I found the missing Jolt.

[Tony Szamboti]

You mean besides another building falling on it and being left to burn all day?

Your guess is as good as mine, pal.

So you think maybe the North Tower pushed WTC 7 to the right? That would be interesting given that WTC 7's center was a little to the left of the North Tower's center and it was a longer building.

You might have to work on that one.

 

[beachnut]

So you think maybe the North Tower pushed WTC 7 to the right? That would be interesting given that WTC 7's center was a little to the left of the North Tower's center and it was a longer building.

You might have to work on that one.

LOL, this is classic.

The aircraft impacts were used as causal ruses to blame outsiders. ...

How is the aircraft ruse used in your CD fantasy? Who did it?

... I can do to make them worry that there is actually a possibility, however slight, that they might be held to account.

Wow, we are going to jail if your fantasy of CD works out? How will that work? I am scared... oh noes, we are going to be held to account.

This is funny stuff. You have the CD fantasy, then a fantasy of aircraft used for a ruse, and now we are suppose to be scared we will be held accountable because your CD fantasy failed because you have no evidence.

 

[NoahFence]

I'm curious Tony.
In your learned opinion, with no explosives and everything else being equal (47 story building struck by a 110 story building and subsequent day long fires) what should have happened to WTC7?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

LOL, this is classic.

How is the aircraft ruse used in your CD fantasy? Who did it?

Beachnut, can you explain how WTC 7 would have had a 2.5 degree lean to the west a minute or more before any collapse the way tfk claims in post #741?

Do you think he is right?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I'm curious Tony.
In your learned opinion, with no explosives and everything else being equal (47 story building struck by a 110 story building and subsequent day long fires) what should have happened to WTC7?

I wasn't under the impression that the North Tower fell over onto WTC 7.

 

[NoahFence]

The reality is you can't explain a lean before any collapse because there is nothing that could have caused it.

It looks like perspective tfk is mistaking for a tilt.

I don't have to explain the lean. You need to explain the alternative.

Damage and fire caused it.

And tfk's photo accounts for perspective.

 

[NoahFence]

I wasn't under the impression that the North Tower fell over onto WTC 7.

Then you're lost, and nothing can get through. My apologies.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I don't have to explain the lean. You need to explain the alternative.

Damage and fire caused it.

And tfk's photo accounts for perspective.

You should explain the lean if you want to argue it. I think he tried but I don't think tfk took perspective fully into account. The photo he uses is from up above.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Then you're lost, and nothing can get through. My apologies.

Did the North Tower fall over onto WTC 7? The videos I have seen don't show that. Maybe you have one I haven't seen.

 

[MicahJava]

Why is your fantasy of CD stuck in 9/11 Conspiracy Theories sub-forum? You have the fantasy of CD, the crime of the Century, but you are stuck here, not in breaking news, current evidence, or reality; just plain CD fantasy based on no evidence.

I might try opening a thread about OKC when I get a better understanding of the case. I hope you'll be there.

 

[beachnut]

Evidence Free fantasy CD continues with added woo, aircraft ruse, and held to account

Beachnut, can you explain how WTC 7 would have had a 2.5 degree lean to the west a minute or more before any collapse the way tfk claims in post #741?

Do you think he is right?

Tony, who I know better as the realcddeal, where is your evidence for CD?

Why are you stuck here in 9/11 Conspiracy Theories sub-forum, you have a Pulitzer Prize winning claim if you had evidence.\\
Why are you stuck here? No evidence for CD, no evidence for aircraft ruse.

 

[NoahFence]

Did the North Tower fall over onto WTC 7? The videos I have seen don't show that. Maybe you have one I haven't seen.

Yep.
To deny that is functionally identical to denying day and night exist.

 

[TJM]

So you think maybe the North Tower pushed WTC 7 to the right? That would be interesting given that WTC 7's center was a little to the left of the North Tower's center and it was a longer building.

You might have to work on that one.

Of course I said nothing of the sort.

Photographic evidence show 7 taking a major blow from WTC 1, burn and began to develop a lean.

Then it fell.

Not unexpectedly either, but when you need to make a living from conning people out of their hard-earned, I guess you'd have a need to have some sinister motive for screaming foul about a building that, truth be told, nobody would give a rat's ass about.

Unless the rat's ass in question runs AE911 "truth".

 

[MicahJava]

Yep.
To deny that is functionally identical to denying day and night exist.

The videos show that only a handful of steel pieces were ejected far enough to hit Seven.

 

[thedopefishlives]

The videos show that only a handful of steel pieces were ejected far enough to hit Seven.

"Ejected". I love that word. A better word would be "toppled", because they hinged away from the top of the tower, which is how they got their horizontal velocity to begin with. But you prefer to think of them as being blown away with explosives, so of course you'll use a word that presupposes your conclusion.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The videos show that only a handful of steel pieces were ejected far enough to hit Seven.

What about the wave of debris, in the intense collapse?

 

[TJM]

What about the wave of debris, in the intense collapse?

You mean those harmless fluffy dust bunnies that the collapses produced?

Silly man.

 

[MicahJava]

"Ejected". I love that word. A better word would be "toppled", because they hinged away from the top of the tower, which is how they got their horizontal velocity to begin with. But you prefer to think of them as being blown away with explosives, so of course you'll use a word that presupposes your conclusion.

I thought "ejected" was the neutral term. Whatever floats your boat. Doesn't change that the NFPA 921 describes heavy debris ejected hundreds of feet as evidence for explosives.

 

[TJM]

I thought "ejected" was the neutral term. Whatever floats your boat. Doesn't change that the NFPA 921 describes heavy debris ejected hundreds of feet as evidence for explosives.

What does it say about the absence of enormous, ear-splitting booms and blast injuries to victims?

 

[MicahJava]

What does is say about the absence of enormous, ear-splitting booms

NFPA 921 – 23.1.4 Definition of an Explosion

“Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria for an explosion.”

and blast injuries to victims?

Who said there weren't shrapnel injuries?

edit: Also, there is the Ron DiFrancesco case.