This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
goodlil666 · 51-55, M
Look at the science of how the building was designed, the fact that some of the lower parts of the structure were damaged in the collapse of the north tower and that a fire burned for 8 hrs through the structure unattended and it's clear what happened to it.
1-25 of 39
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
goodlil666 · 51-55, M
@TheEmperor Sorry no bombs , like I said research the facts and not some conspiracy theorists spin on what happened.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
goodlil666 · 51-55, M
@TheEmperor I have done the research if you want to know the truth then you look it up like I did. You prove that bombs did it.....
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@TheEmperor There is absolutely no evidence that bombs took down Building 7. Structural engineers who examined the collapse concluded based on the evidence that it was due to damage done by the tower collapse and the fire that burned for hours. That's exactly what would be expected and what the poster indicated.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@TheEmperor Nope. Not directly. The damage from an adjacent collapsing building followed by a fire burning for hours weakened the structure and took it down. The only surprise was that it took as long as it did.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@TheEmperor It is based on a scientific evaluation of the building collapse. You may not be familiar with science and how it is applied to facts. You can read the report by NIST here:
govinfo.gov/app/details/GOVPUB-C13-4d4c17460292ee57ef313f6491fa8d1e
govinfo.gov/app/details/GOVPUB-C13-4d4c17460292ee57ef313f6491fa8d1e
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@TheEmperor A licensed professional engineer with 45 years of experience, including structural analysis of building structures.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@TheEmperor I don't have to. I know what I have spent a lifetime doing. It is clear you don't understand the scientific process and how it works.
Vin53 · M
@windinhishair This is a confirmed meritless troll you're dealing with. just fyi.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Vin53 · M
@TheEmperor When you make a thread around an unfounded absurd assertion the onus is yours to prove it. You don't prove anything you assert ever. Facts.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@TheEmperor King Charles would be a better choice than an ambulance driver. At least he understands the scientific process.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@Vin53 Yes. He's a new troll that has so little experience and expertise that he continually disproves his own arguments, so I am enjoying exposing them.
Vin53 · M
@TheEmperor Prove this
bombs
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@TheEmperor There is nothing at all wrong with that. But you really shouldn't try to get so far outside your area of expertise that you directly contradict the experts who actually understand an issue. I didn't personally examine the data on the Building 7 collapse, so I rely on structural experts and direct testimony and information from the building on September 11, 2001. I would have an issue if it wasn't congruent with sound science. For example, if they concluded that Jewish Space Lasers brought down the building, I would question that conclusion.
1-25 of 39