Another Steel-Framed Building Collapses Due to Fire

Russell Pickering said:
I am aware of the various posts here. Don't feel left out if I didn't respond. It is just that I didn't take it seriously.

Examples:

1) The forset fire analogy.

2) The idea I might believe FEMA believes the building was explosively imploded.

I am sorry about the slight change in demeanor, but you guys have dipped so low that I just have to toughen up a bit.

I tried intelligent kind discussion, but now I am turning down my IQ and ignoring idiocy!
Click to expand...

You are the one proposing an alternative theory, now let’s have it.

What happened inside WTC 7?
 
So state your hypothesis and present your evidence already, Russell. What's preventing you from doing that?
 
Gravy,

You just buried all of the factual information I just posted with a spam like repetition of a post I already read.

Did you do that to protect the lurkers? So they don't see the BS you try and pull by cherry picking the articles you write?

It is a lot of pressure to be a leader Gravy.

You should try and do it without name calling though.

It is undignified.

Maybe I'll just have to re post my info so people can see what you're leaving out of your scriptures.

I'll think about it.

Russell
 
Russell Pickering said:
I am aware of the various posts here. Don't feel left out if I didn't respond. It is just that I didn't take it seriously.

Examples:

1) The forset fire analogy.

2) The idea I might believe FEMA believes the building was explosively imploded.

I am sorry about the slight change in demeanor, but you guys have dipped so low that I just have to toughen up a bit.

I tried intelligent kind discussion, but now I am turning down my IQ and ignoring idiocy!
Click to expand...
This is not a low blow, and it's something you need to clarify. Otherwise you're just arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You believe that the eyewitness description "fully involved" is inaccurate. Given that position, please respond to the following:

Clearly the building was on fire. You're not denying that, are you?

So you don't accept that "fully involved" is a fair description. So what? How does merely being "somewhat involved" for several hours contradict the big picture?:

The building was burning uncontrollably; it had suffered some degree of structural damage; the people on the ground noticed signs of impending collapse and were clearly concerned about it; and few who had been following its progress were surprised when it finally did.
 
Gravy said:
So state your hypothesis and present your evidence already, Russell. What's preventing you from doing that?
Click to expand...

You hate evidence. It makes you lose your composure and become irrational.

If FEMA and NIST can't demonstrate their hypothesis, then why are you harassing me and not them?
 
Belz... said:
I do believe 20 floors had severe damage.

Also, notice how narrow the building is from that angle. Seems like that damage from that direction would be more crippling.
Click to expand...
Yes, from what I can see in the pictures there is a huge gaping hole in the front of that building and as you say WTC 7 was relatively narrow so IMO the structure was severely weakened anyways. The raging fires, over several hours, weakened the structure even further causing the progressive collapse we see in the video. The fire-fighters on the scene all recognized the signs of imminent collapse so created a collapse zone around the building because they knew it was too dangerous to go near it. They then got on with the rescue efforts elsewhere and left WTC 7 to burn, no mystery here I'm afraid.

All this is backed up by the statements made by the fire-fighters on the scene that have been posted many times on this thread and others, Russell they were not lying you know!
 
Russell Pickering said:
I am aware of the various posts here. Don't feel left out if I didn't respond. It is just that I didn't take it seriously.

...I tried intelligent kind discussion, but now I am turning down my IQ and ignoring idiocy!
Click to expand...
Yes Russell, we hear the same excuses here from psychics, dowsers, homeopaths, people who talk to the dead, spoonbenders, etc when the evidence backs them into a corner.

So, your summary:
All the firefighter quotes and news accounts that Gravy posted above are lies. The FDNY is in on it, as are all the news organizations. And we're all paid CIA disinfo agents.

Your failure to address the evidence is here for all to see. Keep living in your manufactured reality Russell!
 
Russell if the current NIST working hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 7 is incorrect in your opinion what do you think caused the collapse?

As they say amazing claims require amazing evidence!
 
Russell Pickering said:
Gravy,

You just buried all of the factual information I just posted with a spam like repetition of a post I already read.

Did you do that to protect the lurkers? So they don't see the BS you try and pull by cherry picking the articles you write?

It is a lot of pressure to be a leader Gravy.

You should try and do it without name calling though.

It is undignified.

Maybe I'll just have to re post my info so people can see what you're leaving out of your scriptures.

I'll think about it.

Russell
Click to expand...
I've been asking you for ages to tell us why the FDNY is wrong. Are you going to do so?

Please present the accounts from the FDNY eyewitnesses that disagree with those I've presented. Is that asking too much, ye of the delicate sensibilities who doesn't mind forgiving terrorists while disparaging people who save lives?
 
Russell Pickering said:
You hate evidence. It makes you lose your composure and become irrational.
Click to expand...
Evidence that the building was not "fully involved"? You still haven't explained what that buys you if we concede the point:

Clearly the building was on fire. You're not denying that, are you?

So you don't accept that "fully involved" is a fair description. So what? How does merely being "somewhat involved" for several hours contradict the big picture?:

The building was burning uncontrollably; it had suffered some degree of structural damage; the people on the ground noticed signs of impending collapse and were clearly concerned about it; and few who had been following its progress were surprised when it finally did.

If FEMA and NIST can't demonstrate their hypothesis, then why are you harassing me and not them?
Click to expand...
FEMA (in May 2002) concluded that further study was required. NIST is in the process of completing that study. They've made a great deal of progress: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Oct06.pdf

Their draft for public comment is due in the spring. Where do you get the idea that they "can't demonstrate their hypothesis"?
 
chipmunk stew said:
Russell, why, when there is a much more comprehensive analysis available, do you keep referencing a May 2002 study with the subtitle "Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations"?
Click to expand...

Funny. I asked that same question several pages ago. It went unanswered.
 
Chipmunk,

Of course the damn building was on fire.

Was it the degree of fire to cause collapse is the question?

Russell
 
WildCat said:
Yes Russell, we hear the same excuses here from psychics, dowsers, homeopaths, people who talk to the dead, spoonbenders, etc when the evidence backs them into a corner.

So, your summary:
All the firefighter quotes and news accounts that Gravy posted above are lies. The FDNY is in on it, as are all the news organizations. And we're all paid CIA disinfo agents.

Your failure to address the evidence is here for all to see. Keep living in your manufactured reality Russell!
Click to expand...

This time it is YOUR failure to produce evidence.

Show me the raging fires!

Nice comparisons and false conclusions.

INCREDULOUS - http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/#2

"Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues."

http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/#5

Are you guys professionals? You suggested it.
 
Russell Pickering said:
This time it is YOUR failure to produce evidence.

Show me the raging fires!

Nice comparisons and false conclusions.

INCREDULOUS - http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/#2

"Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues."

http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/#5

Are you guys professionals? You suggested it.
Click to expand...

Argumentum ad ignorantiam
 
Gravy said:
I've been asking you for ages to tell us why the FDNY is wrong. Are you going to do so?

Please present the accounts from the FDNY eyewitnesses that disagree with those I've presented. Is that asking too much, ye of the delicate sensibilities who doesn't mind forgiving terrorists while disparaging people who save lives?
Click to expand...

Nice tactic (for the hundreth time).

Gravy - honestly as somebody who has done that for a living, why do you talk so far outside of your realm?

Can you please demonstrate one word that indicates I forgive terrorists.

When you get off center emotionally like this you start to get sloppy.

Go for a short walk our something and try to compose yourself.
 
Russell Pickering said:
This time it is YOUR failure to produce evidence.

Show me the raging fires!
Click to expand...
Again and again and again you've been presented with expert eyewitness accounts of the raging fires.

Tell us, right now, why they are wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom