Structural Information on the origional WTC 7 NY Times article 1989

[Eagler]

Originally posted by SaburoS
So if a conspiracy is imagined, how can it be based on "fact"?

howdy SaburoS

[moot]

Eagler, Fester's looking for working hypothesies, not concluding they are right.
Exploring possibilities and making conclusions with only speculation is the difference between sensible thought and paranoia.
Fester isn't a crackpot, he's pointing out the facts.  If he were paranoid-conspiracist, he'd suggest what the shape all those dots are making without factual connections.  That's a classic tell-tale of paranoid delusions (obsession with a favorite perceived rorschach pattern rather than an impartial and all-encompassing perspective) that he doesn't have.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Eagler
howdy SaburoS

Howdy Eagler

[DREDIOCK]

OK lets for a moment assume Build 7 was intentionally brought down.

As has been already pointed out in the video.

The twin towerws had already collapsed,
Everyone from Building 7 had been evacuated
And the fire dept couldnt guarentee they would be able to contain the blaze in build 7.

and Im not sure if it was in that video or somewhere else I saw that 7 was damaged to the point where the Fire dept was essentially predicting its eventual collapse anyway

Wouldnt it make sense to intentionally bring the building down rather then risk even more lives then had already been lost?

Outside of the twin towers comming down I fail to see what the big deal is one way or the other.

If your going ot look for a conspiracy. You need to provide evidence that the twin towers were intentionally brought down by something other then the result of the two planes hitting it

[Citabria]

thats the problem with all of this conspiracy stuff is that no one making these claims besides the janitor that saved 100 people and some survivors was there.

You can not trust this stuff as proven fact
almost all of it is an alternative viewpoint or theory that is coming from sources outside looking in.

not that it is wrong or right but it is simply not verifiable it has to be viewed as such and not assumed to be fact.

in court it is called hearsay..
(wikepedia...)
The theory of the rule against Hearsay is that assertions made by human beings are naturally unreliable. It therefore becomes necessary to subject such forms of evidence to “scrutiny or analysis calculated to discover and expose in detail its possible weaknesses, and thus to enable the tribunal (judge or jury) to estimate it at no more than its actual value”

basically almost all of it (with a few exceptions) is second and thirdhand reports most of which conflict and sometimes the theories have no direct source or reference at all and are based on observation or what the author thinks happened.