'What about building 7'?

[LSSBB]

He's certainly reaching. The collapse sound is not loud. I've been to several. It's a deep rumble (more like a vibration) .

Maybe that's what his special nano-thermite was engineered to sound like. Those perps were so clever, only GWB could mastermind this (or was it Cheney).

It was the Mossad, who strangely never used it again against Hezbollah or Hamas. Funny, no other country seems to have developed and used it either. Strange, for so obviously advantageous a substance. Almost as if it were Unobtanium, or something...

 

[jaydeehess]

My position has been clearly explained.

The sound of WTC7's high speed collapse would have been extremely loud. Certainly loud enough to compete with that of explosives.

And yet not the case in do very many real demolitions. Imagine that.
No, MM, your position sucks.

We have no audio tracks that a person with their eyes closed could readily identify as a building collapse.

Yet, we have eyewitnesses on camera who immediately react to what the camera did not hear, as well as other witnesses who claim to have heard what the camera did not hear.

Yeah how about that. Its almost as if theres a predisposition of humans to charaterize events in terms they are most familiar with.

If the recording devices used, were unable to accurately record the sound of the collapse, it is only logical that they would also fail to record the loud sound of the explosions which preceded it.[/color]

No, like I said maybe one audio track, maybe two, but experience with the historical record of real demolitions indicates that it will be on most audio tracks and onky your religious belief prevents you from accepting.

 

[DGM]

It was the Mossad, who strangely never used it again against Hezbollah or Hamas. Funny, no other country seems to have developed and used it either. Strange, for so obviously advantageous a substance. Almost as if it were Unobtanium, or something...

Almost like something you would see in a movie.........

 

[000063]

My position has been clearly explained.

The sound of WTC7's high speed collapse would have been extremely loud. Certainly loud enough to compete with that of explosives.

Based on your comparison to other known explosives.

Oh, wait, you've studiously avoided doing so for pages now.

We have no audio tracks that a person with their eyes closed could readily identify as a building collapse.

Most people wouldn't recognize the sound of a building collapse. It's not a typical sound.

Yet, we have eyewitnesses on camera who immediately react to what the camera did not hear,

In a video whose provenance is dubious at best and may well have been tampered with.

as well as other witnesses who claim to have heard what the camera did not hear.

Once you quote-mine them, yes.

If the recording devices used, were unable to accurately record the sound of the collapse,

Nope. False premise. Most people can't really recognize collapses by ear, even in person. Heck, your own quoted witnesses made that mistake.

it is only logical that they would also fail to record the loud sound of the explosions which preceded it.

Except for those videos you linked which showed explosions which you implied were The explosions. Oh, and the part where you haven't been able to provide any other examples of CD explosives doing this, ever. You've just got special pleading.

 

[ProBonoShill]

My position has been clearly explained.

The sound of WTC7's high speed collapse would have been extremely loud. Certainly loud enough to compete with that of explosives.

We have no audio tracks that a person with their eyes closed could readily identify as a building collapse.

Yet, we have eyewitnesses on camera who immediately react to what the camera did not hear, as well as other witnesses who claim to have heard what the camera did not hear.

If the recording devices used, were unable to accurately record the sound of the collapse, it is only logical that they would also fail to record the loud sound of the explosions which preceded it.

Wrong AGAIN.

Try watching every single demolition in the below video and tell us what is louder. The explosions or the collapses? There is no competition, demo charges are loud as ****, the fact not a single solitary recording device anywhere that day captured the telltale BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! sounds you hear repeatedly in this video shows your beliefs have no merit. In fact they are downright moronic.

The more you post on this topic the more you show you how little you understand the hard sciences, physics in particular.

 

[JayUtah]

My position has been clearly explained.

And it has been clearly explained to you why it doesn't explain anything. It's just very wishful thinking.

 

[JayUtah]

Yet, we have eyewitnesses on camera who immediately react to what the camera did not hear, as well as other witnesses who claim to have heard what the camera did not hear.

Fourth time reminding you that I have discussed your alleged witness testimony at length, only to be completely ignored by you.

You obviously can't endure even the slightest challenge to your house-of-cards treatment of the onsite witnesses.

 

[Richard the G]

What I don't understand is why all of your arguments are so stupid. Why don't we just call Building 7 a draw.

We all agree that if you were to place a small amount of explosives on the column that NIST say failed then the building would have collapsed just the way it did. And if the NWO were smart enough to invent a super-duper nano thermite that is still secret 13 years later then they sure as hell could figure that the building would come down if you just blew up the big column in the middle of the floor plate. At one or two levels. And just for luck do the ones around it.

You don't need any of the secret squirrel stuff that Gage alludes too. And a single pissed off employee could have done it or it could have always been a contingency plan in case of invasion.

Knowing that, what good do you think an investigation would do. When there is no indication that either WTC 1 or WTC 2 was blown up by CD

Grow up guys!

 

[JayUtah]

What I don't understand is why all of your arguments are so stupid. Why don't we just call Building 7 a draw.

Because halfway between the truth and a bunch of nonsense is not a tenable position.

We all agree...

No, we don't.

that if you were to place a small amount of explosives on the column that NIST say failed then the building would have collapsed just the way it did.

The trick is getting the parts of the Twin Towers to fall just where they did and the fires to rage just as they did beforehand. Once you nail down those variables, then you can start trying to argue your theory might be plausible. Also if ordinary disgruntled employees can get hold of RDX demolition charges and manage to set them off without anyone hearing.

Grow up guys!

Whom do you mean?

 

[LSSBB]

What I don't understand is why all of your arguments are so stupid. Why don't we just call Building 7 a draw.

We all agree that if you were to place a small amount of explosives on the column that NIST say failed then the building would have collapsed just the way it did. And if the NWO were smart enough to invent a super-duper nano thermite that is still secret 13 years later then they sure as hell could figure that the building would come down if you just blew up the big column in the middle of the floor plate. At one or two levels. And just for luck do the ones around it.

You don't need any of the secret squirrel stuff that Gage alludes too. And a single pissed off employee could have done it or it could have always been a contingency plan in case of invasion.

Knowing that, what good do you think an investigation would do. When there is no indication that either WTC 1 or WTC 2 was blown up by CD

Grow up guys!

What's to be a draw? A positive claim is being made: "WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition!" I am refuting that claim, for lack of evidentiary support.

 

[jaydeehess]

Well one FEA run of WTC7 which was run without inputting any fires or south side impact damage, did indicate that a sudden failure of column 79 would progress to global collapse. However it would take longer and look somewhat different.

So, yes, it could be argued that simply blowing col 79 would do the trick. "Small amount" of explosives? No, column 79 was quite large, it would be a big BANG!.

Of course to get it to look more like what actually took place you'd have to also take out a few more columns a little earlier than they would fail if just 79 was blown. So we are back to multiple BANGS!.

 

[Richard the G]

Because halfway between the truth and a bunch of nonsense is not a tenable position.

The trick is getting the parts of the Twin Towers to fall just where they did and the fires to rage just as they did beforehand. Once you nail down those variables, then you can start trying to argue your theory might be plausible. Also if ordinary disgruntled employees can get hold of RDX demolition charges and manage to set them off without anyone hearing

you are being way to literal. NIST and many structural engineers believe that WTC7 would fail if the main column and adjacent cols were cut at lower levels

Sure the majority of evidence indicates that a fire caused the collapse. But no one will ever be able to prove that it wasn't caused by someone blowing up the columns. Someone who new the attacks would take place and someone who relied on fire protection to the charges and waited many hours before demolishing WTc7

Yes it's completely absurd but you can not prove it didn't happen. That's why Richard Gage loves WTC 7.

on the other hand it is impossible to hypothesise any way that WTC 1&2 could be brought down by controlled demo

 

[Richard the G]

No Jaydee. Disagree
Any good engineer would weaken the column first so that only needed a few cutter charges needed

Sound of fire extinguishers, generators and sealed pipes exploding or a plate of glass falling 100 ft sound just like explosions. An explosion is just a large sudden sound try blowing up a paper bag or popping a balloon

 

[Richard the G]

What's to be a draw? A positive claim is being made: "WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition!" I am refuting that claim, for lack of evidentiary support.

Yes but then you would not expect to see any evidence if 3 cols were weakened and exploded at say level 3. Improbable yes but that's why Gage loves Wtc7.

Of course all Gages evidence is irrelevant under this hypothesis

 

[DGM]

Sure the majority of evidence indicates that a fire caused the collapse.

Is there evidence we haven't seen yet? There's no evidence for intentional demolition as far as I know.

 

[000063]

Because halfway between the truth and a bunch of nonsense is not a tenable position. ...

Agreed. It is, however, a tenuous one.

(Do we have a rimshot emote?)

you are being way to literal. NIST and many structural engineers believe that WTC7 would fail if the main column and adjacent cols were cut at lower levels

{{Cite}}

Of course, there's the tiny little fact that doing so would create extremely noticable explosions a literal stone's throw away from several thousand emergency personnel.

Sure the majority of evidence indicates that a fire caused the collapse. But no one will ever be able to prove that it wasn't caused by someone blowing up the columns. Someone who new the attacks would take place and someone who relied on fire protection to the charges and waited many hours before demolishing WTc7

Well, except for the complete lack of evidence that you would expect to be present, such as hundreds of people with barotrauma, or wiring, or the seismic record, or...

Yes it's completely absurd but you can not prove it didn't happen.

Yes we can. Quite easily.

That's why Richard Gage loves WTC 7.

Because it's a lesser known incident that the Truthers can say all kind of nonsense about? Yes, I agree.

on the other hand it is impossible to hypothesise any way that WTC 1&2 could be brought down by controlled demo

When you eliminate the impossible...

No Jaydee. Disagree
Any good engineer would weaken the column first so that only needed a few cutter charges needed

Which would've been quite conspicuous. Or did the office occupants simply not notice the people with sledgehammers tearing down walls?

Sound of fire extinguishers, generators and sealed pipes exploding or a plate of glass falling 100 ft sound just like explosions. An explosion is just a large sudden sound try blowing up a paper bag or popping a balloon

Technically true, but a balloon popping is a lot quieter than an actual "cutter charge".

 

[JayUtah]

Sound of fire extinguishers, generators and sealed pipes exploding or a plate of glass falling 100 ft sound just like explosions.

No.

An explosion is just a large sudden sound try blowing up a paper bag or popping a balloon

Have you ever been physically present when an RDX demolition charge goes off? Yes or no.

 

[JayUtah]

you are being way to literal. NIST and many structural engineers believe that WTC7 would fail if the main column and adjacent cols were cut at lower levels

But not in the way it was observed to fail. This is engineering. Details matter.

But no one will ever be able to prove that it wasn't caused by someone blowing up the columns.

Not the proper burden of proof. The complete lack of any evidence for that particular cause is a good reason to think that wasn't it.

Yes it's completely absurd but you can not prove it didn't happen.

Good thing that's not how investigation and proof work. By that logic I can say a herd of invisible transvestite space cows destroyed WTC 7 with acid milk sprayed on column 79, which milk later vanished without a trace.

Completely absurd but you cannot prove it didn't happen.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I only ask one simple question for this one... were any remnants of explosives found? No, so there's not much else to discuss. Nobody needs to prove explosives were absent if theres no evidence if their presence to begin with

 

[jaydeehess]

No Jay, I disagree. It was Super invisible 12th dimensional reptilian Masereftians who detected a disturbance in the ether that they determined could only be corrected by causing WTC7 to collapse in a very specific manner. Doing so was of course, childs play for them.

I'm sure Richard will agree that this would be difficult to prove and therefore a viable alternative to the official story.