Paulie
Diamond Member
- May 19, 2007
- 40,769
- 6,386
- 1,830
I never said the bandana looked like it wasn't worn. To the contrary, I believe it WAS worn because of the way it's folded. And because we know that the terrorists were wearing red bandanas, I came to the LOGICAL CONCLUSION that it was a terrorist's bandana.
As far as your explanation for WTC7, I thought we've been through that already. NIST has said themselves in their August '08 update that 7 didn't collapse because of collateral damage, but instead because of "office contents fires". They even ruled out diesel fuel as well.
You seem to have a pre-conceived notion of how it collapsed because you believe it makes the most sense, even though NIST doesn't seem to agree with you at this point. Either you aren't staying current on the facts, or you're ignoring some to support what you want to believe.
If NIST had stayed with collateral damage like they originally stated in '04, I might be able to buy that. But they abandoned it and instead insist that it was mainly office contents fires. I see pictures of the building with only a few floors burning and it insults my intelligence to accept that a bunch of office junk is burning hot enough to weaken a steel-reinforced structure to the point of a virtually symmetrical free fall collapse into a neat little pile in its footprint.
It's the manner of collapse that causes me to question it. If the building had fallen to the side where the collateral damage supposedly blew out a chunk of the south face, I'd probably be able to accept the explanation. I would expect gravity to take over in that instance and bring the weight crashing down to the direction where the weakest support was, causing a collapse that looked nothing like what actually happened.
But I'm not a physicist, structural engineer, demo expert, whatever. I just know what SEEMS to make the most sense, in my rudimentary knowledge of those subjects. Just like if terrorists are wearing red bandanas, and a red bandana is found at the crash site, it most likely belonged to a terrorist.
As far as your explanation for WTC7, I thought we've been through that already. NIST has said themselves in their August '08 update that 7 didn't collapse because of collateral damage, but instead because of "office contents fires". They even ruled out diesel fuel as well.
You seem to have a pre-conceived notion of how it collapsed because you believe it makes the most sense, even though NIST doesn't seem to agree with you at this point. Either you aren't staying current on the facts, or you're ignoring some to support what you want to believe.
If NIST had stayed with collateral damage like they originally stated in '04, I might be able to buy that. But they abandoned it and instead insist that it was mainly office contents fires. I see pictures of the building with only a few floors burning and it insults my intelligence to accept that a bunch of office junk is burning hot enough to weaken a steel-reinforced structure to the point of a virtually symmetrical free fall collapse into a neat little pile in its footprint.
It's the manner of collapse that causes me to question it. If the building had fallen to the side where the collateral damage supposedly blew out a chunk of the south face, I'd probably be able to accept the explanation. I would expect gravity to take over in that instance and bring the weight crashing down to the direction where the weakest support was, causing a collapse that looked nothing like what actually happened.
But I'm not a physicist, structural engineer, demo expert, whatever. I just know what SEEMS to make the most sense, in my rudimentary knowledge of those subjects. Just like if terrorists are wearing red bandanas, and a red bandana is found at the crash site, it most likely belonged to a terrorist.
this thread has got to be brought back.
