Why is that.......

reply to post by Cassius666


The reason you had not heard of Quintiere and his work is because you didn't look for it. You have only looked for websites that confirm your position. If you do not even know about the basic research that was done, then your position is ill informed. Or in other words, your position is baseless and motivated by other things than what engineers or scientists say. And no, you won't get a Youtube video. That is not how science works.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ANOK

 

Because saying a building has collapsed when it hasn't, and then lo and behold it does, is more than a 'mistake'.

And declaring a Government official dead, is an acceptable mistake, or falsely telling us that people have survied a mining accident is acceptable?

Again, an superb illustration of my point. Any other news story, you will accept a MAJOR error.....however, for 9/11, you will accept NO errors. I was not surprised that you would be among the first to comment.

if a child runs into the kitchen and tells her mom that 8 people are walking toward the kitchen door and she was mistaken because it was actually 6, that's not a big deal, you just blow it off as she miscounted.......when the girl comes into the kitchen and tells her mom that the fridgerator has collapsed when it's clearly still standing there, the mother thinks she must be just mistaken, but, when the fridgerator actually collapses 30 minutes later, that's when mom's eyes get huge and she wonders how she knew the fridgerator was going to collapse....

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Cassius666
Study? Make your own experiment. You like BBQ? Dose it in fuel set it on fire, keep dosing it in fuel and tell us how long it took for the steel to weaken to the point of collapse.

For me the actual experiments by professional experts are way more valuable than some irrelevant experiment suggested by some conspiracy guy on the internet who doesn't seem to know a thing about the subject.

So I will have to go with what engineers and architects say on that subject.

As long as those engineers and architects agree with your presupposed position, which is a minority. Why do you ignore the results of NIST and Quintiere?

why would you OSers even keep asking that question over and over and over and over and over???????

Originally posted by patternfinder
if a child runs into the kitchen and tells her mom that 8 people are walking toward the kitchen door and she was mistaken because it was actually 6, that's not a big deal, you just blow it off as she miscounted.......when the girl comes into the kitchen and tells her mom that the fridgerator has collapsed when it's clearly still standing there, the mother thinks she must be just mistaken, but, when the fridgerator actually collapses 30 minutes later, that's when mom's eyes get huge

and she wonders how she knew the fridgerator was going to collapse....

Because the stove and the dishwasher had already collapsed, and the fridgerator was on fire and kind of leaning funny.

reply to post by patternfinder


Your post is so far from making any kind of sense its funny. My post was about how truthers wont think twice about major errors made by the media any other time....but they will jump all over a major error made by the BBC.

yeah, like how the OS mob cling to every NIST word like its gospel, regardless of its gaping holes and omissions,but refuse to accept evidence from architects, controlled demo experts,former US military top brass,pilots etc etc who DISAGREE entirely with your position and also find it so funny as to be ridiculous.

If you cannot see the problems on 9/11, including WTC7 and its partial free fall collapse, you are beyond help and are clearly trolling.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by patternfinder

 

Your post is so far from making any kind of sense its funny. My post was about how truthers wont think twice about major errors made by the media any other time....but they will jump all over a major error made by the BBC.

It's been explained to you why you are wrong on this by me and others.

Saying something happened when it hadn't, and then it does, is not a mistake.

Saying someone is dead, when they are not, is a mistake, but if they died 30 minutes later someone would be asking questions.

reply to post by benoni

Another stunning example of someone who fails to pay attention. I DONT cling to every word of the NIST report, because I realize that their investigation is the result of educated guesses. No investigation of any kind into the building collapses would be anything different. For one to know EXACTLY how and why the buildings collapsed, there were have had to been data collection throughout the buildings to give the data showing what failed when, what the exact temperatures were, and the extent of the damage. Absent that information, all anyone can do is make an educated guess.

As for the list of "professionals" who disagree with the "OS" most of them have never bothered to look into the subject more than reading what is on conspiracy sites or shown to them by conspiracy nuts. You bring out an architect who proclaims the buildings shouldnt have fallen...I will show you a structural engineer who is amazed they stood as long as they did. You bring forth a "controlled demolition" expert who says the buildings were demo'd...I will show you one that will say the amount of explosives needed to bring down those three buildings would have produced a shock wave that would have blown out every window in lower Manhatten....not to mention the eardrums of EVERYONE in the area. You bring out Jones and his magic hush a boom thermite....and I am just going to laugh because of all the assumptions that are made about the subject. Face it, its could be like any court case, you have your experts, I have mine and the deciding evidence would be the physical evidence.......of which you have NONE.....and I have a bunch.

reply to post by ANOK


You can try to coat it any way you want to, but in the end, you are still just trying to make your viewpoint look sensible. The BBC made a mistake, one of about a dozen made that day by various media outlets. Trying to convert it into something its not, is silly.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
And declaring a Government official dead, is an acceptable mistake, or falsely telling us that people have survied a mining accident is acceptable?

People die all the time.

How often do skyscrapers collapse?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ANOK

 

You can try to coat it any way you want to, but in the end, you are still just trying to make your viewpoint look sensible. The BBC made a mistake, one of about a dozen made that day by various media outlets. Trying to convert it into something its not, is silly.

This is a stupid argument, but no you are wrong.

How would the press even make this mistake when they get their press releases from outside of their office? Do you think the woman reading the report wrote the report? No, the report would have come as a press release from the government, or other press on the scene, they obviously either sent it in too early. Or the collapse was supposed to have happened, and it was postponed for a few minutes, after the press release was sent.

But it's not even a relevant point when there is so much physical evidence that WTC 7 was 'pulled'.

Put the two together, and you might be able to see how astronomical the odds would be that the BBC could make a mistake about something that happened 15 minutes later, or whatever it was.

No coating needed, just common sense.

reply to post by ANOK


Press releases? Seriously? You think PR folks were issuing press releases that day?

Someone heard that they were expecting 7 to fall, and between them and the reporter it became 7 had fallen...no less, no more.

reply to post by -PLB-


So you have no material about this experiment of his or even a video?

Not to be nitpicky, but didn't the BBC reporter say "WTC 7 has collapsed or is collapsing" ?

The second half implies that they received report that the building was showing signs of collapse. Maybe dangerous leaning, or debris. We can't know for sure what the raw information was. Imagine if a reporter was running from the scene because firefighters were yelling for people to stay out the area, saying WTC 7 could collapse, and in the noise, only heard WTC 7.... collapse! So, they sent that back through the lines.

It really isn't a good way to say conspiracy.

If I recall, another mistake made by media was when the first tower collapsed. The reporter kept saying that only part of the building had collapsed, though by the logic here, he should have been well aware that the whole building came down, right?

reply to post by Varemia


Do you have Google?

06:31 ~5:00 PM: The anchor states:
The 47-story Solomon Brothers', situated very close to the World Trade Center, has also just collapsed.

wtc7.net...

It was also reported too ealry by Fox News. Obviously it came from one press report, two stations are not going to make the same mistake.

"...we are getting word from New York that another building has collapsed and we understand this is a 47 story building ... is that smoke coming from this third collapse?"

"Take a look at that right hand of the screen."

"It's going down right now."

whatreallyhappened.com...

reply to post by ANOK


Alright, maybe I am remembering a different report then, sorry.

I'm not really feeling like doing a ton of research when I know that you people won't even consider a variable possibility. If you cannot even consider a second side to a story, then you are a bad scientist.

Plus, I'm a full time college student who's here because he got sick and was so bored, this was the best place to go. Apologies for not being "up on my facts" like people who currently have theirs stored in recent memory. But, I will not guarantee that I will return to my active debating like before. I just don't see the point. You are a believer, and like a believer, you will shun the non-believers, as it were.

reply to post by ANOK


Kinda like them reporting, briefly, that Flight 93 had landed in Cleveland. Another media screwup that day that most truthers now acknowledge was a mistake.

reply to post by Cassius666


I have. The sad thing is that you can't get this material without someone spoon feeding you. If you had the slightest genuine interest you would have figured it out.

reply to post by ANOK


Thats kinda like how they said a "small" plane hit the WTC/

Or how car bombs exploded at the State Dept. Or on the Brooklyn Bridge. Or Car bombs on the Mall.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK

 

Thats kinda like how they said a "small" plane hit the WTC/

Or how car bombs exploded at the State Dept. Or on the Brooklyn Bridge. Or Car bombs on the Mall.

No it's not, does it have to be explained over and over again before you lot get it?

They didn't say there were car bombs, and then car bombs happen 15 minutes later. That is the point you keep missing. Mistakes are mistakes, not predictions.

How do two different news agencies make the same 'mistake'? They obvioulsy both had the same press release.
The event happened, afterwords, just as they reported it, that is one hell of a 'mistake'.

But I have taken note how desperate you all seem to dispel this fact.