Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

NoahFence said:
They couldn't have hoped for that - because remember truther canard #133:

WTC7 Was too far away to be hit by debris from the twin towers.

Christ. These people have more self-contradictions than the bible for crying out loud...
Click to expand...

That was when WTC 7 was 600 feet away. Now that its 350 feet away its only too far for burning material to reach.
 
NoahFence said:
They couldn't have hoped for that - because remember truther canard #133:

WTC7 Was too far away to be hit by debris from the twin towers.

Christ. These people have more self-contradictions...
Click to expand...

I don't think that particular bit is a self-contradiction. I think they're claiming "the chaotic interactions of an explosives-free collapses couldn't have thrown a chunk of debris that far, therefore that chunk of debris must have been hurled that far by explosives".
 
gerrycan said:
1. None of your business
Click to expand...
So the bastions of openness and putting names to work and claims rather than pseudonyms, will carry out an investigation, and will do so in even greater secrecy than did NIST. NIST listed, quite prominently, the names of those who worked on their reports. What are you hiding?

2. Some of the columns weren't even modelled for damage. They were fixed at the top and bottom yes, but to suppose that this was the only boundary condition imposed is silly. I think you need to be referencing 3 axis also.
Click to expand...

Um, if some of the columns were not modeled for damage then wouldn't that influence the FEA conservatively favouring non-collapse? You have a beef with that?
 
jaydeehess said:
Um, if some of the columns were not modeled for damage then wouldn't that influence the FEA conservatively favouring non-collapse? You have a beef with that?
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, but gerrycan just said something about NIST using "a negative construction in the English language". Therefore NIST bad. Get with it. Duh.
 
gerrycan said:
Let's for arguments sake suppose that you are right. You would also need to account for the south most beam framing into the c79-44 girder failing at its east end. When that happens, and it would, you lose the 3/4" eastward movement that your theory gained you, leaving you right back where you started.
Click to expand...

What NIST model are you referring to? I'm not aware of one that only considers such a narrow scope.

Surely, you're not saying the 16 story model did not consider the effects of................ well 16 stories.

Where do you present your broader scope? A link would help.
 
carlitos said:
gerrycan said:
An independent group of researchers that found errors in NISTs report.
Click to expand...

Do the members of this "independent group of researchers" have names? Are you one of those people?
gerrycan said:
Yes they have names. And yes I am in that group.
It really isn't relevant to this thread though.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

gerrycan said:
You need to ask ae911 about their plans, not me.
Click to expand...

If gerrycan is part of group of researchers working for a new 9/11 investigation, but he doesn't speak for ae911truth, what is that group? Is anyone of note a member of this group?
 
carlitos said:
If gerrycan is part of group of researchers working for a new 9/11 investigation, but he doesn't speak for ae911truth, what is that group? Is anyone of note a member of this group?
Click to expand...

There's groups, there's AE911T groups, but above all, membership in these groups is private information being withheld because.... I dunno, National Security?
It is ironic that truthers complain bitterly that their (internet, online) detractors are anonymous while they tout their openness in the use of their real names, and complain that NIST will not release data it used in their FEAs...
and then...
tell the world they will have a group do work but will not say who will be doing it, say they will post monthly updates on the group's work, then don't.
 
jaydeehess said:
There's groups, there's AE911T groups, but above all, membership in these groups is private information being withheld because.... I dunno, National Security?
Click to expand...

There are no real groups. There are individuals pretending to be groups that fantasize they will someday do something. Gage is an exception, he's drawing a paycheck.

What they want is to convince someone to take the helm and prove them right.......:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Folks, of course gerrycan is perfectly within his rights to keep the identities and affiliations of his collaborators private ;)
 
Oystein said:
Two comments:

a) What a charming dialect! :) (Why, I shall have a draft of 21yo on that!)
b) I am amazed that you listen to the end on those talks, AND remember where to find such details! :eye-poppi
Click to expand...


I have a terrible affliction, professional help is being sought :o


I'm still trying to make out the indistinct name in that other interview, where Tony drops his guard.

"David Cole...indistinct mumble...Kevin*"

(*Kevin Ryan maybe?)

Anyone else recognise the indistinct name? Fizzler? Fetzer (surely not?!?)



(There's a lot of 'how I came to hold my beliefs' stuff from Gerry from around 15 mins into the "9/11 Free Fall 8/1/13: Gerry B. and "MaladmiNISTration"" youtube vid, including his WTC7 Road to Damascus moment)
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Sure, and they can drop the nonsense about anonymous posters on the internet. If they cannot bide anonymous posters why should we feel OK with anonymous creators of research?
Click to expand...
You've never worked in sales have you? :rolleyes:

The "truthers" are a perfect application of the phase "there is no such thing as bad publicity" .

They thrive on the fact they have no theory. They expect others to sympathizes and come up with one for them. I can't state this any more directly.

"We need a new investigation" is a lazy way of saying, we need someone to prove us right.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
Two comments:

a) What a charming dialect! :) (Why, I shall have a draft of 21yo on that!)
Click to expand...

I manage three and a bit versions of English:

1) AU as in "G'dayeee maayte"
2) UK as in what was BBC RP (when the National Broadcaster was the authority on "Received Pronunciation" back in the days when dialects were so thick that you needed interpreters if you crossed County boundaries.)
3) Yorkshire - my place of birth and childhood to age 11

4) I'm working on written US English and those arse about dates like "9/11" when they don't mean Ninth of November - so I was pleased at the UK decision to have their event on 7/7 :)

I'm still frustrated by forums like this one which use US spelling - all my favourite Aussie words appear as *******

...half the sewage jokes lose their impact if I have to write "faeces" and no way will I spell it "feces" when the "s" word says it all far better.

[/EndRant - blame Oystein :o :boxedin:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom