Split Thread WTC7 collapse (again) - split from: How did you rule out that 911 was an insid

[Miragememories]

What circumstances might those be, MM? That you don't want them to have witnesses what they- in fact- witnessed?

Witness: "Oh my god, that guy just ran a red light!"

MM: "Unless you're a police officer, you're not qualified to make that observation."

It's called ad hominem- and it's a fallacy.

More like; "Oh my god, hundreds of my buddies were just crushed to death in that horrific collapse!"

Your lame 'running a red light' comparison only serves to make a mockery of the tragedy that occurred on 9/11 Totovader.

NYFD firefighters, for the first time in the department's history witnessed, the unique collapse of the world's tallest buildings combined with the mammoth loss of life to their comrades as well as thousands of the public which they were sworn to protect.

And you expect them to react like a cop would to someone running a red light?

Where is your humanity man?

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Removed to avoid duplication.

MM

 

[Totovader]

Well I'm sorry to see you reduced to conversing with yourself Toto.

Well maybe I'm wrong about that as well?

Possibly you do that to achieve agreement?

Apparently I have to quote myself to show you that you've been ignoring my points.

Your pathetic attempt at a personal attack really just emphasizes the point that you've been aware of the posts- just unable to address them.

So if I am to understand you correctly, you feel that even though Danny Jowenko had ample time to see the various versions of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses and hear the 'take' that the United States was taking on those collapses, and given that Danny stated in a telephone interview last spring that he was well aware that contradicting the official story was bad for business, there is nothing unprofessional about him agreeing that the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 were to be expected under the circumstances?

Holy red herring.

Quote where I said anything in regards to this, please.

You also perceive me as being a liar because I believe Danny Jowenko placed his business interests ahead of his professional opinion?

No, I "perceive" you as a liar because you are- this has been well-documented in this thread, and your response (yet again) has simply been to ignore it. There's absolutely no need for me to continue to go into this as you can address the posts where your lies were exposed, instead of pretending it's for some other reason.

I'm quite certain that had Danny Jowenko known that he was watching the collapse of WTC7 the first time it was shown to him, that he would have 'back stepped' and not claimed in to be a controlled demolition.

Your "certainty" is not my concern- nor does it have anything to do with the contradiction inherent in your claim. Furthermore, you cannot possibly be right- because Jowenko was fully aware of the building he was watching.

Once he was trapped giving his honest professional opinion he had to decide whether to compromise his professional ego or stand by his beliefs even if it was bad for business.

Danny Jowenko like most individuals, has no wish to be a hero or be the whistle blower that drives the nail in the WTC7 coffin.

This does absolutely nothing to resolve the contradiction in your statements.


Yet again you dodged the issues. Terrific.

 

[Jono]

Regarding your further response to the influence of WTC7 transformers WhiteLion, din lista över kommentarerna blandar inte lätt till ta menande från.

Erhm, yes that's swedish allright though not really grammatically sound, did you use an online-translator?

Where is it reported that debris fall from other buildings like WTC1, has not been taken into consideration.

What?

You asked me;
"You haven't really addressed the question of whether the building's design engineers would have been so neglectful as to not take measures to reduce any fire and explosive risk from those transformers"

I am aware that my comprehension of the english language is less than proficient, however it seems you are asking me why the people who placed the transformers in their given places didn't consider the risks which the 9/11 catastrophy induced.

If this is what you indeed did ask, my comments were to the point.

Again the building fire and the 10-story gouge have been taken into great consideration.

Yes, I've never said they weren't, only that the people who had placed the transformers in the given places might not have taken that into consideration beforehand.

It was a high speed collapse.

It was a symmetrical collapse.

It maintained a relatively level roofline all the way to the ground.

It landed for the most part in it's own footprint.

But that's not correct at all, Mirage.

The WTC7 global collapse initiated to the south some 6-8 seconds after the penthouse collapse, which occured after the bottom floors and that side of WTC7 had begun tilting. The buildings center collapses to the south, the west side comes away from form the west face, half of the west face stands for a while and stands as high as the building to its right, some 20-stories high.

A bit from this site;
*WTC 7 videos including east mechanical penthouse collapse

Conspiracists often show video from street level and remark about how quickly the building fell (6.6 seconds, according to an estimate by Steven E. Jones and his former students, although since much of the collapse is obscured by other buildings and by the dust and smoke thrown up by WTC 7, it’s impossible to tell exactly when the collapse ends).

However, in this video http://tinyurl.com/z66rz (download and play it in full-screen mode) it’s obvious that the collapse takes at least 13.5 seconds from the first movement of the east mechanical penthouse, a structure about 115 x 130 feet (35 x 40 meters) in area, until it disappears behind the foreground buildings. NIST and FEMA posit that the east penthouse collapse was due to collapses on floors at the lower levels.

Another excerpt;

Below: from NIST's WTC 7 interim report. East penthouse begins to collapse 8.2 seconds before global collapse ensues. Adding 6.6 seconds (Steven Jones' time) from the start of global collapse gives a total collapse time of at least 14.6 seconds. Note that this does not take into account internal collapses that may have started earlier but are not visible. And keep in mind that the east penthouse collapse is believed to have occurred due to loss of support on lower floors, not near the roof.

Symmetrical Damage of WTC7?
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings...#_Toc144445990

It tilts to the south and falls notably to the south-east
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7f1.jpg

"Half way through and it's still tilted to the south. Note the west side of the building has come away from the west face around what used to be the 43rd floor. Light can be seen through the east face windows."
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7f2.jpg

"Note the angle to the south has increased and so has the space between the west face and the rest of the building. The west face later lays on the Verizon building to the west. While it looks like it's about to hit the ground, it's still almost as high as the white building to the right. That makes it about 20 stories."
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7f3.jpg

You must recognize the fact that the whole east-penthouse started to cave in before the collapse because the floors below gave away, this triggered the effect which hammered down the below floors and since it was hollow from the 6th floor and down, the trusses didn't have anything else to give to this than a swift goodbye.

Plus, it was expected to come down as the firefighters anticipated, they noticed the building had started to lean more and more, that the fires became too severe and widespread for them to handle and that there was an almost 20-story hole in the middle of the structure;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HLDgjYuRHk

There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day. -- Captain Chris Boyle on WTC7

Look, here's a good photograph showing the pile of debris, rubble at and around WTC7;
http://www.debunking911.com/b7debris.jpg

It wasn't exactly in its own footprints. If this was a CD then it's the sloppiest and most unusual CD I've ever seen.

Does this look like a tidy pile?
Excerpt from: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/didw...initsownfootpr

"What about the claim that only a controlled demolition could cause building 7 to fall into such a “tidy” pile? This comes up often, and it’s wrong in several ways. First, it’s wrong to say that this claim describes a “con-trolled demolition.” That’s the term CTs use, and it’s inappropriate. A true controlled demolition is done to minimize damage to surrounding structures. Next, here’s the “tidy pile” created by the collapse of WTC 7:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/0821.jpg

WTC 7 ravaged 30 West Broadway to the north, which is being torn down in 2006 (was torn down) due to the damage.

Damage to Verizon Building from WTC 7. Source: FEMA

Below: Looking east along Barclay St. from Washington St. Some street clearing had been done.
Most of WTC 7 is at right. Note how high the debris is piled against 30 W. Broadway at left.

A detailed account for the collapse of the WTC7;
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

 

[Totovader]

More like; "Oh my god, hundreds of my buddies were just crushed to death in that horrific collapse!"

So they're wrong because they had close personal friends die in the collapse?

It takes an amazing amount of lunacy to reach such a conclusion. I would say that such an emotional drive would cause someone to seek the truth, if nothing else. Now you're accusing them of being complicit and emotionally attached- which is another contradiction.

At some point- your head just has to explode.

Your lame 'running a red light' comparison only serves to make a mockery of the tragedy that occurred on 9/11 Totovader.

Appeal to emotion- I'm not making a mockery of the tragedy, YOU ARE- by claiming that anything seen by anyone who could have known someone involved in the tragedy is "suspect". This is so patently offensive that I question whether you even really believe it, or if this is just your only way out at this point. The contradictions are catching up to you, and now you are being so absurd as to claim that what everyone witnessed is irrelevant because they may be friends with the victims.

Truly amazing.

NYFD firefighters, for the first time in the department's history witnessed, the unique collapse of the world's tallest buildings combined with the mammoth loss of life to their comrades as well as thousands of the public which they were sworn to protect.

Which makes them wrong. Gotcha.

Pathetic.

And you expect them to react like a cop would to someone running a red light?

Where is your humanity man?

Holy mother of all strawmen. YOU were the one asserting that they are not "experts" and therefore whatever they witnessed is "suspect". I pointed out that YOUR BEHAVIOR- do you get that- YOUR BEHAVIOR is not only offensive, but absurd. By claiming that I have no "humanity" [sic] you are actually just proving my point.

By waving away the very victims of the attacks because they are victims you have committed Twoofer suicide. I don't see how anyone can take you seriously- even with your pathetic attempts to project that nonsense on to me.

 

[Totovader]

Are you saying firefighters are qualified structural engineers?

I'm just calling into question testimony from those who may not, under the circumstances, be giving the most reliable testimony.

More like; "Oh my god, hundreds of my buddies were just crushed to death in that horrific collapse!"

By doing every possible thing you can to discredit the victims of September 11th, MM- you are mocking them (and yourself).

I doubt you will have the gall to resolve this contradiction, but you're very quickly losing your entertainment value.

 

[Miragememories]

Erhm, yes that's swedish allright though not really grammatically sound, did you use an online-translator?



What?

You asked me;
"You haven't really addressed the question of whether the building's design engineers would have been so neglectful as to not take measures to reduce any fire and explosive risk from those transformers"

I am aware that my comprehension of the english language is less than proficient, however it seems you are asking me why the people who placed the transformers in their given places didn't consider the risks which the 9/11 catastrophy induced.

If this is what you indeed did ask, my comments were to the point.



Yes, I've never said they weren't, only that the people who had placed the transformers in the given places might not have taken that into consideration beforehand.



But that's not correct at all, Mirage.

The WTC7 global collapse initiated to the south some 6-8 seconds after the penthouse collapse, which occured after the bottom floors and that side of WTC7 had begun tilting. The buildings center collapses to the south, the west side comes away from form the west face, half of the west face stands for a while and stands as high as the building to its right, some 20-stories high.

A bit from this site;
*WTC 7 videos including east mechanical penthouse collapse



Another excerpt;


Symmetrical Damage of WTC7?
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings...#_Toc144445990

It tilts to the south and falls notably to the south-east
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7f1.jpg

"Half way through and it's still tilted to the south. Note the west side of the building has come away from the west face around what used to be the 43rd floor. Light can be seen through the east face windows."
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7f2.jpg

"Note the angle to the south has increased and so has the space between the west face and the rest of the building. The west face later lays on the Verizon building to the west. While it looks like it's about to hit the ground, it's still almost as high as the white building to the right. That makes it about 20 stories."
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7f3.jpg

You must recognize the fact that the whole east-penthouse started to cave in before the collapse because the floors below gave away, this triggered the effect which hammered down the below floors and since it was hollow from the 6th floor and down, the trusses didn't have anything else to give to this than a swift goodbye.

Plus, it was expected to come down as the firefighters anticipated, they noticed the building had started to lean more and more, that the fires became too severe and widespread for them to handle and that there was an almost 20-story hole in the middle of the structure;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HLDgjYuRHk



Look, here's a good photograph showing the pile of debris, rubble at and around WTC7;
http://www.debunking911.com/b7debris.jpg

It wasn't exactly in its own footprints. If this was a CD then it's the sloppiest and most unusual CD I've ever seen.

Does this look like a tidy pile?
Excerpt from: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/didw...initsownfootpr

"What about the claim that only a controlled demolition could cause building 7 to fall into such a “tidy” pile? This comes up often, and it’s wrong in several ways. First, it’s wrong to say that this claim describes a “con-trolled demolition.” That’s the term CTs use, and it’s inappropriate. A true controlled demolition is done to minimize damage to surrounding structures. Next, here’s the “tidy pile” created by the collapse of WTC 7:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/0821.jpg

WTC 7 ravaged 30 West Broadway to the north, which is being torn down in 2006 (was torn down) due to the damage.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/0822.jpg/0822-full.jpg

Damage to Verizon Building from WTC 7. Source: FEMA
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/0831.jpg/0831-full.jpg

Below: Looking east along Barclay St. from Washington St. Some street clearing had been done.
Most of WTC 7 is at right. Note how high the debris is piled against 30 W. Broadway at left.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/0832.jpg/0832-full.jpg

A detailed account for the collapse of the WTC7;
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

Well I congratulate you on your ability to fashion such a spectacular illusion regarding what really occurred.

