re: So im more convinced than ever that the govt allowed 9/11 to happen

quote:

---

Only a forensic investigation was conducted by NIST.

---

No, no, I understand that. I just can't get past Occam's Razor. The length and breadth of a conspiracy to destroy a building of that size, covertly, and they just decided to collapse it after it was heavily damaged in the WTC attacks - it just sounds crazy. I want you to understand that it sounds crazy and why it sounds crazy.

Now, I say this at the same time I concede the possibility because the biggest lean the other way is that we don't have another example of a large building fire resulting in the collapse of the building. So, you can start an Occam's Razor analysis the other way by saying, "All buildings that collapse do so by an act of man or prolonged period of neglect, not by fire alone." This isn't convincing to me in this case, because it was an extraordinary event.

In fact, even if it were proven that the "gubmint" took WTC 1 and 2 down deliberately, I would still be of a mindset that WTC 7 was collateral damage. Why? Because of the predicate questions I posed.

It is undisputed that WTC 7 caught on fire after the tower collapses. Those fires spread relatively unchecked. The sprinkler didn't work properly. Water pressure was compromised by a poor system design AND the other demands of the infrastructure damage. Firefighters entered and attempted to bring the fires under control. They were in and around the building when they started hearing the creaking. They physically observed signs of structural compromise. Eventually, the building became unstable and collapsed.

Now, NIST says the building didn't free fall. Either you buy that or you don't. If you buy that (which I reluctantly do), then compromise leading to progressive collapse is the most likely cause of WTC 7 coming down that evening.

I love conspiracies and mysteries. Love them. I re-evaluate the JFK assassination all the time, for example, whenever new "evidence" is offered. But, in 9/11's case - there are simply too many moving pieces to buy into some larger conspiracy. The intel agencies were hobbled going back to the Church Committee. There were additional changes made during the Clinton Administration. The rise of political correctness prevented some folks from raising the alarm. There were multiple failures in intel (I was an intel professional at one time) and security procedures. The attacks (brilliant in planning AND execution - I hope I can say that without it being misinterpreted as endorsement) were successful beyond the expectations of the attackers. On the other hand, we're lucky that the casualty rate wasn't much, much higher, considering the property damage and size of the buildings involved.

I'm struggling to see that it is any more complicated than that.

quote:

---

Its difficult to specify because a full scale criminal investigation never took place

---

This might be the most retarded thing you've said...ever.

You are so nonobjective.

quote:

---

You are so nonobjective.

---

You said there was no criminal investigation into 9/11. You're just straight up lying now.

quote:

---

Did you also account for the 100+ story building collapsing next to it? Because that just MAY have had something to do with it.

---

WTC7 was a protected somewhat by WTC5 and WTC6.

I think you need to get back to the sarcastic tone you had early in this thread. Those posts were money

quote:

---

That maybe true but that doesn't mean there won't be in the future and having it as leverage is just as important as being able to use it.

---

You don't understand how Afghanistan works.

quote:

---

And do you know the meaning of "somewhat"?

---

I do, so why do you completely not account for it in your hypothetical modeling?

Is that supposed to prove something?

What kind of engineer are you and what schooling have you had?