No need to get super deep in minutia though, building 7 should make things patently obvious. If it isn't enough, look at the nist study controversy and the clash between nist and UL.
The NIST report explains how WTC 7 came down. You do not understand it. I do not understand it, and I'm a PhD engineer with years of experience in mathematical/computer analyses of complex aerospace phenomena, but not structural analyses, and if I wanted to understand it it would probably take me 6 months of study a with knowledgeable tutor.
The ease with which the truthers dismiss something that they have absolutely zero understanding of is somewhat amazing. And then, of course, to maintain epistemic context, you have to extend the conspiracy to NIST - engineers at NIST are part of the 9/11 conspiracy. That just doesn't make any sense at all.
No need to get super deep in minutia though, building 7 should make things patently obvious. If it isn't enough, look at the nist study controversy and the clash between nist and UL.
The NIST report explains how WTC 7 came down. You do not understand it. I do not understand it, and I'm a PhD engineer with years of experience in mathematical/computer analyses of complex aerospace phenomena, but not structural analyses, and if I wanted to understand it it would probably take me 6 months of study a with knowledgeable tutor.
The ease with which the truthers dismiss something that they have absolutely zero understanding of is somewhat amazing. And then, of course, to maintain epistemic context, you have to extend the conspiracy to NIST - engineers at NIST are part of the 9/11 conspiracy. That just doesn't make any sense at all.
You need to look at the Alaska study of it, the UL controversy and the recent supreme court findings that NIST has no responsibility to be truthful in its reports.
You don't get a symmetrical failure like that from haphazard office fires fueled by simple office furnishings. It fell inside it's own footprint at free fall and met 0 resistance on the way down.
As an PHD holder in Engineering, the problems with an office fire should stand out to you like a fox in a hen house.
were to guess why no t4 personnel were chosen to perform gassing that had experience with gassing, it would be because THERE WERE NONE.
WS: And I don’t see how you “clearly demonstrated the German article is suspect”.
You haven't even seen it, read it or read a translation of it, have you?
??? I've read the article on the Irving site, not the translation of the conversation, and I showed to my satisfaction that removing the 'in advance' from the US/Merkel translation does not change it's meaning one whit, and implying that it does, as per the German article, is misleading. The rest of the paragraph clearly shows it refers to events before 9/11.
WS: You are still arguing from a position of ignorance.
??? It appears to me to be a perfectly knowledgeable, coherent, not to mention persuasive argument that is fully supported by information available to me, and cited !
Straight answer: you are deluding yourself.
As previously explained to you but ignored by you.
No need to get super deep in minutia though, building 7 should make things patently obvious. If it isn't enough, look at the nist study controversy and the clash between nist and UL.
The NIST report explains how WTC 7 came down. You do not understand it. I do not understand it, and I'm a PhD engineer with years of experience in mathematical/computer analyses of complex aerospace phenomena, but not structural analyses, and if I wanted to understand it it would probably take me 6 months of study a with knowledgeable tutor.
Wow!
Joe Splink wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 12:41 am The ease with which the [reasonable people] dismiss something that they have absolutely zero understanding of is somewhat amazing.
You don’t have to have a degree in engineering to understand basic laws of physics, Joe.
Joe Splink wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 12:41 am And then, of course, to maintain epistemic context, you have to extend the conspiracy to NIST-engineers at NIST are part of the 9/11 conspiracy. That just doesn't make any sense at all.
You are too trusting of authorities. Plus you are again projecting your ignorance onto others.
It makes perfect sense why people go along with deceptions. It’s been called ‘peer-pressure compliance’ and also ‘group conformity’. There are three main types of conformity. This has been empirically proven numerous times since Solomon Asch’s original experiments of it in 1951. I recommend you check out his experiments and conclusions. Ask for help if you can’t find info on this.
Wow!