Reply To: 9/11 Building 7 UAF engineering report continued.


Home Forums Discussion Forum 9/11 Building 7 UAF engineering report continued. Reply To: 9/11 Building 7 UAF engineering report continued.

#50535
Clark

Paul, I’ve read all that stuff a hundred times. It’s standard Truther lore, repeated almost identically on countless websites.

The Twin Towers collapsed in exactly the way that Newtonian physics predicts. Simulating that with explosives would not only be heinously complex and prone to failure, it would have been entirely pointless. If someone brought you an engine with a broken timing belt and mashed up valves and cylinder heads, you wouldn’t insist that the cylinder head had been removed, the damage carved by hand with a cold chisel, the cylinder head replaced and the timing belt broken deliberately to make it look like typical engine damage. The belt broke and the top end got mashed; simple.

Iron spherules are very common. They are made during welding, but you can also make them easily with a blow torch and steel wool.

I can’t interpret the thermite paper (so I very much doubt that you can either), though from memory, the energy of reaction didn’t look very impressive. But dust could have come from lots of sources other than explosives planted in the Twin Towers. There were explosives and ammunition stored on-site at the ATF offices if I remember right, and if WTC7 was rigged and brought down that afternoon, that’s another source.

People die in hospital all the time. You can’t just pick one out and claim it’s suspicious. You can ‘prove’ anything with that ‘reasoning’. Millions of people believe in horoscopes, so when they die in hospital, does that mean someone’s killing them to suppress the truth?

I can’t spend any more time on this; believe what you like. But you should at least have the common decency to object to the sort of abuse that ‘Redacted’ posted above, and the gross anti-Semitism from the likes of Dave on the other UAF thread.