hi i just thought id try out this methodology of doing something/analyzing something and see how it works.

 

let us look at september 11 from a scientific perspective. i will try to "model" it, please someone comment on somethings if they want... i will assign just one or two things to the fact column (no one debates these they are easily verified observations, no one would doubt them,) then the opposing explanations in there relevant column and see how we go from there... ( i have never done this before but its so easy and makes so much sense etc) please just look at pic briefly on google too of what it *used* to look like (wtc7) ( if i could i would have 3 separate vertical columns with the facts in the middle but this was easier-

 

FACTS

1-wtc 7 a 47 story building collapsed neatly into itself

2-no plane hit it

3-eyewitness report hearing explosions at ground level

4-larry silverstein on youtube says "we made the decision to pull it"

5-unreaacted thermatic material was found in numerous areas surrounding that whole area- (link to literature below)

 

 

OFFICIAL STORY MODEL

 

1-no problem *fire* caused it

2-*semi* no problem falling debris landed on it and started the fires

3-*problem* how does this get explained?

4-*hmmmm* well maybe he was referring to something completely unrelated to this building and controlled demolition.

5-i dont know what they say about this... (someone else comment please)

 

 

CONTROLLED DEMOLITION EXPLOSIVES MODEL

 

1-fine obv

2-again fine obv

3-makes sense in this model

4-again no problem at all

5-self explanatory....

 

http://nielsharrit.org/ (thermite literature)

 

please comment and add things if you want or explain to me its shortcomings thanks

Edited May 18, 201213 yr by sammy7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvj6zdWLUuk#t=31s

 

If you can listen to this without a lump in your throat you aren't human!

http://vimeo.com/14880810

Recommended reading:

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18

no offense but i can hardly believe how unscientific these so called "scientists" (misnomer) are (dawkins randi etc) im taking an objective look at the situation myself and hence why both models are up there, using the model please put in your points that you think are relevant thanks.

FACTS

2-no plane hit it

/

 

This video looks genuine to me. Also many eyewitnesses give the time of impact making nonsense of digital skullduggery .

 

Edited May 19, 201213 yr by Joatmon

This video looks genuine to me. Also many eyewitnesses give the time of impact making nonsense of digital skullduggery .

 

 

hi i appreciate your objective reply as not everyone seems interested in doing it, that said the video you posted is of a plane hitting tower 1 or 2 (the twin towers) -no one doubts this, my "model" is for tower 7 (wtc-7). thank you.

This video looks genuine to me. Also many eyewitnesses give the time of impact making nonsense of digital skullduggery .

 

 

hi i appreciate your objective reply as not everyone seems interested in doing it, that said the video you posted is of a plane hitting tower 1 or 2 (the twin towers) -no one doubts this, my "model" is for tower 7 (wtc-7). thank you.

 

Sorry - don't know anything about tower 7. I thought you were giving credence to the number of conspiracy theories about the whole horrific business.

 

 

 

What's the point of this thread?

As far as I can see all the issues were already covered here

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/61324-science-proves-twin-towers-were-demolished/

 

And here

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/24987-911-wtc-molten-metal/

 

And here

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/17133-is-this-thermite/page__hl__thermate

 

And in each case the science says the same thing.

ahh thanks dude, im new here just trying to get something going...gr8 links thanks