This is the most ridiculous crap that I have seen you try to pass off as logic so far. Office furniture doesn't continue to burn in one place for 7 hours. It spreads across the building. This is stated matter-of-factly in the NIST's own findings, even though they minimized it. http://911research.wtc7.net/letters/nist/WTC7Comments_JCole.html Page 330 Section 8.4.1 (NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 1): “Prediction and growth of building contents fires (Chapter 9) indicated that such fires did not persist at any one location for more then about 20 min to 30 min., which is consistent with observations of fires in the windows (Chapter 5).” Certain areas burn out because they do not have fuel to continue "weakening the structure", which you couldn't even argue effectively about with JET-A fuel provided by a passenger jet.* Office furniture is not going to melt steel. Yet there was molten steel at the base of WTC7. Oh yeah, and evidence of thermite. Never mind the fact that the top 100 feet of the structure fell at proven free-fall speeds...* Free-fall. Not collapsing floor by floor, pulverizing compromised infrastructure, falling unobstructed by such infrastructure. More info here: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...aud-exposed-in-nist-wtc-7-reports-part-1.html http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...ator-john-mccain-free-falls-on-911-again.html I see. So you can't find anything stating that they were designed to fall straight down. That would have been an acceptable answer, but instead you fell all over yourself trying to justify your false and presumptuous statements with this: That's a pretty picture you did there. It does leave out the fact that the stairwells located at the central core of the structure were reinforced and would have provided a resistance to the speed of collapse that is not evident by the 10 seconds it took for each of the two main towers to collapse, but I won't dispute your assumption, even though you have already claimed multiple times to have no knowledge of engineering. The fire systems being offline is irrelevant to the conversation, since that is not the argument, since the argument is about whether those uncontrolled fires could have weakened the structure significantly enough to cause a full collapse. You still have not provided anything convincing to state that. I really didn't have any issue with the idea that the buildings would be designed to fall in such a way (although the idea that they were designed to fall that way at free-fall speed is fucking ludicrous), but I figured you were basing your multiple assertions of fact that they were actually designed that way were based upon something other than an assumption (see Occam's Razor, next post).
continued You seem to be ignorant of the purpose of secure compartmented information. It's designed to avoid the many minor players having any knowledge of the real goal of whatever project is being worked on and therefore leaves them as moles in the dark about knowledge of the scope or goals or even the other departments at work for that project. Having that separation of knowledge creates the ability to deny multiple entities working in unison because they don't realize they were part of one big project. Example: And I'm just hypothesizing here, as opposed to assuming. The security firm Securacom had security contracts with the WTC, American Airlines and Dulles at the time of the 9/11 events. In the weeks prior to the events, there were multiple power outages, evacuations and floor shutdowns of the towers. No doubt the 27th floor security personnel for Tower 1 had no idea what anyone at security for Dulles International was doing during those weeks, much less anyone working for American Airlines. They were just providing a security detail for probably not that much money, probably just escorting "maintenance personnel" around to "fix" something which they really had no expertise in. The only thing that makes it at all fishy, other than the three insanely coincidental locations those contracts were securing, is the fact that Marvin Bush, younger brother of Dubya, was on the board of directors for Securacom from 1993-2000. And really, if NYC or Washington were bombed instead of Japan, the Manhattan Project would never have been declassified. It's odd that you will refer to multiple investigations - which multiple investigations are those, by the way? - without actually citing details of those investigations or the fact that there was no peer review done to those investigations that were performed by a private engineering group. That's not Occam's Razor at work. That's your misapplication of Occam's Razor at work. As you are so often guilty of. The most common description of Occam’s Razor, and the most abused for its simplistic interpretation (possibly applying Occam's Razor to the definition of Occam's Razor), is that the simplest answer is most often correct. A more correct definition of Occam's Razor is that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. I have seen nothing at all in your responses but assumption. It's pretty much the opposite of the principle you keep trumpeting. You are using Occam's Razor as an excuse for anything that actual investigation into would result in a conclusion that you would not be comfortable with.* That's not rationalism or logic, it's cowardice. And it always comes back to this with you. When the facts of the issue aren't conducive to your argument, distract from the actual argument by attacking the why instead of the how. There are thousands of architects and engineers that question the how that is provided by the NIST's inadequate report of their farce of an investigation into this, after all of the actual evidence from that event was summarily and immediately destroyed within weeks of the event (and sold to China as scrap, heh), and they have reason to - they are experts in the field that the NIST's report boasts of explaining. But I guess they're just a bunch of nuts and loons. And when the reason for How turns out to be a very questionable explanation, it's impossible not to hypothesize as to Why. Even if we may never know the honest truth. Call me a Nut. Call me a Loon. I will take that title any day of the week in favor of Ignorant, Sanctimonious Shill.
I just noticed this part. There is along undeniable history of this kind of behavior. I am somewhat disappointed in this kind of thinking. The benefit from the long term goals of the PNAC would far outweight the short term hit on our economy,besides the elite do not give a shit about you or me,as long as some pipelines,business and control can continue to make them stronger and wealthier. There is so much more to this than you try to simplify. There is the invasion of Iraq,Afghanistan,the Caspian sea pipeline,Iraqi Oil fields, The ability to use "terrorism" as a reason to manipulate the public into accepting a police state,NSA surveillance,weapon dealing and selling off stock piles,defense contracts,the loss of documentation on pending law suits on Enron,wall street etc in the "collapse" the list could go on and on.
And then there is the proposed natural gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey (through Syria) that Assad has been bobbing because his boy Putin would lose a ton of money in Russian natural gas exports...
