'What about building 7'?

[funk de fino]

What is laughable is watching you fail at trying to make a case for the fires in WTC 7 being caused by the collapse of WTC 1.

- The small fires behind Edna Cintron were even further away than the minimum 350 foot distance WTC 1 was from WTC 7.

- We also know those fires would have been quickly extinguished by the gypsum dust generated during the collapse.

You are groping hard and it is obvious.

The notion that the fires in WTC 7 were caused by the collapse of WTC 1 is a false construct and an additional proof of that is that they weren't noticed until nearly two hours after the collapse of WTC 1.

This is not true. It is out of context

 

[Belz...]

Why are you all using logic and stuff ? Logic doesn't matter. CTs are all about entertaining paranoia. So long as that's served, the rest is irrelevant. They just invent more layers to cover the arguments you provide.

 

[LSSBB]

Why are you all using logic and stuff ? Logic doesn't matter. CTs are all about entertaining paranoia. So long as that's served, the rest is irrelevant. They just invent more layers to cover the arguments you provide.

And the layers are of gypsum, so all arguments are completely encased. 100%. Guaranteed!

 

[AZCat]

Why are you all using logic and stuff ? Logic doesn't matter. CTs are all about entertaining paranoia. So long as that's served, the rest is irrelevant. They just invent more layers to cover the arguments you provide.

Paranoia and certain unsavory prejudices as well, in my experience.

 

[JayUtah]

I think your charts more appropriately apply to those here who are still desperately trying to support the notion that the fires in WTC 7 were caused by the collapse of WTC 1...

How desperate is it when that's what 99.5% of the relevant qualified professionals believe?

 

[Spanx]

Those who want to say that nobody was around for a while after the collapse of WTC 1 have a problem in that there were helicopters in the air the whole time. The dust from the collapse of WTC 1 would have settled in about 15 minutes, yet the helicopters did not report fires in WTC 7 shortly after the collapse when they had a good view of the building.

I guess the question is, were the occupants of the helicopter looking for fires?

I personally would be looking at the mass destruction as a whole. If I did see any fires I don't think there would any need to report them with the remaining fire fighters fighting a lost cause at the scene. Had it been a normal day in Manhattan I would imagine they would report smoke or fire.

I guess they would have reported arsonists had they seen any?

I wonder if anyone did ring in to inform the fire service of fires after the collapses.

 

[Ziggi]

So we add media and academia to the list of groups who ignore Truthers. As I said, from a different perspective maybe it's not everyone else's fault that those ideas don't get a toehold....

The media and adademia as institutions have avoided discussions about all aspects of 9/11. But individuals within them have joined the discussion on their own time, but they are still forced to seek discussions outside their workplaces, and this is why the internet is a target for recruitment.

...You tell us that we're a "disgraced forum," whatever that's supposed to mean. You tell us we're out in the intellectual wilderness, so to speak, because no mainstream scientists will agree to debate you on your terms...

You are a disgraced forum because JREF had to get rid of you because you were ruining its reputation and income, and helping us recruit people to the truth movement.

Truthers have no trouble finding extremely respected "mainstream" architects and engineers from AIA Fellows to NASA veterans to speak on our behalf about the demolition evidence, but you people cannot find a single one of that caliber to represent you.

 

[DGM]

You are a disgraced forum because JREF had to get rid of you because you were ruining its reputation and income, and helping us recruit people to the truth movement.

Evidence?

 

[Ziggi]

It's the tragedy of their lives.

Doomed to joust and prattle on obscure internet forums about stuff that doesn't matter.

One day they'll be dead, and their legacy will be a snail trail of stupidity on the internet.




[qimg]http://i1049.photobucket.com/albums/s394/jrefpicciesinnit/the-evidence-v2_zps834af7e0.gif[/qimg]

How incredibly ironic and funny seeing a member of this forum refering to the inability to understand the "best fit"...since there was once a member of this forum that made a big fool of himself in a YouTube video about NIST being wrong about its data showing 2.25 secs of freefall, and tried to argue that it showed faster than freefall.

Rumor has it this person has not seen his error, and that there are still some people on the forum claiming to be engineers saying the same thing, although they of course do not use their real names.

 

[beachnut]

The media and adademia as institutions have avoided discussions about all aspects of 9/11. But individuals within them have joined the discussion on their own time, but they are still forced to seek discussions outside their workplaces, and this is why the internet is a target for recruitment.

You are a disgraced forum because JREF had to get rid of you because you were ruining its reputation and income, and helping us recruit people to the truth movement.

Truthers have no trouble finding extremely respected "mainstream" architects and engineers from AIA Fellows to NASA veterans to speak on our behalf about the demolition evidence, but you people cannot find a single one of that caliber to represent you.

Finding respected engineers? You have 0.01 percent of all engineers, not one who has evidence for your CD fantasy. Why do your fantasy claims only attract so few? This is the Internet, if you guys had real evidence you would have millions - you have a fringe few paranoid nuts with no evidence.

Your claims are a disgrace, mocking the murdered with lies of an inside job you can't define. Where is your evidence. Where is your theory for CD? You can't see Harrit/Jones lied about thermite, how will you figure out 911.

Do the thousands of your respected 911 truth cult members help you with engineering? No, they signed a petition, and that is all they will do. 911 truth is the do nothing movement spreading lies. 911 truth has no single integrated theory for CD, the inside job, and look at WTC 7, not even a terrorist target. 911 truth followers can't do fire science, have no clue on the properties of steel, and can't do engineering. Unable to understand NIST, unable to support your CD claims with evidence. You offer BS from other 911 truth "respected" followers. Talk is all 911 truth is, no science, no logic, no joy.

The media and academia ignore 911 truth because 911 truth has a fantasy, proved wrong on 911. A fantasy 911 truth never defines and never presents evidence for. Saying otherwise about media and academia, is paranoia.

Your recent post signify the end of your bucket of BS. You can't remember your own attack methods, and you can't explain CD. You can't explain the penthouse falling into WTC 7 6 seconds before the roof-line falls. You can't comprehend that means the interior was collapsing 6 seconds prior to the penthouse falling. It means you have zero engineering, zero knowledge on structure, and you are limited to repeating tag lines made up to attack NIST; when you need to explain why fire can't damage steel, why a building can't fall; and 911 truth can't do the work; a perfect record of doing nothing but spreading lies for 13 years.

Deets thinks the planes were flown by remote control, when the FDR for 77 and 93 show otherwise. Your experts are conspiracy theorists, who are experts at being BS artists. Mocking the murdered of 911 with BS and opinions used as 911 truth's evidence. Deets made the first post. Deets can't figure out the penthouse fell into WTC 7 before the roof-line fell.

How does the CD fantasy explain the penthouse falling? Where do you get those amazing silent no blast effect explosives?



Why does 911 truth play this BS card? Do they run out of ammo bashing NIST, ignoring fire, listing other silly old men who have 911 conspiracies due to ignorance.

H... people on the forum claiming to be engineers saying the same thing, although they of course do not use their real names.

... like ziggi? I can prove I am an engineer, your posts prove you are not.

 

[DGM]

How incredibly ironic and funny seeing a member of this forum refering to the inability to understand the "best fit"...since there was once a member of this forum that made a big fool of himself in a YouTube video about NIST being wrong about its data showing 2.25 secs of freefall, and tried to argue that it showed faster than freefall.

Rumor has it this person has not seen his error, and that there are still some people on the forum claiming to be engineers saying the same thing, although they of course do not use their real names.

Odd that data actually does show acceleration greater that gravity. Do you dispute this? Is acceleration fast than gravity not possible in your world?

 

[LSSBB]

How incredibly ironic and funny seeing a member of this forum refering to the inability to understand the "best fit"...since there was once a member of this forum that made a big fool of himself in a YouTube video about NIST being wrong about its data showing 2.25 secs of freefall, and tried to argue that it showed faster than freefall.

Rumor has it this person has not seen his error, and that there are still some people on the forum claiming to be engineers saying the same thing, although they of course do not use their real names.

The best resolution data does not show a continuous period of continuous free fall acceleration of the façade of WTC7. We have threads here discussing the data (looks for threads with femr2 in the title). We also have a thread dedicated to freefall and WTC7. The acceleration profile of the façade is not evidence of controlled demolition. Please use the free fall thread if you wish to contest this.

 

[000063]

The nearly two hour gap between the collapse of WTC 1 (at 10:28 AM) and the fires being noticed in WTC 7 (at 12:15 PM) is an important clue in determining the cause of the fires.

Those who want to say that nobody was around for a while after the collapse of WTC 1 have a problem in that there were helicopters in the air the whole time. The dust from the collapse of WTC 1 would have settled in about 15 minutes,

Gosh, that sure sounds like another fact you've pulled out of thin air.

pquote]yet the helicopters did not report fires in WTC 7 shortly after the collapse when they had a good view of the building.[/quote]And since they all had x-ray vision, that means there were no fires. Oh, and fires never take time to grow. Also, appeal to ignorance.

A more logical explanation for the fires is arson, and the reality that those setting them couldn't do it until after the collapse of WTC 1, as it would not look right if done beforehand and they also had to wait for their own safety.

They had to wait...inside a building...that was being hit by pieces of another building...for their safety.



Hey, remember when I asked you how the plotters could predict WTC1's collapse with such precision? Well, that's now directly relevant to your theory. Spoiler: it's impossible, even with modern day tech.

The fire setting operation itself would take some time

Indeed. So, when did they start, and why did no one notice the dozens of people staying in the joint or walking inside with suspicious duffel bags or somesuch?

and they also would have to start at the top and work their way down to be safe.

Another unbacked, unexplained claim from Tony.

This is a much more sound explanation and provides real reasons for the nearly two hours that elapsed after the collapse of the second Twin Tower before anyone noticed fires in WTC 7.

I can't help but notice this post isn't actually responding to anyone. You wouldn't be trying some sort of fringe reset, wouldya, Tony? Trying to change the subject from whether damage could've led to the electrical systems starting a fire?

Your charcoal analogy does not account for conduction at the bottom of the hot item. When something is on the ground and covered by dirt it is insulated on both sides. That would not be the case here.

Who said anything about it being on the ground?

I think your notion of extinguished items staying hot enough is a big stretch and then you have to get it to fly 350 feet or more, get into the small number of openings in WTC 7, and start fires on ten floors, all from only about 3% of the floor area of WTC 1 which had fires at the time of the collapse.

It's amazing that you have all these numbers ot hand, but still struggle to remember the height of WTC 1.

Why are you all using logic and stuff ? Logic doesn't matter. CTs are all about entertaining paranoia. So long as that's served, the rest is irrelevant. They just invent more layers to cover the arguments you provide.

I'm using mocking logic, just because it's amusing.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

You'll still be doing this twenty years from now.

 

[DGM]

Indeed. So, when did they start, andat the times Tony why did no one notice the dozens of people staying in the joint or walking inside with suspicious duffel bags or somesuch?

Barry Jennings didn't report anyone else in the building.......................

 

[Tony Szamboti]

This forum would be more appropriately named the International Styptics Forum as it seems many on here are attempting to stop the hemorrhaging in the fraudulent stories and exposure of what actually happened to WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, in that they collapsed due to controlled demolition which could not have been a result of aircraft impacts and fires.

 

[Animal]

This forum would be more appropriately named the International Styptics Forum as it seems many on here are attempting to stop the hemorrhaging in the fraudulent stories and exposure of what actually happened to WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, in that they collapsed due to controlled demolition which could not have been a result of aircraft impacts and fires.

<yawn> Let everyone know if troofers ever reach one half of 1 of the relevant professional. In the mean time...I hope you enjoy paying for dicky gage's all expense paid vacations

 

[Nonpareil]

This forum would be more appropriately named the International Styptics Forum as it seems many on here are attempting to stop the hemorrhaging in the fraudulent stories and exposure of what actually happened to WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, in that they collapsed due to controlled demolition which could not have been a result of aircraft impacts and fires.

Well, I'm convinced.

 

[DGM]

This forum would be more appropriately named the International Styptics Forum as it seems many on here are attempting to stop the hemorrhaging in the fraudulent stories and exposure of what actually happened to WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, in that they collapsed due to controlled demolition which could not have been a result of aircraft impacts and fires.

But you keep coming back. Maybe you should bring your fight to the engineering world. Explain again why you don't do that......................?

Like it or not, we're all you got left.

 

[000063]

This forum would be more appropriately named the International Styptics Forum as it seems many on here are attempting to stop the hemorrhaging in the fraudulent stories and exposure of what actually happened to WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, in that they collapsed due to controlled demolition which could not have been a result of aircraft impacts and fires.

What exactly were you expecting that post to accomplish? To distract us from the holes in your own story?

And why, if you're so confident, do you refuse to discuss the logistics of this alleged CD, preferring instead to poke at holes in the "official story" and make unbacked statements, often trying to present your subjective opinion as objective fact?

How many CDs are performed in buildings that are on fire?

You know that saying about extraordinary claims, right?