Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

cpwm17

(3,829 posts)
5. According to the engineers that studied WTC 7
Thu Jul 11, 2013, 11:30 AM
Jul 2013

why did it collapse?

What problems do you have with their conclusions?

What qualifications do you have to doubt the conclusions of the engineering and scientific community?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

thanks and k & r! eom wildbilln864 Jul 2013 #1
Interesting.. truebrit71 Jul 2013 #2
LOL, only 30% of people still have questions about 9/11? Big deal. 30% of Americans.... Logical Jul 2013 #3
"That means 70% of Americans think it is full of crap" - no it doesn't ConcernedCanuk Jul 2013 #7
LOL, ok, 30% is a lot. n-t Logical Jul 2013 #8
Yep. It is a lot. Practically 1 in each 3 individuals. n/t ocpagu Jul 2013 #17
LOL, 30% of people believe Cloud Computing involves actual Clouds..... Logical Jul 2013 #19
Only 1% of Americans have PhDs Ace Acme Oct 2013 #53
the k Berlum Jul 2013 #4
According to the engineers that studied WTC 7 cpwm17 Jul 2013 #5
What is the "engineering and scientific community"? ocpagu Jul 2013 #18
A couple – not even close cpwm17 Jul 2013 #47
Right. ocpagu Jul 2013 #48
Not everyone who does any work for the US Government is in on some big conspiracy cpwm17 Jul 2013 #49
One problem is that the computer models show the building folding up like a wet paper bag Ace Acme Oct 2013 #54
"Rethink" Richard Gage's version of 9/11? Why? William Seger Jul 2013 #6
Not only the event of 9/11 damnedifIknow Jul 2013 #9
All the more reason... William Seger Jul 2013 #10
We've never...... Frank_Norris_Lives Jul 2013 #11
Because we've never... William Seger Jul 2013 #12
Actually..... Frank_Norris_Lives Jul 2013 #13
We've never had 767s flying at 500+ mph... William Seger Jul 2013 #14
You're right! Frank_Norris_Lives Jul 2013 #20
Friction. AtheistCrusader Jul 2013 #23
Undoubtedly there is.... Frank_Norris_Lives Jul 2013 #36
Where else COULD it smoulder? AtheistCrusader Jul 2013 #37
Damn, my scoutmaster lied to me.... Frank_Norris_Lives Jul 2013 #41
Your scoutmaster is the reason people will run over a pit full of hot coals with their car AtheistCrusader Jul 2013 #43
Fire is hot, water is wet, and other revelations William Seger Jul 2013 #26
As I have sworn.... Frank_Norris_Lives Jul 2013 #35
He clearly made a mistake about that paper, but AtheistCrusader Jul 2013 #38
WTF? William Seger Jul 2013 #39
Here's evidence-based... Frank_Norris_Lives Jul 2013 #40
It must be hard to find evidence when you deliberately avoid it William Seger Jul 2013 #42
That's not actually paper anymore. AtheistCrusader Jul 2013 #44
I've heard that claim, too, but I don't think so William Seger Jul 2013 #45
Oh, that's a good point. AtheistCrusader Jul 2013 #46
Untrue. AtheistCrusader Jul 2013 #16
Back at you bro..... Frank_Norris_Lives Jul 2013 #21
Again, all the steel framed components exposed to fire in Madrid Tower collapsed 3 hours into the AtheistCrusader Jul 2013 #22
Actually, there are no photos of fires in WTC7 until noon, and those fires didn't last Ace Acme Oct 2013 #55
Cite your spectacular high rise fires, building by building. AtheistCrusader Oct 2013 #57
And even fought by 600 firefighters it was a conflagration and burned all night Ace Acme Oct 2013 #58
You apparently never saw the side of the building facing the main towers. AtheistCrusader Oct 2013 #59
Yes I saw it, and unlike you I didn't believe the people who lie about it Ace Acme Oct 2013 #60
Talk of explosions is not verboten, and never was. AtheistCrusader Oct 2013 #62
NIST's discounting of charges was based on the use of RDX, Ace Acme Oct 2013 #64
RDX is a common and widely available explosive, with similar properites to many other explosives. AtheistCrusader Oct 2013 #66
Why would you expect first-class demolitionists to use WWII-era explosives? Ace Acme Oct 2013 #67
damnedifiknow - Just so you're aware... truth2power Jul 2013 #15
There are sites where 9/11 bullshit goes unchallenged William Seger Jul 2013 #24
From your mouth to God's ear, of course. truth2power Jul 2013 #25
You've seen Gage's "scientific" treatment of the issue William Seger Jul 2013 #27
William... truth2power Jul 2013 #31
So much for "honest discussion" William Seger Jul 2013 #33
I used to say that also when people disagreed with me LanternWaste Sep 2013 #51
It's not just about honest disagreement. i'm sure you know that... truth2power Sep 2013 #52
K&R Over the years since 9/11 I've gone from snappyturtle Jul 2013 #28
In other words, you've been propagandized William Seger Jul 2013 #29
Au contraire! THanks for the links...I've been to 3 of the snappyturtle Jul 2013 #30
Thanks, snappyturtle, for not taking the bait. As you said, so succinctly... truth2power Jul 2013 #32
"Take your best shot" = "bait" ? William Seger Jul 2013 #34
Popular Mechanics? Ace Acme Oct 2013 #56
Yes, Popular Mechanics William Seger Oct 2013 #61
They were straw man arguments Ace Acme Oct 2013 #63
Which "legiimate truth movement" is that? William Seger Oct 2013 #65
You've never heard of the 9/11 Truth Statement? You haven't read the Bronner VF article? Ace Acme Oct 2013 #68
HAHAHA!!! n/t Bully Taw Aug 2013 #50
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»The Official Video: ReThi...»Reply #5