• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes Chris, that the smoke plumes high on the SW corner are aligned with the broken windows says a lot. If the smoke was from 5+6 and was being picked up by the breeze cutting across the corner we'd see a general curtain of smoke being blown away, not plumes.

 
chrismohr said:
Spanx, it is not true that I don't respond to Ziggi because of stupid things he says on other posts. Tony, Ziggi and MM are very intelligent, observant people whose posts I take seriously on a technical level. I choose not to engage with Ziggi because I consider him to be abusive, and I choose the people with whom I interact. Ziggi knows this, I have already wished him well in his research and said my goodbyes in private emails. I know there is plenty of nastiness on both sides on this rough playground of a forum, but when someone puts me down personally, it's bye-bye time.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough and respected, odd that Ziggi continues when he knows you have said your good byes.
 
gerrycan said:
If you know of another fire induced proximate cause why are you keeping it all to yourself?.
Click to expand...

No comment on the cbtuh? From yourself? What conclusion do you think would have come out if NIST concluded to your satisfaction?

If im to take your own statement of intent literally, you avoid these questions intentionally to avoid burden of proof.

You demand agreement with your argument before anything can proceed further yet when anyone tries to grant that flexibility you find something to stop that from happening.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
No comment on the cbtuh? From yourself? What conclusion do you think would have come out if NIST concluded to your satisfaction?

If im to take your own statement of intent literally, you avoid these questions intentionally to avoid burden of proof.

You demand agreement with your argument before anything can proceed further yet when anyone tries to grant that flexibility you find something to stop that from happening.
Click to expand...

NISTs collapse initiating event has been invalidated. I'm not asking you to like it, just to stop clinging to that which is not plausible. In that way the discussion can move on perhaps.
 
gerrycan said:
I can see how sticking to the technical issues doesn't suit you.
Click to expand...


Yep, it's not my style (I'm surprised you didn't pick up on this a year ago) ;)

Remember, It's truther psychology that interests me, and these endless circular WTC7 threads are the perfect place to study the beast in the field.



gerrycan said:
NISTs collapse initiating event has been invalidated. I'm not asking you to like it, just to stop clinging to that which is not plausible. In that way the discussion can move on perhaps.
Click to expand...


You know Gerry, a wise man once said:

Ziggi said:
If you want to contradict NIST then the burden of proof rests on you.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Why are there no thermite burns on people? Thermite only goes to cars, and avoids people. Is there thermite programmable to only attack cars?

Did Tony really say thermite caused the car fires?
 
Last edited:
gerrycan said:
NISTs collapse initiating event has been invalidated. I'm not asking you to like it, just to stop clinging to that which is not plausible. In that way the discussion can move on perhaps.
Click to expand...

A lie, you made up. Where is the engineering proof? Looks like you are stuck with BS, you say NIST has been invalidated, with no clue what probable means. Where is the engineering, you have no technical issues, you have BS?

Your CD is invalidated, it is a fantasy. 19 terrorists did 911, and the effects of fire caused WTC 7 to collapse. In addition, WTC was totaled by fire before it collapsed. It is sad to see people lie; you can't invalidate anything.

The only thing you can do is ... http://911blogger.com/news/2014-03-07/being-smeared-911-truther-msm#comment-260973
Your approach, bash NIST, as a true NIST basher, you can't mention CD, you have no evidence. Your failed logic rests on lies about NIST, and then make the big lie, NIST is invalidated. Something you made up.

Okay, you have invalidated NIST in your mind, a delusional claim; where is your support for CD? How many people have fallen for your "new approach"? How many engineers have fallen for it? I only have 5.5 years of engineering school, why can't you convince men with all that fancy engineering talk? Wait, you never did anything but BS talk.
 
gerrycan said:
Do you think that the column 38 connection with K3004 would fail?
Click to expand...

That doesn't address my post. You said NIST had been disproven. I want to know who made that judgment. I want you to tell me a name, or names.

You suggest there is another phase to this discussion that you're itching to move on to. I want you to tell me what it is and who you plan to have that discussion with.

Please answer my questions.
 
JayUtah said:
That doesn't address my post. You said NIST had been disproven. I want to know who made that judgment. I want you to tell me a name, or names.

You suggest there is another phase to this discussion that you're itching to move on to. I want you to tell me what it is and who you plan to have that discussion with.

Please answer my questions.
Click to expand...

You were asked if you thought the k3004 connection at C38 would fail.
Please answer that. It's surely not too difficult for a self proclaimed expert in the field such as you are. :rolleyes:
 
LSSBB said:
"Would fail"? Why not ask if it is possible it could have failed?
Click to expand...

In reality or the model?
In the model - No. In reality - Of course it would.

ETA - why don't you just ask your very own self proclaimed "industry expert"?

should be interesting to see how he avoids answering this one.
 
Last edited:
gerrycan said:
You were asked if you thought the k3004 connection at C38 would fail.
Please answer that. It's surely not too difficult for a self proclaimed expert in the field such as you are. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Considering the fact the building collapse I think it's safe to say it did.

Who exactly has "disproved" the NIST probable hypothesis and to whom?
 
JayUtah said:
Irrelevant. You were asked who declared you the winner. Should be an easy question. You were asked what you're next-phase discussion would be. Should be easy for someone who says he's itching to get there.
Click to expand...

And there we have it. The self proclaimed expert in the field can't answer the question so declares it irrelevant to hide his inability.
Have you looked at the connection Jay?
 
DGM said:
Considering the fact the building collapse I think it's safe to say it did.

Who exactly has "disproved" the NIST probable hypothesis and to whom?
Click to expand...

You need to distinguish clearly between the model and reality and clarify to which you are referring.
 
gerrycan said:
In reality or the model?
In the model - No. In reality - Of course it would.

ETA - why don't you just ask your very own self proclaimed "industry expert"?

should be interesting to see how he avoids answering this one.
Click to expand...

Where have you shown it could not fail in the model? You've so far only presented an argument based on hand calculations and did not include all the connections and distortions modelled by NIST in your hand calculations.
 
gerrycan said:
And there we have it.
Click to expand...

Yes, we have my unwillingness to be distracted by your growing obsession over me personally, so intense that you have to go back and edit posts to add personalized arguments.

Without any prodding from me or anyone else, you claimed NIST had been disproven. I want to know whether this claim is an actual adjudication by someone, or whether it's just bluster.

Without any prodding, you urged us all to accept your theory so that we could move the discussion along. Given your well-publicized plan to avoid discussing anything but NIST's alleged error, I want now to know where you plan to take the discussion next.

Will you please clarify those two statements from you, please?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom