10 story hole in WTC 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
notheist said:
"Skyscrapers do not implode unless destroyed with explosives."

Bridges do not collapse unless destroyed with explosives.

OH Wait... One did just that.

UNLESS!

THE MINNEAPOLIS BRIDGE WAS AN INSIDE JOB!
Click to expand...

actually there is an acoustic weapons plant like 1 mile away from that bridge, which it seems unlikely it is possible.
 
Christopher7 said:
You call the statements of these experts nothing, as if you know better. You don't.
Click to expand...

Even if you want to present the videos as some kind of evidence of CD, the fact remains that in a court of law, when ALL the evidence can and will be presented, Jowenko would be eaten alive.

Do you really think the court would have trouble seating any number of CD experts just as qualified as Jowenko who disagree with him? What about all the first responders and firemen at the scene who would testify that in their expert opinions the building was unstable and ready to collapse?

How many experts do you think the opposing council will call to contradict yours, Chris? How many experts do you think you need to counter this? One? Two? A hundred?

Chris you should be careful of what you wish for. Your 'theory' is NOT ready for a courtroom.
 
Christopher7 said:
Statement of denial.

You call the statements of these experts nothing, as if you know better. You don't.
Click to expand...

1. very ironic

2. i call your use of what they "said" as being evidence as being nothing, if they are willing to stand up in court and back up what they said after seeing everything (not just a few videos that were not the full videos) then you may have something that some lawyer may take a chance on

but you have nothing else

the videos are not evidence of CD they are evidence that buildings collapsing can look like CD even when they are not CD

what would happen if jowenko stood up and said it would take a team of 30 men 2 months to set up the CD and that in his opinion it was impossible for this to have been done prior to 911, what would you say?
 
notheist said:
Christopher7 I have this impression you are completely clueless as to what it takes to implode a building.
So enlighten with you knowledge of how a controlled demolition is done.
Click to expand...
I have seen the Discovery Channel special on the Loizeaux family.

They show how they developed the fine art of building implosion.

The principle is dirt simple. As Jowenko said, you just blow the support columns [in the proper places and in the proper sequence] and let gravity do the rest.

If you say that WTC 7 does not look like a CD, then it is you who doesn't have a clue how buildings are imploded.
 
Uh oh...There's that "look like" stuff again.

To some people a danish looks like a donut...but they are two completely different things.
 
Last edited:
They think WTC 7 was a CD.

They are well qualified to make that call.

Belz... said:
No, Then it comes right back to my question:

If you showed a doctor a picture of a discolored area on your butt cheek, and he looked at it for 6 seconds and said "Cancer... gotta go with the hard chemo.", would you agree with his assessment ?
Click to expand...
You know that these three experts are qualified to make the call so you revert to your silly simile.
 
HyJinX said:
Uh oh...There's that "look like" stuff again.

To some people a danish looks like a donut...but they are two completely different things.
Click to expand...
If a video shows something that looks like a duck, that would be evidence it was a duck.

It did not quack like a duck in the videos.

This does not mean that it did not quack.

But enough of silly similes.

These three experts [and many others] say the videos, without sound, are clear evidence that WTC 7 was a CD.

Do you agree that WTC 7 looks like a CD?
 
Yes. I agree that to me, WTC 7 looks like a CD. Then again, I get danish and donuts mixed up all the time.
 
I'm going to try an experiment for the sake of this arguement Christopher. I'm going to take a picture of my wife's wedding ring. The ring is made of platinum, which looks amazingly like silver. I'm going to take that picture down to a jeweler near where I work tomorrow. I'm going to ask him if he thinks, by looking at the picture, if the ring is silver or platinum.

Would you trust his opinion based on this photo?

I'll let you know what he says.
 
Christopher7 said:
I have seen the Discovery Channel special on the Loizeaux family.

They show how they developed the fine art of building implosion.

The principle is dirt simple. As Jowenko said, you just blow the support columns [in the proper places and in the proper sequence] and let gravity do the rest.

If you say that WTC 7 does not look like a CD, then it is you who doesn't have a clue how buildings are imploded.
Click to expand...

No.

The columns are also pre-weakened with torches. Jowenko mentions that several times.
They are also stripped of cladding and fireproofing.
Complex calculations of load are made and the charges/sequence of firing is geared around these calculations.

Now - and this is your big problem -

1) If this was set up before 9/11 then the perpetrators would need to know *in advance* that WTC1 would rain debris on WTC7 and that fires would ensue. Otherwise, there would be no plausible reason for WTC7 to fall. The CD would result in the spontaneous collapse of an undamaged building which would, obviously, not be a workable scheme.

2) i) If it was organised on 9/11 itself - in a damaged and fire-ridden building - the CD team would have to operate around firefighters, police etc etc, in a chaos of smoke and debris. Then they would need - uniquely - to mask the flashes and blasts typical of CD. Under the most difficult circumstances ever experienced by a CD team.

2) ii) If it was organised on 9/11 itself - the CD team would have to be ready to go *in advance*, even though there could be absolutely no guarantee that WTC1 would produce enough damage to "cover" for the CD.

In summary - there is no narrative that makes any sense whatsoever to explain a CD operation on WTC7. None. Whatsoever.

And don't even get started on motive, because there isn't one that makes a grain of sense.

So - it looks like a bit like a duck, but actually it's a duck-billed platypus.
 
GlennB said:
Now - and this is your big problem -

1) If this was set up before 9/11 then the perpetrators would need to know *in advance* that WTC1 would rain debris on WTC7 and that fires would ensue. Otherwise, there would be no plausible reason for WTC7 to fall. The CD would result in the spontaneous collapse of an undamaged building which would, obviously, not be a workable scheme.

.
Click to expand...

Indeed. That debris would fall on WTC 7 was a near guarantee, whether or not fires would ensue is less likely. So how hard would it be to set some necessary fires? Now, that's risky because these fires might not spread, won't become an inferno in such a short period of time.

Well guess what? There was no inferno and the collapse of WTC 7 is in fact "not...a workable scheme."

That's the big problem.
 
RedIbis said:
Indeed. That debris would fall on WTC 7 was a near guarantee, whether or not fires would ensue is less likely. So how hard would it be to set some necessary fires? Now, that's risky because these fires might not spread, won't become an inferno in such a short period of time.

Well guess what? There was no inferno and the collapse of WTC 7 is in fact "not...a workable scheme."

That's the big problem.
Click to expand...

Are you calling the FDNY liars?

wtc7lateafternoon-1.jpg


wtc7smokemajor.jpg
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Indeed. That debris would fall on WTC 7 was a near guarantee, whether or not fires would ensue is less likely. So how hard would it be to set some necessary fires? Now, that's risky because these fires might not spread, won't become an inferno in such a short period of time.

Well guess what? There was no inferno and the collapse of WTC 7 is in fact "not...a workable scheme."

That's the big problem.
Click to expand...
Wrong on all counts. Gee, you should cheat next time and ask some people who saw WTC7 burning out of control (which part of out of control have you missed). I would do more research before I post such a wrong posts. My goodness, are you in grade school, or do you just skip relevant research and go right on to crazy conclusions?
 
RedIbis said:
Indeed. That debris would fall on WTC 7 was a near guarantee, whether or not fires would ensue is less likely. So how hard would it be to set some necessary fires? Now, that's risky because these fires might not spread, won't become an inferno in such a short period of time.

Well guess what? There was no inferno and the collapse of WTC 7 is in fact "not...a workable scheme."

That's the big problem.
Click to expand...

That appears to be totally contrary to numerous eye-witnesses at the scene, including fire fighters tasked to make just such observations.

These observations included the fact the building was unstable and could collapse at any time.

The only big problem, IMO, is the strenuous mental gymnastics required to ignore, downplay, or claim as fake that compelling evidence.
 
twinstead said:
That appears to be totally contrary to numerous eye-witnesses at the scene, including fire fighters tasked to make just such observations.

These observations included the fact the building was unstable and could collapse at any time.

The only big problem, IMO, is the strenuous mental gymnastics required to ignore, downplay, or claim as fake that compelling evidence.
Click to expand...

I've already quoted the firefighter quotes on Gravy's page. What they reveal is that word had gotten down from someone at OEM that the building was going to collapse.

You've seen the pictures of WTC 7 with about 12 windows on two floors on fire. There was no inferno there.

WTC7fire.jpg
 
RedIbis said:
I've already quoted the firefighter quotes on Gravy's page. What they reveal is that word had gotten down from someone at OEM that the building was going to collapse.

You've seen the pictures of WTC 7 with about 12 windows on two floors on fire. There was no inferno there.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/WTC7fire.jpg
Click to expand...

You gotta love the YouTube generation.

So, all the eye-witness reports go out the window because you look at a picture and say "well, no huge fires there". Tell me then, what were those experts looking at who were there that day monitoring the building on the site? Were they lying? Are they incompetent?

Well, there ya go. All it takes is looking at a picture and you can tell exactly what's going on inside a huge building.

Those quotes don't even make you think for a second that perhaps that image isn't really representative of what was going on in the building? Not even for a second?
 
twinstead said:
You gotta love the YouTube generation.

So, all the eye-witness reports go out the window because you look at a picture and say "well, no huge fires there". Tell me then, what were those experts looking at who were there that day monitoring the building on the site? Were they lying? Are they incompetent?

Well, there ya go. All it takes is looking at a picture and you can tell exactly what's going on inside a huge building.

Those quotes don't even make you think for a second that perhaps that image isn't really representative of what was going on in the building? Not even for a second?
Click to expand...


The difference here is that I actually went through the quotes. Again, because you're not getting it: the majority of the quotes describe the "word" coming down that the building was going to collapse. The majority of the quotes do not say that the building is engulfed in an inferno.

You are make assumptions that are not backed up with evidence.
 
RedIbis said:
I've already quoted the firefighter quotes on Gravy's page. What they reveal is that word had gotten down from someone at OEM that the building was going to collapse.

You've seen the pictures of WTC 7 with about 12 windows on two floors on fire. There was no inferno there.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/WTC7fire.jpg
Click to expand...

Ahah. Photos of the fire in its early stages prove that's as far as it ever developed???

mmmmkay
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom