How about that Ken Rockwell

[Carnos Jax]

ztirffritz wrote:
[quote=decay]
i agree with him.

there has never been a good, believable explanation.

You're kidding, right? Two of the tallest buildings in the city collapse and you don't think that a third building next to it might be affected? The fact that it didn't liquify the ground at Ground Zero and bring down several blocks is a miracle in my opinion.
I always assumed debris from one of the other towers took out WTC 7. But I never thought deeply about it. The ground 'liquifying' as a result of the collapse of the other two towers (and hence the 'earthquakes' they might have generated) seems plausible, but has anyone actually looked into it? Now that i think about it, why didn't WTC 7 collapse immediately as a result of the liquefaction (I assume it was some time afterwards).

[decay]

my first link is the official breakdown of what happened.

the 2nd is the skeptic site.

posted both for balance.

[Carnos Jax]

decay wrote:
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/w...s_wtc7.cfm

http://www.wtc7.net/

Interesting decay. So NIST (which is a respected organization) says it was fire initiated by debris from the collapse of WTC's 1 & 2? Considering they're reputation, I can accept that...it seems plausible to me. But it seems they're suggesting WTC 7 is almost unique (compared to other tall buildings around the world) in its vulnerability to collapse due to fire (needless to say that was what (primarily?) caused WTC's 1 & 2's collapse).

[Uncle Wig]

decay wrote:
my first link is the official breakdown of what happened.

the 2nd is the skeptic site.

posted both for balance.

In your first statement you say that there has never been a good, believable explanation. But you post a link to exactly that. Why you'd believe a conspiracy site without a shred of evidence and no expertise over a thorough engineering-based study is baffling to me.

[vision63]

Uncle Wig wrote:
[quote=decay]
my first link is the official breakdown of what happened.

the 2nd is the skeptic site.

posted both for balance.

In your first statement you say that there has never been a good, believable explanation. But you post a link to exactly that. Why you'd believe a conspiracy site without a shred of evidence and no expertise over a thorough engineering-based study is baffling to me.
Because -

Milhouse:The Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people.
Bart: Thank You!
Milhouse: Under the supervision of the reverse vampires, are forcing our parents to go to bed early, in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner. We're through the looking glass here, people.

[decay]

don't you think that a thorough study could be biased in any way?

that the 'powers that be' have no influence on the official explanation?

ever hear of the Kennedy Assassination?

[hal]

There was a quite a large contingent within this group that suspected the bush admin of complicity in 911 - good thing that most of the archives are lost now. Decay wasn't alone - many are still here... they're just quiet about it now...

[pRICE cUBE]

Believe what you will but I certainly wouldn't get my 9/11 news from a guy who is known for "reviewing" lenses he doesn't actually have in his possession for testing.

[M A V I C]

pRICE cUBE wrote:
Believe what you will but I certainly wouldn't get my 9/11 news from a guy who is known for just making stuff up and calling it true.

Fixed.

[Lew Zealand]

decay wrote:
don't you think that a thorough study could be biased in any way?

Yes. Bias is everywhere. You are implying fabrication and conspiracy, though, which is different.

decay wrote:
that the 'powers that be' have no influence on the official explanation?

Yes. Influence is different than fabrication and conspiracy.

decay wrote:
ever hear of the Kennedy Assassination?

Yes. He apparently was assassinated but that was before my time so I have to assume that his presidency was also fabricated. In fact, I've never been to Dallas so Dallas is fabricated, too.

Probably out of concrete and glass.