Another Steel-Framed Building Collapses Due to Fire

Russell Pickering said:
Before you refer to the physical damage, please read the quote after and view the following photo (no fire at the damage area).
Click to expand...

No fire ? You can see through walls ?



NO FIRE!

You guys really should try and hold Gravy to the same standards you try and impose on me.
Click to expand...

We do. It's called evidence.

This is just some of the stuff Gravy leaves out of his cherry picked articles.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call 200 accounts "cherry picking".
 
WildCat said:
And sometimes they collapse without any fire at all.
Click to expand...
On that page, a reader commented:
In discussing so called disasters - especially those where political agendas and or large insurance agencies are concerned - it is important not to rule out sabotage or even "planned obselescence"; design flaws. More than one famous "disaster" has been traced to "foul play"; I believe two of these so called disasters will be the "very strange" twin hurricanes which destroyed new orleans and the world's largest scam - the demolition of the twin towers in NYC. History has a long ear and the law even a longer arm. Even today the prime player in WWII documentaries is always mysteriously absent - Standard Oil; where did Japan and Germany get the petroleum products to wage global war and where did the bankrupt Weimar Republic get the capital for such great industrial developments even in spite of War Reperations and Treaty of Versailles Mandates not to manufacture armaments plus compromising Western Peace Making Leaders!

If these questions are too large for the geographic; what is thermite and who in the U.S. is licensed to use it and does NORAD have weather modification capabilities; like the so-called "scalar interferometer.
Click to expand...

It's like trying to beat back cockroaches!
 
Russell Pickering said:
Can you please narrow that down to just definitive official sources please as I requested.
Click to expand...
Science does not work that way. If there are factual errors in the links I provided, please cite them.

Popular Mechanics doesn't count. They have had serious documented errors. I sent them 4 on a recent article documented beyond reproach and they refuse to retract.
Click to expand...
Unless the four items you take issue with are directly related to WTC 7 this is an argumentum ad hominem. If they are directly related, please cite them.

Anti-9/11 truth websites don't count either.
Click to expand...
Science does not work that way. If there are factual errors in the links I provided, please cite them, otherwise this is an argumentum ad hominem.

I would just like a quote from an official report that clearly states that WTC 7 collapse was directly caused by non fire induced structural damage.

Thank you!
Click to expand...

That is neither what the preliminary reports, nor I have said happened. Please do not ask for evidence for something that is not representative of my claim. I clearly stated that both fire and structural damage were contributing factors.
 
Russell Pickering said:
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?
Click to expand...

So you DON'T have an answer.

Ask FEMA why they disagree with the firefighters.
Click to expand...

Coward.

Popular Mechanics doesn't count. They have had serious documented errors.
Click to expand...

And no one who isn't perfect is allowed to speak, here.

Please refrain from demanding anything from me. It just creates an inner resistance within me that is likely to even further delay my response.
Click to expand...

Convenient. And if he DOESN'T ask anything you don't answer, either.
 
Belz... said:
It was also the first time a 110-storey, flaming building fell on a large fire-protected steel building.
Click to expand...

Actually it looks like WTC 5 and WTC 6 were the first.

wtcdamage.jpg
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Science does not work that way. If there are factual errors in the links I provided, please cite them.
Unless the four items you take issue with are directly related to WTC 7 this is an argumentum ad hominem. If they are directly related, please cite them.

Science does not work that way. If there are factual errors in the links I provided, please cite them, otherwise this is an argumentum ad hominem.

That is neither what the preliminary reports, nor I have said happened. Please do not ask for evidence for something that is not representative of my claim. I clearly stated that both fire and structural damage were contributing factors.
Click to expand...

OK - so the answer is you can't show me an official report that definitively attributes the collapse of WTC 7 to non fire structural damage.

Thank you!
 
Russell Pickering said:
OK - so the answer is you can't show me an official report that definitively attributes the collapse of WTC 7 to non fire structural damage.

Thank you!
Click to expand...

Ok Russell they blow it up.

Why did they do this and what would they not just say?

" Yes WTC 7 was seriously damaged and we pulled it because it was badly damaged”

Why this massive cover up?

Why not come clean right away, rather going through this massive farce of producing reports, and involving experts?

It could have been so simple.

We blow it, it was unsafe, case closed.
 
Russell Pickering said:
OK - so the answer is you can't show me an official report that definitively attributes the collapse of WTC 7 to non fire structural damage.

Thank you!
Click to expand...

Set aside your confirmational bias for five minutes and actually read the information I provided. Once again, I reiterate, neither I, nor anyone else here is claiming the collapse was due to a single contributing factor. Your insistence on making it so is a logical fallacy. WTC 7 suffered structural damage from debris, and had fires. This combination of factors, coupled with its non-standard architecture (a cantelivered building) led to its collapse.

I base this conclusion on the available evidence. Should the upcoming NIST report, or other sources, provide other evidence or other conclusions that can be independently, confirmed I would be perfectly willing to revise my position.

You appear to not be familiar with the methodology being used in the investigation of WTC 7, so I will conclude this post with a quote that summarizes it nicely,
Michael Shermer on "The Scientific Method"* ​
Elements of the scientific method ( hypothetico-deductive):

Induction -- Forming a hypothesis by drawing general conclusions from existing data.
Deduction -- Making specific predictions based on the hypothesis.

Observation -- Gathering data, driven by hypothesis that tell us what to look for in nature.

Verification -- Testing the predictions against further observations to confirm or falsify the initial hypothesis.


Through the scientific method, we may form the following generalizations:
Hypothesis -- A testable statement accounting for a set of observations.
Theory -- A well-supported and well-tested hypothesis or set of hypotheses.

Fact -- A conclusion confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional agreement.

Through the scientific method, we aim for objectivity: basing conclusions on external validation. And we avoid mysticism: basing conclusions on personal insights that elude external validation.

Science leads us toward rationalism: basing conclusions on logic and evidence. And science helps us avoid dogmatism: basing conclusions on authority rather than logic and evidence.

It is important to recognize the fallibility of science and the scientific method. But within this fallibility lies its greatest strength: self-correction.

A scientific law is a description of a regularly repeating action that is open to rejection or confirmation.


Scientific progress is the cummulative growth of a system of knowledge over time, in which useful features are retained, and nonuseful features are abandoned, based on the rejection or confirmation of testable knowledge.

Pseudoscience: claims presented so that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility.


Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomenon. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.

A skeptic is one who questions the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it.
Click to expand...
*from Why People Believe Weird Things, by Michael Shermer (1997)

Underlining mine for emphasis.
 
Russell Pickering said:
OK - so the answer is you can't show me an official report that definitively attributes the collapse of WTC 7 to non fire structural damage.

Thank you!
Click to expand...

Ah, such a beautiful strawman! Now, how about you address what was actually said?

Arkan_Wolfshade said:
That is neither what the preliminary reports, nor I have said happened. Please do not ask for evidence for something that is not representative of my claim. I clearly stated that both fire and structural damage were contributing factors.
Click to expand...

You're asking Arkan for evidence of a claim that no one has made. Oh, except for you. Do you really think anyone reading this can't see what you're doing? For someone who prattles on about "disinfo" tactics, you're pretty disingenuous about using BS rhetorical methods yourself.
 
Russell, I thought you said that we'd have to wait until the NIST's final report?

So what's up with all this baseless speculation?
 
It's obvious that a lot of the debates that occur on this forum are for the benefit of unseen lurkers out there who are reading both sides of the story.

The Ctists are too entrenched in their ideologies to change their opinions, and the skeptics (sceptics? which is correct?) have way too much evidence on their side to change their opinions; so I have to believe that this is all a battle for the "undecideds" out there.

As a former lurker I'd like to weigh in. In full disclosure I'm far from being an undecided, I've been following this for a few months now and it is QUITE obvious to me that the truth favors the official story far more than it does the silly CT fantasies.

I've watched the implosion (pardon the pun) of the LC board, I've seen the antics of the johndoes and the christopheras and the truthseekers of the world, I was somewhat impressed at first with Pickering's more reasoned approach, but it's the work of people like Gravy that strikes the bigger chord with me.

I will never understand how these CTists come to believe what they believe, but if they think that they are changing any hearts and minds out there with the utter stupidity that in their minds passes as supreme intelligence they are SORELY mistaken!

Big thanks to the JREFers who are fighting the good fight. To the CTists, keep on digging, everyday you expose yourselves as the lo(o)sers you really are.

Thanks,
CosCos
 
CosCos said:
It's obvious that a lot of the debates that occur on this forum are for the benefit of unseen lurkers out there who are reading both sides of the story.

The Ctists are too entrenched in their ideologies to change their opinions, and the skeptics (sceptics? which is correct?) have way too much evidence on their side to change their opinions; so I have to believe that this is all a battle for the "undecideds" out there.

As a former lurker I'd like to weigh in. In full disclosure I'm far from being an undecided, I've been following this for a few months now and it is QUITE obvious to me that the truth favors the official story far more than it does the silly CT fantasies.

I've watched the implosion (pardon the pun) of the LC board, I've seen the antics of the johndoes and the christopheras and the truthseekers of the world, I was somewhat impressed at first with Pickering's more reasoned approach, but it's the work of people like Gravy that strikes the bigger chord with me.

I will never understand how these CTists come to believe what they believe, but if they think that they are changing any hearts and minds out there with the utter stupidity that in their minds passes as supreme intelligence they are SORELY mistaken!

Big thanks to the JREFers who are fighting the good fight. To the CTists, keep on digging, everyday you expose yourselves as the lo(o)sers you really are.

Thanks,
CosCos
Click to expand...

:welcomed:

fyi "sceptic" is East side of the pond, "skeptic" is West side, ymmv.
 
Popping back in here momentarily...

Without diving into the vitriol, can someone please tell me whether Russell has answered either of my questions yet? (I might add, even TruthSeeker1234 thinks that first question is excellent -- I'm not just trolling.)

No?

Well, then, has he presented any new evidence?

No?

Failing that, does this mean he still rejects the theory that WTC 7 fell over from damage and fire, despite eyewitness accounts, video refuting his assertions, and the statements of dozens of firefighters to the contrary, and based on no evidence of his own?

Figures. Guess I'll be leaving again, then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom