to explain why the building came down in a CD fashion, and how Silverstein "saved" lives for initiating it.

Since the buildings came down in a way that didn't resemble any CD, Siiverstein's comment about pulling the fire teams seems entirely innocent and not at all newsworthy.

Some people can't get that through their heads, and a lack of knowledge of fire and steels properties, combined with an unwillingness to research these things is why they end up treating this unprecedented disaster as if the WTC was made out of wood, or pasta.

I think I'm looking at Dunning-Kruger effect in action here. That is, a couple of people too incompetent to ever understand how incompetent they are.

 

[Mr. Jones]

They critical support structure, in order for the collapse to be initiated seemingly at once, all of a sudden going from stable to violent collapse mode, and continue to descend downward, at or near FF speeds in the symmetrical manner witnessed, all of these support points below the collapsing upper parts had to lose their resistance simultaneously.

Totally wrong. For starters, it wasn't a symmetrical collapse. The collapse begins with the top section tipping sideways towards the damaged section.

WTC 7 had all the characteristics of a CD, complete with the crimp in the middle of the roof, then fell symmetrically down achieving 2.25 seconds of free fall that NIST initially denied. The towers fell straight down much the same way through the path of most resistance, just short of free fall acceleration. Totally wrong? How so? What ya got?

If like you assume they did not have to, then indeed we would have witnessed the staggered, slower collapse and descent the physicists who studied the demise of the buildings concluded would have occurred.

Structural engineers say the exact opposite of these few "physicists" that someone cherrypicked. As does common sense.

Someone cherry picked independent phycisits? Who?
For what purpose, what is to gain but ostracization and ridicule? Care to elaborate? NIST structural engineers were the ones cherry picked, government paid engineers that depend on the government for a paycheck and obviously can be reasoned, don't bite the hand that feeds them if they want job security..The independent physicists, scientist architects, engineers that spoke out on the ludicrous NIST report are independent, and not cherry picked by anyone especially the government. However there are many ex CIA FBI and government employees including military that have not caved in to pressure or intimidation and have spoken out on behalf of their nation and people.

Why would I believe the wild claims about NIST, when I can simply look at the report myself?

If you would have done the slightest bit of actual looking, you would have known that I'm referring to is straight from their report, and not "wild" claims.

Clearly there's zero evidence for such a bizarre unsupported claim. And again, it doesn't even make sense as a conspiracy.

Another base less opinion with nothing offered to back it up. Wrong. Clearly you haven't kept up after what 11 years now?There is independent analysis of incendiary compounds found at WTC. You haven't gotten it through your head that the most nonsensical of conspiracy theory is the one you hold onto as being rational, and believable, this without seemingly reading the NIST report nor doing any serious research, or study concerning the counter claims, the evidence, and the more scientific, and rational hypothesis. The 9-11 attacks are not an easy thing to try to connect the dots, however the more people take the time to learn what the complaints about the OCT are, the more they will at least have a basic understanding of why it is filled with contradictions and in some cases like the WTC, and to an extent the Pentagon, impossibilities. It seems clear you haven't done much study past maybe say, Popular Mechanics regarding the most catastrophic event on your nation in your lifetime.

And so the conspiracy theory is made unfalsifiable. Any steel building that collapses from a fire isn't a valid comparison, as it's not "fortified". Unless someone builds an exact twin of WTC1 and burns it down, it's not a "valid comparison".

Would you deem it fair to compare a Cessna or Piper to a Boeing 757? There are many hirise buildings that were not built to withstand the forces that the WTC buildings were, yet burned in inferno like fires for much longer times and did not experience global, total collapses near free fall acceleration. An honest analysis is required to realize this.The government told you what they thought happened with no proof to back up their assertions, you believe their conspiracy theory simply on their word, much like the WMD's and mushroom clouds that were all BS. Don't you think it's past time to critically think for yourself and quit depending on propaganda and lies?

The point here is that it was reported, he said it and was swept under the rug. This was reported to explain why the building came down in a CD fashion, and how Silverstein "saved" lives for initiating it.

Since the buildings came down in a way that didn't resemble any CD, Siiverstein's comment about pulling the fire teams seems entirely innocent and not at all newsworthy.

Really? what do you suppose all the fuss is about then? You may continue to deny what was the first and most noticeable aspect of the "collapses" that is your choice, but many people are not so willing to look past such an obvious thing, hell even anchorman reporting on it live as it happened said it appeared to them like CD. BTW, I wasn't referencing Silverstein's comment about pulling the fire teams, if you had been paying attention I was talking about his conversation with his insurance company that was reportedly about asking permission to CD his building. There's a link in a recent post.

Some people can't get that through their heads, and a lack of knowledge of fire and steels properties, combined with an unwillingness to research these things is why they end up treating this unprecedented disaster as if the WTC was made out of wood, or pasta.

I think I'm looking at Dunning-Kruger effect in action here. That is, a couple of people too incompetent to ever understand how incompetent they are.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes

A good self reflective observation on your part. I appreciate your self honesty. If by chance you were referring to me, perhaps you will take the time to better express your disagreements with the facts that are presented, having no solid basis for your denial of them other then responding with unsubstantiated opinions that show your ignorance of the topic is getting boring.