WTC 7 - University of Alaska Fairbanks report.

[TheDemonLord]

And like I've said many times before - just because you don't know about something, doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.

Sure.

Just like Magic Sky Pixies.

[Katman]

Sure.

Just like Magic Sky Pixies.

Hey, if you want to believe that Magic Sky Pixies exist, don't let me stand in your way.

[TheDemonLord]

Hey, if you want to believe that Magic Sky Pixies exist, don't let me stand in your way.

Just like I don't stand in your way for thinking WTC7 was a controlled Demolition.

[Viking01]

It was magic Sky Pixies.

You don't need to explain HOW it could by Magic Sky Pixies, you just need to realise that only Magic Sky Pixies could have done it in the manner observed.



Come on, I know you to be better than that. If you can't explain the How - when you eliminate the impossible etc.

Crikey. Are we onto the WHO already ? Surmising as to possible
culprits ? I must have skipped a few posts. I'll try and keep up.

I applaud your sleight of hand.

I did do a cursory web search for "magic sky pixies", but it did
not yield any results. Let alone their possible involvement in
911. So it looks like they're in the clear from the time being.

And I couldn't find any mention of them on the AE911 Truth
website either.

Maybe it's just because scientists and engineers don't believe
in "magic sky pixies", and prefer to just deal with the mundane
(like physics and materials).

They tend to be more focused on identifying a "more likely"
scenario, instead of trying to "eliminate the impossible"(as
you mentioned).

[TheDemonLord]

Crikey. Are we onto the WHO already ? Surmising as to possible
culprits ? I must have skipped a few posts. I'll try and keep up.

I applaud your sleight of hand.

I did do a cursory web search for "magic sky pixies", but it did
not yield any results. Let alone their possible involvement in
911. So it looks like they're in the clear from the time being.

And I couldn't find any mention of them on the AE911 Truth
website either.

Maybe it's just because scientists and engineers don't believe
in "magic sky pixies", and prefer to just deal with the mundane
(like physics and materials).

They tend to be more focused on identifying a "more likely"
scenario, instead of trying to "eliminate the impossible"(as
you mentioned).

Now who is pulling a Sleight of Hand? You reject a critique that points to various impossibilities, as not needing to worry about the How.

So when I lampoon your statement with something else (specifically, something requiring things that are not known to exist - 'but could exist') - you reverse course.

Without a plausible 'How', the theory must be rejected.

AE911 for Truth, Pilots for Truth, and all the other 'for truth' sites - represent a fringe minority, often with a priori viewpoints (which color their claimed objectivity) and when looking at their membership numbers, a large number have only fringe involvement with the fields they claim allegiance to.

[Viking01]

Now who is pulling a Sleight of Hand? You reject a critique that points to various impossibilities, as not needing to worry about the How.

So when I lampoon your statement with something else (specifically, something requiring things that are not known to exist - 'but could exist') - you reverse course.

Without a plausible 'How', the theory must be rejected.

AE911 for Truth, Pilots for Truth, and all the other 'for truth' sites - represent a fringe minority, often with a priori viewpoints (which color their claimed objectivity) and when looking at their membership numbers, a large number have only fringe involvement with the fields they claim allegiance to.

On the contrary, I did give you a very plausible HOW. A "controlled
demolition".

What I did not do was seek to prescribe the exact manner in which
it was accomplished, recognising that there will undoubtedly be
several.

And I will continue to respect your right to your opinion, on the
topic of supposed fringe groups or other.

Though I don't necessarily feel the need to debate it (or them)
on this forum or other.

[TheDemonLord]

On the contrary, I did give you a very plausible HOW. A "controlled
demolition".

What I did not do was seek to prescribe the exact manner in which
it was accomplished, recognising that there will undoubtedly be
several.

And that's no more or no less of a Cop-out than Magic Sky Pixies.

[Katman]

And that's no more or no less of a Cop-out than Magic Sky Pixies.

The 'exact manner' in which the buildings collapsed is what should be the subject of a thorough and independent investigation.

Instead it was left up to NIST and the 9/11 Commission - which, as I've pointed out many times, was 'set up to fail' (according to one of the Commission's Chairmen).

[Viking01]

And that's no more or no less of a Cop-out than Magic Sky Pixies.

Well, given my lack of practical experience with demolishing buildings,
I thought it a quite reasonable qualification to make.

But since it's obviously of interest to you, and because you asked so
nicely, perhaps I can offer the following. There are four video clips
in total.

https://www.veteranstodayarchives.co...-in-car-crash/

Please note that no magic sky pixies were injured in the making
of these video clips.

[austingtir]

Some people just simply cant accept whats right in front of them....

This guy is on the money:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnmXUNnhexs

[TheDemonLord]

Well, given my lack of practical experience with demolishing buildings,
I thought it a quite reasonable qualification to make.

But since it's obviously of interest to you, and because you asked so
nicely, perhaps I can offer the following. There are four video clips
in total.

https://www.veteranstodayarchives.co...-in-car-crash/

Please note that no magic sky pixies were injured in the making
of these video clips.

Seeing as we are playing the Video game - I managed to track down the video I was thinking of:



Specifically - skip to 12:40 - now, putting aside the relative strengths of material and the crudeness of the Experiment (designed to advance the 'truther' claims), something interesting happens at the 12:53 mark - you see the bottom blow out, but all the middle/top sections have been weakened, Now, the explosives for some of those layers haven't gone off (since they are still intact) - and yet, if you notice, the top 7-8 levels all fail pretty much instantly. Considering the relative forces involved and the strength of materials, it demonstrates how a small failure (a single floor) on a much larger building could cause a cascading failure due to momentum.

[Katman]

Specifically - skip to 12:40 - now, putting aside the relative strengths of material and the crudeness of the Experiment (designed to advance the 'truther' claims), something interesting happens at the 12:53 mark - you see the bottom blow out, but all the middle/top sections have been weakened, Now, the explosives for some of those layers haven't gone off (since they are still intact) - and yet, if you notice, the top 7-8 levels all fail pretty much instantly. Considering the relative forces involved and the strength of materials, it demonstrates how a small failure (a single floor) on a much larger building could cause a cascading failure due to momentum.

While I'm not really sure how an experiment involving cardboard and paper is relevant to the collapse of the twin towers - this thread is specifically about WTC 7.

If there is no logical explanation for the collapse of building 7 (in the manner that we saw it) that fits with the official story, then a new investigation must surely be warranted.

And if it is proven that the collapse of building 7 could only have been achieved by controlled means then it stands to reason that everything about the official story of that day is based on lies.

[TheDemonLord]

While I'm not really sure how an experiment involving cardboard and paper is relevant to the collapse of the twin towers - this thread is specifically about WTC 7.

If there is no logical explanation for the collapse of building 7 (in the manner that we saw it) that fits with the official story, then a new investigation must surely be warranted.

And if it is proven that the collapse of building 7 could only have been achieved by controlled means then it stands to reason that everything about the official story of that day is based on lies.

And if a new investigation showed definitively that it wasn't a controlled Demolition - would you accept it?

If the answer is yes, then fair enough, let's go.

But I'd be tempted to bet my House that were such a report to be done, you wouldn't - trotting out the usual apologia.....

[Katman]

And if a new investigation showed definitively that it wasn't a controlled Demolition - would you accept it?

If the answer is yes, then fair enough, let's go.

If it was a full investigation done by an independent body, with absolute transparency, then yes.

[Viking01]

And if a new investigation showed definitively that it wasn't a controlled Demolition - would you accept it?

If the answer is yes, then fair enough, let's go.

But I'd be tempted to bet my House that were such a report to be done, you wouldn't - trotting out the usual apologia.....

That sounds fair enough. Though I would like to see and review the
Scope document first to see what they propose to cover.

And see who is proposed to perform and review the analysis process.

And whether any supposed fringe groups (like those AE911 people)
are to be involved.

Though, just as an observation, most of the scientists and engineers
that I've ever worked with have tended to keep their fringes short
and well manicured.