The chain of evidence behind the attack being carried out by Islamic extremists backed by Al Qaeda is extensive and a continuation for a campaign that was constantly ramping up. There’s no need except an emotional one to extend the conspiracy to bombs planted inside the buildings themselves.
If the intent was to trigger the kind of event that would allow a political agenda to be forced on an unwilling nation, engaging in the kind of extensive plot that would require the participation of not just hundreds but likely thousands of people to pull off at the level the attack occurred would make it almost certain that there would be a substantive leak of information…think of what’s going on now with one of America’s most security conscious organizations the NSA and its inability to prevent the leaking of very damaging information on it’s activities.
The preping of all the WTC buildings for complete demolition would have required the movement of massive amounts of explosives and extensive work to place and prepare the charges…in secure buildings.
Fuzzy, this is the Center for Inquiry, not the center for disingenuous remarks and strawmen. I think you should also consider the title of the thread you are posting in.
Nothing you have written above is relevant to the question of how WTC 7 collapsed in the way it collapsed. I made the simple observation that it is reasonable for a forensic investigation into this question to examine the available physical evidence—indeed it is hard to imagine how the investigation could have been reasonably called “forensic” without doing so. This is not an emotional argument; yours is plainly an appeal to incredulity.
And it’s not credible to claim WTC 7 was the main target and it alone was rigged for demolition if you’re advocating the demolition hypothesis.
Please quote back from this thread where you think I’ve made this claim. You cannot do so, because you’re creating a strawman. It’s disingenuous remarks like this that have caused this thread to become so extended.
So we have good evidence for the most likely causes of the buildings failures, the impact of fuel ladden aircraft on the two towers leading to eventual failure. The collapse of WTC 1 sent debris that impacted and damaged WTC 7 and started fires that could potentially have involved several thousand gallons of diesel fuel.
Again, not relevant to the question of how the building collapsed in the way it collapsed, and adding in your own speculation about diesel which was ruled out by the investigating authority. If you’re going to create a theory that you think supersedes the NIST theory, you really should be clear about that.
The chaos caused by the terrorist attack makes finding definitive answers difficult, so speculation becomes much more possible.
My take on this issue is that some people continue to push it in the beliefs that at some point there will be someone on the “inside” finally speaking out…which I find is a fairly forlorn hope as anyone inclined to do so probably would have a long time ago.
It would have required too many people to pull this off without leaving a detectable trail from other sources than questionable results from a collapse model that relies on incomplete data by its very nature.
Argument from incredulity. You should address the facts of how the building fell and the official explanation’s omission of critical available information, but of course you cannot.
Personally I find this endless, “prove my conspiracy theories wrong to my satisfaction or I’m right” approach dishonest from a scientific standpoint.
The onus is on the parties making the claim, if you have the evidence then publish it in credible scientific journals where it can be verified by other professionals.
More strawmen; also double standards. Was the NIST report published in credible scientific journals? Why should it not be subject to independent peer review, given that the NIST theory is based on the supposed discovery of a new phenomenon? As it has not been, why are you defending it by demanding that others fufill criteria the NIST report fails to fulfil itself?
The onus on me to prove my assertion that the so-called forensic report into what caused the building to collapsed involved examining precisely zero evidence was easily answered. None of your remarks have addressed this simple point; all of them have tried to obfuscate it.
And even then the story won’t be over…which is the whole point of science.
So what’s really driving this topic is likely politics.
You’re welcome to speculate on this point, but perhaps you should show how the position you take on what you believe caused the building to collapse is supported by any kind of investigative application of the scientific method. Otherwise you’ll just look like a hypocrite, won’t you.