Building 7 burned unabated for seven hours. What do you think is gonna happen?

Fire is overrated. Just ask Daenerys Targaryen.

And really, you say none of this can be explained by science? You are ignoring the laws of physics, not us. You are ignoring that the Empire State fire was extinguished quickly and that the point of impact was much smaller. And, yet again, you ignore that the Empire State Building was practically brand new at that point and was much more prepared for such an impact. You are ignoring that the B-25 impact was at about 275 MPH while the AA flight on 9/11 hit at 470 MPH and the UA flight on 9/11 hit at 590 MPH. You are ignoring that the B-25 carried about 974 gallons of fuel while both of the commercial flights carried over 10,000 gallons apiece. You ignore that the B-25 weighed around 30,000 lbs versus the commercial flights which reportedly weighed between 250,000 and 300,000 lbs. You ignore that all of these facts render pretty much everything you say moot because the two aren't comparable at all, and you ignore that because the immediate damage was so much smaller, the overall impact was much smaller.

But please, continue to ignore facts and just assume that you are the one following science here.

"Fire is overrated. Just ask Daenerys Targaryen." lol +1

so buildings that are on fire for hours can be expected to collapse like that?

hm... yeah i suppose many in the general public can be convinced of a lot of nonsense. so maybe they did not even need the planes to hit the buildings. or maybe they did. hard to say. right now only the intelligent and informed few know the bs-ness of the 9/11 official story. i think the general public would believe something if they had the perception that most other people believe it. so maybe just convincing some on the border is enough to make their cover story fall apart.

so anyway let me fill you in, please take a look at this image search https://www.google.co.jp/search?q=skyscraper+fires

now tell me if those fires appear worse than the wtc 7 fires and tell me how many of those collapsed from the fires? i will tell you the answer - none.

look at how badly this one is on fire - what do you expect to happen? well it did not. because there was no collapse.

http://kennysideshow.blogspot.jp/2010/11/deadly-shanghai-skyscraper-fire-but-no.html

Not all buildings are created equal.

Nor do all buildings burn without any available emergency response for hours on end.

it would be funny to see if modern civil engineering textbooks contain a 9/11 exception. or how exactly they fit this anomaly into accepted science.

i dont know. it is science and common sense. that is all i can say. for that type of collapse to have happened, all the columns would have to have been taken out at the same time. if you think office fires can cut steel columns like that... i do not know. i do not know what i can say. it defies physics.

Have you found any structural engineering experts who agree?

there is a/e for 9/11. 2,000 architects and engineers have signed the petition for a new investigation. lots of famous names there. including an engineer who worked on the twin towers.

ok i read the wikipedia article on wtc7. so apparently the office fires were so hot that they expanded the steel columns. that is impressive. and apparently not uniformly because that expansion caused a column to come apart and collapse.

then floors collapsing from this column collapse caused some other columns to all fail simultaneously and it fell down at free fall speed.

yeah ok.

Look, I can sum all of this up very conveniently for those who are unsure on this matter.

Which is more likely? That 9/11 was an inside job and there was a massive government coverup, or that blankflag is an idiot?

by definition blankflag is a superior being and can't be an idiot

checkmate sheeple

here is a preview to check out, and a film worth seeing i would imagine - since you all seem to believe people who are in academics it might help some of you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFzVKDdCa6s#t=185

You mean "academia".

So which idiot +1ed every one of blankmind's posts?

No idea. That is precisely why it's stupid to think +1s mean something, Fasces. That's for those of you that do...

Well bo, the number of +1s given to those responding to blank is higher then the ones given to blank.

Only 1 person gave blank a +, while you, and yellow jacket got some +2s and 3s

Then imagine it's the other way. Blankflag has 500 +1s on each of his posts and nobody else has any.

YJ, myself, and various others are still right.

+1's mean nothing.

Yeah, I use +1's to judge only two things:

How smart/clever a post is (if I agree with it)
How many idiots are on webdip (if I disagree with it)

It's a very versatile tool.

Obviously I +1'd all of his posts

@Bo: +1s is a test of popularity, the more +1s your post has compared to the other posts around yours, the more people like/agree with the post.

The reason why you have more +1s then him is because more people reading this debate feel that you're right. Which you are.

"Yeah, I use +1's to judge only two things:

How smart/clever a post is (if I agree with it)
How many idiots are on webdip (if I disagree with it)"
I think everyone does this.

My point is we know that there are at least 2 idiots in this thread:
1. Blankflag
2. The guy who +1ed him

Reasonable, Fasces, but there's no reason to think that +1's actually dictate the amount of people that agree with someone. I know I don't give out +1's for everything I agree with, and I am certainly less likely to +1 some people than others for various reasons - I'm sure there are plenty of people here that wish I would run off and spew my bullshit elsewhere too. Some are simply less inclined to click the button. Thus the actual impact of +1's is largely diminished.

But YJ is generally right, and we're seemingly trying to get to the same point, albeit spoken differently, so I'll leave it alone.

no really I +1 all of blankflag's posts

i think people who agree with me should post comments rather than +1 but i guess i do not really care.

No one agrees with you.

It's really quite sad. All the physical evidence leads to the conclusion it was just planes hitting buildings. But people still cling to these wholly debunked conspiracy theories because they like feeling special. They like having hidden knowledge and being better than us sheeple who believe the standard story. 9/11 denialists are people to be pitied.

"All the physical evidence leads to the conclusion it was just planes hitting buildings."

All?

Question: If the 9/11 terrorist attacks were just an excuse to invade the Middle East and secure our filthy hands on thier oil, then why exactly did we blow up our dear New York mega-structures, killing thousands of people and severely detrimented our economy in the process, when we could have only attacked the pentagon which would have given us reason to war - while saving life and wealth.