Grand Jury will look at evidence of explosives used to take down WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 on 9/11

[SirBannedAlot]

I mean FFS, there are billions of people who believe in God and all sorts of stuff that makes zero sense and has ZERO credible evidence to support it...

But faced here with a lot of pretty solid evidence, and maybe some that aren't quite answered... ILLUMINATI! Sorcery! Conspiracy false flag!.... Meh...

 

[Fatal_Bert]

I find most people who don't believe in God tend to look towards government as their God.

 

[SirBannedAlot]

I find most people who don't believe in God tend to look towards government as their God.

Not me. I think that both are woefully stupid at times...

I am ok with not having all the answers, because I don't think it is realistic for me, or humans in general, to have the capacity to know everything about everything.

That said, I am fine with that. I never felt compelled to create answers to console my ignorance, which is how religion was created, and it's a very similar psychological mechanism at work for the Conspiracy Theorist... They don't have the answers, it bothers them not knowing, and to make themselves feel safer or whatever, they just create their own...

 

[Fatal_Bert]

Not me. I think that both are woefully stupid at times...

I am ok with not having all the answers, because I don't think it is realistic for me, or humans in general, to have the capacity to know everything about everything.

That said, I am fine with that. I never felt compelled to create answers to console my ignorance, which is how religion was created, and it's a very similar psychological mechanism at work for the Conspiracy Theorist... They don't have the answers, it bothers them not knowing, and to make themselves feel safer or whatever, they just create their own...

But you did create answers for yourself about "seismic" activity and "incredible forces of energy at play" when you couldn't except that WTC7 fell from office fires alone

 

[SirBannedAlot]

But you did create answers for yourself about "seismic" activity and "incredible forces of energy at play" when you couldn't except that WTC7 fell from office fires alone

I gave a simple example of how easy it is to make up a theory on why something happens. I also gave you the "Rush Limbaugh analogy of illustrating absurdity by being absurd", showing that we can all play the theory game, and make it sound plausible, but I guess it was too subtle?

The point was, and is, that there are lots of things that COULD explain something. Whether it does or not, we may never know.

But to follow your logic in the NIST report that you linked to... It was caused by a fire. Why did the fire cause it to collapse? Because it burned for 7 hours. Why did a fire burn that long? Because the sprinklers weren't working. Why weren't they working? Did a plane or debris and hit them and disable them?

No the water supply infrastructure itself was damaged when the two towers fell. THAT energy, had a direct effect on one thing, that in turn led to another, etc...

But to hear the tinfoil hat crowd... "No way a simple fire caused that tower 7 to just collapse, no way!"...

Actually, it did.

 

[SirBannedAlot]

Those incredible sources of energy at play are what damaged the infrastructure that would have allowed the sprinklers to work and put the fire out before the building collapsed.

And while the report didn't say it, I would have to imagine that the impact of those towers coming down so fast, in that small locality, could have cracked and damaged foundations, stressed supports, etc... in tower 7.

Did it? I don't know, but again, we all have keyboards so we can all be experts on this, right?

 

[Fatal_Bert]

And while the report didn't say it, I would have to imagine that the impact of those towers coming down so fast, in that small locality, could have cracked and damaged foundations, stressed supports, etc... in tower 7.

The report clearly says uncontrolled office fires ALONE caused the collapse. Why do you have to keep adding your cracked or damage foundations theory to it? Why is it so difficult for you to just believe the official report?

 

[SirBannedAlot]

The report clearly says uncontrolled office fires ALONE caused the collapse. Why do you have to keep adding your cracked or damage foundations theory to it? Why is it so difficult for you to just believe the official report?

The fires likely did.

My response on that was what I thought made sense, to me, and my limited knowledge of structural engineering. And it was to illustrate a point, for the most part, but that point seems to have eluded you.

My opinion, and what I think "could" or "should" have happened, is worth less than a truckload of dead rats in a tampon factory...

The report, and people who WERE there, and who DO know what they are talking about and DID handle the evidence, are in a much better position to tell us what happened, than you, I, or anyone else watching YouTube videos and "researching" it on the interwebs...

That was the point... I was playing the "what if" game, but again, I guess I was too subtle in my approach...

In the end, there is nothing that you or I believe, that has even an iota of bearing on the truth of what happened...

 

[SirBannedAlot]

And, it said that the fires alone caused the collapse, but it ALSO said that the fires were only able to do so, because of he sprinkler failure, and THAT was *directly* caused by the other towers coming down and the impact doing infrastructure damage...

 

[SirBannedAlot]

In this case, it was debris, and it was the energy and impact of the towers falling... They didn't have to hit tower 7 directly and knock it over.

A fire in 7 would have easily been contained. However, the two towers that fell, STARTED the fire, and their collapse disabled the sprinklers... It was only THEN that the fire that they started, raged long enough to bring the building down.

The two incidents are obviously related. T7 came down, indirectly because the other two came down...