Skeptic Project

Sil i live in the uk. I was in bar oz in newcastle upon tyne on 911. Me and my now ex wife had popped in for a quick bevvy before her hospital appointment. It was on the big screen in the pub, After the first building collapsed i turned to her and told her that it didnt look right, that the building should'nt have fell into its own footprint. I also told her as an ex soldier this would lead to a war and i was proberbly going to be called back up. After we split up i didnt need to be called back up, i had lost my world she met another man of all things on the internet and fucked off with my two kids all the way down to london. Famaly law in this country is shit i had 3 court orders to see my kids but her solicitor told her she didnt have to honor them. I didnt have a leg to stand on and wanted to take my mind off all the shit so i went back into the army. All that to one side i didnt even know what a conspirecy theory even was till just over a year ago when i watched zeitgiest for the first time.... i know its not all accurate but i remebered my thoughts when i first saw the building collaps, Thats immposible!

And no i dont get to see my kids, as i said famaly law in this country is a joke

Hope i didnt upset anyone with my sad story, its a very comon thing all across the uk. On the upside im a salesman now and ive had a hell of a week landing 5 big deals!! God i love capatalism ... suppose that makes me a shit CT doesnt it lol

demolitions... i know how to blow shit up! I'm sorry for your sad little tale... thanks for that its means alot to me man! credentials not really, ive got eyes and i know when somthing is bullshit.... i should do im a salesman now. Ive just weighed up the pro's and con's. You tell me what you think about building 7, pro's con's why you think it fell and point me to resorces that will change my mind! consider it a challenge

I'm sorry for your sad little tale..... God im glad their are still people out there that have feeling and understanding for there fellow man lol.

point me in the direction of these scientific rebuttals

but not this load of shit please

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm or anything like it

Somthing actually scientific, i might be dyslexic but i do have a chemistry degree, and i do like my physics

Casey, you want something "actually scientific" that proves that the WTC was not a controlled demolition?

Here you go. http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201.pdf

Another one: http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/Bazant_WTC_Collapse_What_Did__Did_No.pdf</p>

And another:
http://www.911-strike.com/BazantZhou.htm</p>

All scientific peer-reviewed materials. Enjoy your reading.

I'd like to know why Casey is calling the FDNY all liars.

"Fires and bombings have never before or since caused steel-frame buildings to collapse. "

You forgot casey to include the words "high rise".

There's been plenty of steel frame buildings that have collapsed from fires.

lol, collapsed into their own footprint, as if that even happened, only conspiracy theorists claim it did, no one else does.

lol, collapsed into their own footprint, as if that even happened, only conspiracy theorists claim it did, no one else does.
this is bone totally bone!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POUSJm--tgw

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xa5m8b_wtc-7-falls-symetrically-into-its-o_news</p>

The vidio footage on this one is pretty good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W0N-qH0ac4

Some facts for you Casey:

WTC7 did not collapse into its own footprint. It critically damaged 30 West Broadway which was across a 4-lane street.

WTC7 did not collapse at free fall speed. It took over well over 13 seconds to collapse which started before the penthouse collapses several seconds before the façade does but even then videos you keep looking at do not show the entire building. The DailyMotion video you posted has also cut out the dramatic penthouse collapse. AE911 - Richard Gage, Steven Jones, David Chandlers little group - could only find 2.25 seconds of free fall in the entire collapse. So much for their original claim of 6.5 complete free fall... but the fact that it really does show significant resistance simply does not matter to them.

WTC7 did not have minor damage, it was heavily damaged from the collapse of WTC1 and 2.

WTC7 did not have minor fires, it had heavy, uncontrollable, unfought fires spanning many floors for over 7 hours.

No firefighters there that day back up what truthers claim about Building 7. Absolutely none of them.

They all agree that there were large, heavy uncontrollable fires that weren't fought for over 7 hours. That it was heavily damaged. That it was bulging, leaning, groaning, creaking and that things were cracking and falling. That they knew HOURS before it was going to collapse that it was going to and pulled everyone away from the building and literally stood there are waited and then watched it collapse.

None of them said they heard any heavy duty explosions or any explosions when that happened, none of then say they they were surprised that it collapsed and none of them say it they were surprised in the manor it collapsed either.

This hasn't changed almost a decade and hundreds of conspiracy films later.

Truthers are literally calling the firefighters of the FDNY liars. Please just admit that you think the FDNY are all liars since truthers really dont like accepting this reality.

Muertos
I posted 3 scientific rebuttals of the controlled demolition theory.

It seems you did not read them, even though you specifically asked us for them. If that's true, why did you not read them? If you did read them and found them persuasive, please say so. If you did read them and did not find them persuasive, please tell us exactly what portions of them were faulty, in your view.

In fairness chick i havent read them all thu yet but one statment i didnt like was and i quote!

Use in legal proceedings
No part of any report resulting from a NIST investigation into a structual failure or from an investigation under the national constrction safty (somdamthing) act may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report (15 usc28la; as ammended by pl 107-1231)

...........SO WE ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE NO MATTER WHAT!!!! ARSHOLES!!

Casey, that is not what that statement means at all. I think you're just looking for something to cherry-pick so you can dismiss the entire report out of hand. Amirite?

Muertos listen darlin its 2 in the morning here

Muertos is ok im insomnia now please for me put in your own words thx in advance. i will go thu it in the mornin i promise

Casey, I believe it happened the way the demonstrated facts and the scientific evidence indicates that it happened, because I've looked into those facts and that evidence and it is sound.

The NIST report affirms the scientific fact. And it's not just "them" saying this, it has been confirmed by independent peer-reviewed scientists. Therefore, there is no reason to think that the conclusion is in any way faulty.