This is an Orange

The way the building fell is not enough evidence to accuse anyone of anything and is speculation at best.

 

Nice little conspiratorial propaganda video for the uncritical thinkers in the crowd.

 

Actually that would be one vote...sanity. I do not like to hang out in the twighlight zone.

 

You video doesn't show the whole orange. It is, at best, inconclusive.

 

Good point pretty one dimensional as is the theory.

 

So many logical fallacies:

Nice selective use of a quote without context. Also, narrator shows no knowledge of construction, physics, or architecture. As a person with a background in these, I had to laugh. This whole theory has been rebuffed before ad nasueam. WTC7 fell the same way 1 & 2 did. Foundational compromise has been the culprit for 7 because its foundation was not constructed the way some of the others were that are still standing. The details are too complex to get into.

Logic and reason (Apple) are defeating fallacy and hyperbole :laugh:

 

They were too complex for NIST, so I wouldn't expect you to try and tackle it. :thumbs:

 

I've seen the data. You just can't show it to laymen and expect them to understand it. Most people around here can't handle basic economics, basic finance, basic science, or basic math. Why should we expect folks to handle physics, engineering, etc?

If anyone would like to see the draft reports of the NIST on WTC 7, just click here: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/reports_june05.htm

I wish I could remember which building was closer but withstood, because of the foundational reinforcement and superior construction, even though it was older. It's a real testament to what Jesus said about building your house on the rock

My gut feeling is that WTC 7's demise will be blamed in part on the modifications (some because of Saloman's offices) and the antiquated codes that were relaxed (Port Authority was not under code mandates, if memory serves me right. I read that in one of the summaries moons ago). I doubt these are major culprits, but didn't help at all.

 

The narrator is asking us to believe his word. I don't.

 

The uncritical thinkers believe the lie that the government told them. Why?

 

Why should we believe the government lied to us?

 

Becauswe the "lie" being told about the government is a as big a whopper as what the government tells. And it is not believable and those telling it have no credibility.

 

Because that is what they do best?

 

NIST's investigation of WTC 7 includes an extremely complex analysis that incorporates detailed information about the building's structure and construction, as well as data about fires, damage sustained from falling WTC 1 debris and other technical factors to determine its probable collapse sequence.

"We are proceeding as quickly as possible while rigorously testing and evaluating a wide range of scenarios to reach the most definitive conclusion possible," said Shyam Sunder, WTC lead investigator for NIST. "The WTC 7 investigation is in some respects just as challenging, if not more so, than the study of the towers. However, the current study does benefit greatly from the significant technological advances achieved and lessons learned from our work on the towers."
***********************************************************

This report on WTC7 is still a draft after almost six years of study. I'm sure they are looking at a "wide range of scenarios" in an attempt to support a theory that is scientifically unsupportable.

 

There is no other credible explanation.

The film clip that is the subject of the OP is certainly not credible and shows no evidence of a controlled detonation. IE Explosions.

 

Just because there was no evidence of controlled explosions, isn't reason enough to believe that there weren't. :tongue in cheek: