Martin Sheen: 9/11 Questions 'Unanswered,' Building 7 'Very Suspicious'

[ocpagu]

52. You have no answers.

So, you do understand why the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapsed, so you don't have any sympathy for people who claimed it must have been sabotaged? That's good.

I see you're not able to keep a discussion without putting other words in people's mouths. Present me evidence that there are still people who believe the bridge was sabotaged and then, perhaps, you may have a point.

Um, you're supposed to say, there's no example of a highrise collapsing completely due to fire, since there's at least one example of a highrise collapsing partially due to fire -- the steel part, actually. But even with that qualification, the Windsor Tower fire shoots a gaping hole in your argument.

And again, anyone can see that the parcial collapse of Windsor Tower does not resemble WTC at all. In any aspect. It only reinforces the notion that the official explanation is wrong. Windsor Tower's collapse was not symmetrical, "controlled demolition"-style of collapse.

Total bullshit. There is exactly zero prior "empirical data" about towers like WTC1 and 2 getting hit by 767s flying flat-out, or buildings constructed like WTC7 sustaining a 7-hour unfought fire. If you don't understand why that matters, I can't help you.

It doesn't matter if the building was hit by a plane or a giant rabbit, it can not escape from laws of physics. And what you said about the no-existence of empirical data about a 7-hour fire is a barefaced lie.

The building was not designed to withstand thermal expansion or progressive collapse -- that's a fact, Jack, not a matter of subjective opinion.

There's no such a thing as a "building not being designed to withstand thermal expansion or progressive collapse", that's just NIST lousy justification for this fairy-tale.

Actually, it consists of several "factual organizations" (such as ASCE) who do things like publish peer-reviewed journals (such as the Journal of Engineering Mechanics) and hold technical conferences and otherwise discuss technical issues amongst themselves. If the NIST theory was really an "exotic report defying logic and physics" an engineer could make quite a name for himself by publishing a journal or conference paper proving it. Where is it?

Who are these "factual organizations"? What are their names? And what makes these organizations the official representative of the "engineering community"? They are all American organizations? There are no international organizations that make part of this "engineering community"? Really, it's not clear to me.

"Yes I can."

No, you can't. So far you have... ASCE. You'll need A LOT MORE than that to convince me that you're really talking about a REAL "engineering community".

I can do better than that: I can prove that the NIST theory is evidence-based, logical, and technically sound

I've seen you trying to do that several times, but so far you failed. Don't know why you wouldn't fail again.