'What about building 7'?

[Tony Szamboti]

No Tony, I don't believe a word you say, you don't provide evidence, you just make stuff and don't do research. Your supporters may fall for it but in the real world you amount to nothing.

Your words don't really have any import as you can't be living in reality if you believe the collapse of WTC 7 was anything but a controlled demolition. The evidence is overwhelming for it and the NIST report needed to omit pertinent structural features to even make a plausible case that it wasn't.

My bringing up the additional reality that it is also a fairy tale that the fires in WTC 7 were caused by the collapse of the North Tower is just to show the entire story is nonsense.

The present official stories for the origin of the fires in WTC 7 and that it collapsed due to the fires are false constructs because somebody doesn't want the general public knowing controlled demolition was used on Sept. 11, 2001 in NYC.

 

[gerrycan]

This was your claim,



This is the counter claim,




And your response was,



So do you still think the columns in the model were fixed in the x- and y- directions along their entire height?

I never said that they were.
Also what you label as my claim was stated by NIST.
Where did I ever say that the columns were fixed along their entire height?

 

[Spanx]

Your words don't really have any import as you can't be living in reality if you believe the collapse of WTC 7 was anything but a controlled demolition. The evidence is overwhelming for it and the NIST report needed to omit pertinent structural features to even make a plausible case that it wasn't.

My bringing up the additional reality that it is also a fairy tale that the fires in WTC 7 were caused by the collapse of the North Tower is just to show the entire story is nonsense.

The present official stories for the origin of the fires in WTC 7 and that it collapsed due to the fires are false constructs because somebody doesn't want the general public knowing controlled demolition was used on Sept. 11, 2001 in NYC.

Ok Tony all you need to do now is provide the following evidence.

Evidence that the gypsum dust extinguished every single piece of fire/spark/ember

Evidence of arsonists

Evidence of thermite residue on the cars

Evidence of CD

I look forward to seeing it with all the research you have carried out over the years.

And yes I was aware of the collapse of wtc7 at the time, unlike you.

I was watching it in the UK and yes it did cut out but was repeated the following day(possibly during the night time as well) no big cover ups.

 

[Reactor drone]

I never said that they were.
Also what you label as my claim was stated by NIST.
Where did I ever say that the columns were fixed along their entire height?

I can't think where I got that impression. Maybe it was when you paraphrased NIST and completely changed their meaning by leaving out important words.

....and the columns in the model were fixed in the x-y axis to prevent any lateral displacement.

 

[gerrycan]

I can't think where I got that impression. Maybe it was when you paraphrased NIST and completely changed their meaning by leaving out important words.

Not at all. The point that I was making was that NIST did not model ALL the connections, as some on here were claiming. They only modeled the connections in the NE of the building.
No amount of strawmanning from you can change that fact, and the fact that the expansion supposed by NIST was erroneously stated to be only in one direction when in fact the failure of the connection between K3004 and C38 would mean that NIST would not have been able to claim anything like 5.5" of expansion in the beam had this connection been considered.

 

[Spanx]

Not at all. The point that I was making was that NIST did not model ALL the connections, as some on here were claiming. They only modeled the connections in the NE of the building.
No amount of strawmanning from you can change that fact, and the fact that the expansion supposed by NIST was erroneously stated to be only in one direction when in fact the failure of the connection between K3004 and C38 would mean that NIST would not have been able to claim anything like 5.5" of expansion in the beam had this connection been considered.

Oh well, I guess we will just have to see what happens when AE911truth come up with there own model.

 

[gerrycan]

Oh well, I guess we will just have to see what happens when AE911truth come up with there own model.

No, you are not comprehending what is being said to you.
There was no accounting for the connection at the east end of K3004. Are you trying to say that this connection would not fail like the connection at the west end?
It is almost amusing watching you and your ilk trying to avoid any discussion of this connection like the plague. You realise what it does to NISTs story and the validity of their model.
Don't you think that the connection at C38 would fail?

 

[Spanx]

No, you are not comprehending what is being said to you.
There was no accounting for the connection at the east end of K3004. Are you trying to say that this connection would not fail like the connection at the west end?
It is almost amusing watching you and your ilk trying to avoid any discussion of this connection like the plague. You realise what it does to NISTs story and the validity of their model.
Don't you think that the connection at C38 would fail?

I wouldn't take yourself to seriously Gerry this is the 911 conspiracy sub forum. If this is the closest place you can find to reality then you have a big problem.

You have only got to read Tony's latest posts to understand why you are not being taken seriously.

 

[NoahFence]

Or maybe you just like to believe what you are told no matter what the actual evidence indicates otherwise and then bloviate that it just can't be when confronted with it.

That's your problem, kiddo.
We don't need to be told what happened. We saw it happen.

 

[gerrycan]

No, you are not comprehending what is being said to you.
There was no accounting for the connection at the east end of K3004. Are you trying to say that this connection would not fail like the connection at the west end?
It is almost amusing watching you and your ilk trying to avoid any discussion of this connection like the plague. You realise what it does to NISTs story and the validity of their model. Don't you think that the connection at C38 would fail?

I wouldn't take yourself to seriously Gerry this is the 911 conspiracy sub forum. If this is the closest place you can find to reality then you have a big problem.

You have only got to read Tony's latest posts to understand why you are not being taken seriously.

You're not even pretending to address the information that you are being confronted with. With some on here, this is due to an unwillingness to face the implications. With others, such as yourself, it is an inability to comprehend those implications.
As for this being the closest place that I can find to reality, I agree with you that there is little comprehension of reality here among you and your ilk, but rather an unbending desire to cling to a ridiculous NIST hypothesis that to varying degrees artificially underpins an erroneous world view.
Sure, this forum is close to reality.
Just not close enough.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Ok Tony all you need to do now is provide the following evidence.

Evidence that the gypsum dust extinguished every single piece of fire/spark/ember

Evidence of arsonists

Evidence of thermite residue on the cars

Evidence of CD

I look forward to seeing it with all the research you have carried out over the years.

And yes I was aware of the collapse of wtc7 at the time, unlike you.

I was watching it in the UK and yes it did cut out but was repeated the following day(possibly during the night time as well) no big cover ups.

I am willing to bet that your pseudonym is a spoof on the word "spanks", implying that you are the spanker of others who you claim to spank metaphorically.

Well you are clearly the one who has been spanked on this thread (due to your own intransigence, so blame yourself) and the only reaction you can muster, in an attempt to continue your charade, is akin to saying "prove to me the sun is hot". It sounds like something a brat would say, instead of someone willing to have a mature discussion.

 

[Spanx]

You're not even pretending to address the information that you are being confronted with. With some on here, this is due to an unwillingness to face the implications. With others, such as yourself, it is an inability to comprehend those implications.
As for this being the closest place that I can find to reality, I agree with you that there is little comprehension of reality here among you and your ilk, but rather an unbending desire to cling to a ridiculous NIST hypothesis that to varying degrees artificially underpins an erroneous world view.
Sure, this forum is close to reality.
Just not close enough.

Great, that explains why you post here, your aim is to find people who can't comprehend what you are saying. This explains why Ae911truth has such limited success and only success within itself. (People that can't comprehend)

How would you say your success rate is on this forum ? Are you any closer to a new investigation ? Have you found anyone who agrees with you ?

 

[chrismohr]

From my reading of the final NIST WTC 7 report it says ten floors were on fire. It says there were fires on floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 29, and 30. I don't know where you get that they changed it between the draft and final report. If you have a different number you should show them your evidence.

However, I would think the argument you are trying to make is that there was a vertical spread. I don't see evidence for that and there were certainly floors between fire floors that weren't on fire, even where most of the fire was (between floors 7 and 13), as floor 10 had no fire. I think that pretty much answers your question that there does not appear to have been a vertical spread.

Hi again Tony, I'm going to stick my neck out here and I may well be wrong. Anyone here is welcome to correct me.
Look again at my YouTube video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJUDQVqbMto&list=PLDD5BD81A636031A5 You can also look at my video about foreknowledge of Building 7's collapse, with firefighers talking about how vast the fire was and how extensive the damage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajIr2G4wFn4&index=4&list=PLDD5BD81A636031A5 Everything I see with smoke chugging out of most floors with great intensity tells me that except for the top seven floors or so, most floors of the building were on fire. I remember the NIST Report originally claiming ten floors burning and that number going up to 12 in the final report, but I may be wrong about that.
Either number looks way too small for me. I'm no expert, but when smoke is shooting out horizontally from almost every floor, I see something like 35 to 40 floors of burning. I think NIST was being too conservative. Did they count floors only where they could actually see flames from the outside? I've held back on saying this for years because I've thought, who am I to disagree with their analysis?
BTW Part 13 shows a picture of debris slamming into Building 7 and you can see that the debris hit the whole building, top to bottom. Seems likely that some embers of flaming pieces of the Tower were in that huge debris smashup. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv06LjVGC6Q&list=PLDD5BD81A636031A5&index=1
Does anyone else disagree with the NIST Report's claim that there were fires on only ten or twelve floors?

 

[Spanx]

I am willing to bet that your pseudonym is a spoof on the word "spanks", implying that you are the spanker of others who you claim to spank metaphorically.

Well you are clearly the one who has been spanked on this thread (due to your own intransigence, so blame yourself) and the only reaction you can muster, in an attempt to continue your charade, is akin to saying "prove to me the sun is hot". It sounds like something a brat would say, instead of someone willing to have a mature discussion.

Oh bless you Tony, Google spanx

You might find something for your wife ?

Shame you didn't provide the evidence asked for but that was to be expected.

As for Gerrycan can we assume he is a German arsonist ?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You're not even pretending to address the information that you are being confronted with.

Because you're presenting it as a false choice fallacy and complex question. Your argument boils down to "details must be absolutely correct or nothing about the proximate conclusions shall ever apply". You explicitly exclude every other criticism and context by design, and blatantly state the intent to do this in order to protect your arguments from criticism.

 

[gerrycan]

Because you're presenting it as a false choice fallacy. Your argument boils down to "details must be absolutely correct or nothing about the proximate conclusions shall ever apply". You explicitly exclude every other criticism and context by design.

There is no false dichotomy here.
What do you think about the C38 connection?
Have you looked at it?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

There is no false dichotomy here.

Yes there is. Your argument is that the "fire induced collapse" hangs on this single thread, and that NIST got this wrong, therefore fire was not the proximate initiator of collapse.

What do you think about the C38 connection?

It's not a deal breaker. If the girder didn't walk off then it simply means that the fires caused a different component to fail in a different manner than NIST suggest as the most "probable". If you would like to argue that fires did not initiate the collapse you need to get out of the false choice, because I don't limit myself to their probable cause as the sole option.

Or would you suggest that the CBTUH is obfuscating when they think similarly by suggesting a different potential sequence of failures similarly caused by fires? One of our participants once said quite clearly he believd them to be either quite foolish and gullible

 

[gerrycan]

Yes there is. Your argument is that the "fire induced collapse" hangs on this single thread, and that NIST got this wrong, therefore fire was not the proximate initiator of collapse.



It's not a deal breaker. If the girder didn't walk off then it simply means that the fires caused a different component to fail in a different manner than NIST suggest as the most "probable". If you would like to argue that fires did not initiate the collapse you need to get out of the false choice.

Or would you suggest that the CBTUH is obfuscating when they think similarly by suggesting a different potential sequence of failures similarly caused by fires? One of our participants once said quite clearly he believd them to be either quite foolish and gullible

You don't even comprehend which connection is being discussed. Why try to engage in a subject you can't get a grip on?
Go look at the connection and then reply.

 

[Oystein]

...I think NIST was being too conservative. Did they count floors only where they could actually see flames from the outside?
...
Does anyone else disagree with the NIST Report's claim that there were fires on only ten or twelve floors?

NIST decided to only consider fires for which there is good evidence from videos and images that can be timed with reasonable accuracy. That means in particular that they did not consider eyewitness reports - a good decision, in my opinion, as many witnesses were demonstrably wrong about details (I just read An Interview with Lenny Curcio, WTC7 Firefighter who claimed "there were ten+ floors of fire from approximately the 20th floor up" - we know the largest and most persistent fires were between floors 7 and 13.), even when they add valuable voices to support the big picture.

NIST was thus limited to what those images can possibly show. There were plenty of cameras north of WTC7, very few south, and those south often had their views blocked by smoke. Since the prevailing wind was from the northwest, airflow would have been predominantly from north and west towards south and east, possibly pushing smoke out of windows far away from any fire. So smoke emenating from any window is only weak evidence for a fire being nearby. Also, it is often difficult to be certain where smoke is actually coming from.

So for the most part, NIST's fire history is based on flames visible in photos and videos, and sometimes from visible effects (shattered windows, charred insides).

NIST certainly underestimates the extent of the fires, i.e. is conservative.

 

[Ziggi]

Hi again Tony, I'm going to stick my neck out here and I may well be wrong. Anyone here is welcome to correct me.
Look again at my YouTube video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJUDQVqbMto&list=PLDD5BD81A636031A5
... Everything I see with smoke chugging out of most floors with great intensity tells me that except for the top seven floors or so, most floors of the building were on fire. I remember the NIST Report originally claiming ten floors burning and that number going up to 12 in the final report, but I may be wrong about that.

Chris, you are still referring to smoke that bounced on B7 from surrounding buildings as evidence of fire inside B7, because people on this forum have told you to do that. NIST is not referring to this as evidence for fire inside 7 on practically all floors because that smoke came from other buildings and smothered the outside of 7. Richard and others have tried to explain this to you countless times, but you refuse to listen to anyone, even NIST, and you keep coming back with the same old mantra. You just label your video "undebunked" and think all is well.

You also have a habit of disappearing when confronted about this behavior Chris, as you have done a couple of times in that last few days. Take a look at my last reply to you, fx. You always make up excuses and disappear when you are confronted.