Based on your argument, WTC7 did just about everything but jump though a hoop.

The bottomline is that WTC7, several seconds after the collapse of the east penthouse, did, unquestionably, perform a complete, high speed (under 10 seconds) collapse , with a close to level roofline into an approximation of it's footprint.

I thought you showed some signs of objectivity in this discussion until you apparently were overcome by the need for this massive response which proves nothing.

MM

 

[Corsair 115]

The WTC7 collapse was very unusual in style unless it was a controlled demolition.

• It was a high speed collapse.
  
  It was a symmetrical collapse.
  
  It maintained a relatively level roofline all the way to the ground.
  
  It landed for the most part in it's own footprint.

• You neglected to point out one hugely important difference:
  
  The lack of any of the very loud and distinctive BOOMS associated with the use of demolition charges. If it was a controlled demolition, why are there no very loud and distincitve booms?

 

[Totovader]

Well I congratulate you on your ability to fashion such a spectacular illusion regarding what really occurred.

Based on your argument, WTC7 did just about everything but jump though a hoop.

The bottomline is that WTC7, several seconds after the collapse of the east penthouse, did, unquestionably, perform a complete, high speed (under 10 seconds) collapse , with a close to level roofline into an approximation of it's footprint.

I thought you showed some signs of objectivity in this discussion until you apparently were overcome by the need for this massive response which proves nothing.

MM

You went through all that information in less than 10 minutes- or did you just cup your ears and pretend like your claims were solid?

Notice how you have to keep ignoring the penthouse collapse- you have to keep lying about the "style" of collapse, even though you've been given a multitude of links and information showing you just how wrong you are?

You claim to be a proponent of objectivity. I challenge you to find a single rational person that would agree. You have done nothing but ignore the facts that contradict your claims. It's as plain as day.

 

[Miragememories]

By doing every possible thing you can to discredit the victims of September 11th, MM- you are mocking them (and yourself).

I doubt you will have the gall to resolve this contradiction, but you're very quickly losing your entertainment value.

I'm just calling into question testimony from those who may not, under the circumstances, be giving the most reliable testimony.

NYFD firefighters, for the first time in the department's history witnessed, the unique collapse of the world's tallest buildings combined with the mammoth loss of life to their comrades as well as thousands of the public which they were sworn to protect.

And to those circumstances you replied with...

What circumstances might those be, MM? That you don't want them to have witnesses what they- in fact- witnessed?

Witness: "Oh my god, that guy just ran a red light!"

MM

 

[Totovader]

And to those circumstances you replied with...



MM

You missed the part where I presented your side of the argument (thus, mocking your position) as "You're not qualified to make that assessment"

Now... why would you leave that part out... Hmmmmm, I wonder.

 

[beachnut]

Well I congratulate you on your ability to fashion such a spectacular illusion regarding what really occurred.

Based on your argument, WTC7 did just about everything but jump though a hoop.

The bottomline is that WTC7, several seconds after the collapse of the east penthouse, did, unquestionably, perform a complete, high speed (under 10 seconds) collapse , with a close to level roofline into an approximation of it's footprint.

I thought you showed some signs of objectivity in this discussion until you apparently were overcome by the need for this massive response which proves nothing.

MM

High speed? No, it is the speed it fell due to gravity. That becomes a normal speed, not fast, not slow, normal. Why say something that makes zero sense, and even less with you say, under 10 seconds. Own footprint is terribly stupid too. The dumbest idea is ignoring the start of the penthouse collapse and other internal structures which you have not idea. That makes your high speed collapse slow! You can not ignore the structure failure and subtract parts so you sound better.

The biggest problem is the lies of 9/11 truth, like Jones and his squibs on WTC7 which are broken windows and video artifacts. The lack of rational conclusions on 9/11 by 9/11 truth and you continue without logic.

An engineer looking at your post would be (oops is still) laughing.

 

[Jono]

Well I congratulate you on your ability to fashion such a spectacular illusion regarding what really occurred.

There is no need to be sarcastic with me, I'm quite calm and have gone through these matters more or less for the past two years. The above presentation of facts was a brief summary of a much more predominantely conclusive case.
However, you can't readily have bothered too much with it correct? *it's a fair question*

Based on your argument, WTC7 did just about everything but jump though a hoop.

No, because to say that it did just about everything except jumping through a hoop would be ridiculous and completely uncorroborative with the case in point.

The bottomline is that WTC7, several seconds after the collapse of the east penthouse, did, unquestionably, perform a complete, high speed (under 10 seconds) collapse , with a close to level roofline into an approximation of it's footprint.

You mean that after some of the floors had collapsed, after the penthouse and screenwall submurged (ie fell down upon those floors into the building), after the north face had moved and the building begun tilting, after the east end and thenwest end of the roof had begun moving, then the subsequent global collapse issued under ten seconds?

Yes, but that's basically saying;
"Well after the building had begun to collapse here and there, when it collapsed for real, I mean the rest of it, then it was fast".

with a close to level roofline into an approximation of it's footprint.

Now it's an "approximation of its footprint"? Hmmm... well, you did see the damage to the other buildings around and the huge chunks of debris scattered in a less than footprint-esque kind of way no?

I thought you showed some signs of objectivity in this discussion until you apparently were overcome by the need for this massive response which proves nothing.

First of all, how have I appeared unobjective? Be specific, please.

Secondly, I wasn't overcome by any need and it was hardly a massive response proving nothing. It was a brief and short summary yet factual and to the point. Saying it proves nothing proves even less, I'd rather have you address the factual errors in my post point-by-point. It's easier for me to understand you and in turn to take you seriously in the future, because the above comment and previous sarcasm is counter-productive to that end.

HA

 

[johnny karate]

Are you saying firefighters are qualified structural engineers?

Nope. But I am saying that a seasoned firefighter is qualified to determine when a building that has been heavily damaged and on fire is in danger of collapse. Kind of goes with the job.

The link I provided earlier has testimony from many firefighters that were on the scene that day.

All of them witnessed the extensive damage and rampant fires that CTers such as yourself claim were not sufficient to initiate a collapse of WTC7.

Many of them predicted the collapse of WTC7.

None of them expressed surprise that WTC7 eventually did collapse.

The words you used were "very unusual" to describe the collapse of WTC7. Yet none of those professionals found anything unusual about it. As a matter of fact, no one other than CTers and a lone and dubiously qualified demolitions expert (whose ultimate assessment of that day's events end up undermining CTer claims anyway) have found anything unusual about the collapse of WTC7.

Your verbal gymnastics do nothing to change this hard reality.

 

[Totovader]

Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o�clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o�clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

link

 

[pomeroo]

More like; "Oh my god, hundreds of my buddies were just crushed to death in that horrific collapse!"

Your lame 'running a red light' comparison only serves to make a mockery of the tragedy that occurred on 9/11 Totovader.

NYFD firefighters, for the first time in the department's history witnessed, the unique collapse of the world's tallest buildings combined with the mammoth loss of life to their comrades as well as thousands of the public which they were sworn to protect.

And you expect them to react like a cop would to someone running a red light?

Where is your humanity man?

MM

Why do you intend to reject the NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7 without reading it?

 

[pomeroo]

And to those circumstances you replied with...



MM

Hey, MM, I'm trying to put together a 'Hardfire' discussion on the collapse of WTC 7. For the rationalist side, I have Arthur Scheuerman, retired FDNY battalion chief who has written a book on the subject, and Mark. To date, I have been unable to find a conspiracy liar with the stones to subject his snake oil to critical scrutiny. Are you the champion the fantasy movement has been yearning for? Why not?

 

[Elizabeth I]

"logic, evidence and knowledge" clearly suggest the collapse of WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

Danny Jowenko, an expert on the subject, which you aren't, agrees!
MM

So what you're saying is that so far you have just the one?

I have no inside information, but I obsessively followed the big Enron trial, chiefly through the Houston Chronicle. (Great coverage!) I can recall no, zero, zip, missing document issues, outside of the wholesale shredding by Anderson (the accountants) in late 2001. There were certainly questions as to what documents meant.

This is a non-starter. By the way, Lay appears to be dead, thouugh there are suspicions... http://www.kenlayisalive.org/

That website is a joke, right? It has to be a joke...

 

[GStan]

Really?

This is where I find the whole lying thing at JREF so fascinating. I get called a liar all the time yet my accusers constantly lie about their WTC7 impressions.

MM, you have followed the 10 story hole thread, and while we couldn't be further apart in our interpretations of what occurred on 9/11, you should know from that thread that I have never in my short time on this forum called anyone a liar; not you or Christopher7 or any other CTer. I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge that and not lump me in with whoever has done that, and not lump me in with whoever you believe is lying on this forum. If you have discovered a lie of mine, please point it out. I assure you it was not intentional. I am not a technical expert in a relevant scientific field, so I may err in stating something in technical terms. There are plenty of people here on both sides to civilly correct me. I am not lying about anything.

They deny that the collapse looked anything like a controlled demolition when it undoubtedly looked very much like controlled demolition.

If you look at the video, without the sound, and with the penthouse collapses edited out, it does look like a CD. Its possible that it was a CD.
It is also possible that the collapse was from debris damage and fire. It has been explained to you, and linked for you, information on why the observed collapse sequence could have been the result of damage and fires. The observed collapse sequence could have been a CD, but CD was not required to bring that about. And when you look at the available evidence for a collapse resulting from damage and fire, the scenario is simply far more plausible than CD, because there is no corraborating evidence for CD other than 'looks like'. There's no evidence of any prep work, There's no visual evidence either recorded or witnessed in the moments leading up to the collapse to corraborate CD. There's no audio evidence either recorded or heard in the moments leading up to the collapse to corraborate CD. Even with many demolition companies assisting in the clean up, no physical evidence of CD was reported by any of the workers.

They then exaggerate the damage and the fire because those are the only available causes to fall back on when avoiding the obvious, controlled demolition.

Who is exaggerating the damage? NIST? FEMA? JREFers? There is no need to. It happened. Both debris damage and unabated fires were observed and reported by firefighters and other witnesses and were also documented in photos and videos. Which damage is exaggerated?

Additionally, it was not obviously CD. Have you read the reports that I linked for you earlier? While you may not want agree with the conclusions about 9/11 that can be drawn from them, they do provide technical information as to why the observed collapse did not have to be CD, it could have been brought about by an initial local failure resulting from debris damage or fire or a combination of both. If you have found any errors in them (other than the fact that the authors work for NIST, a government agency), we can certainly add those to this debate.

Shell-shocked witnesses to the unexpected collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 are held up as reputable experts in the belief that WTC7 would behave similarly. I suspect few New Yorkers would have argued the likelihood of WTC7 collapsing on 9/11.

Only unexpected to non-experts. For many engineers and firefighters, the collapses were not unexpected. Many laymen have difficulty believing it, but the preponderance of structural engineers, demolition experts and firefighters are not suspicious of the collapses.

How is the law of gravity an unfortunate event in the lives of members of the truth movement?

It's the behavior of gravity that makes the style of the collapse of WTC7 so suspicious.

It is unfortunate because it is a logical, rational, non-sinister, science-based explanation for something that the bulk of the truth movement finds suspicious; that being, the speed of the collapse. From the observed collapse, you would probably agree that there was an initial internal failure that caused east penthouse to fall into building; that coincided with or led to another internal failure that caused the west penthouse to collapse, and finally, this coincided with or led to the massive failure that began the global collapse. You can argue that those three failures were from CD and I can argue that they were the result of debris and fire damage, but whoever wins, the speed of the global collapse will be the same. Speed of collapse is not evidence of CD, it is evidence of gravitational forces. It is pointless to bring up the speed of the collapse as evidence, since it supports either collapse hypothesis equally.

Yup. It's been pointed out. I do know how to read and appreciate proffered information. Somehow you believe that a symmetrical local collapse (East Penthouse) occurring seconds prior to the symmetrical collapse of the complete 47-story building negates my concerns?

It is of no consequence to me to negate your concerns. I would be satisfied just to have you or any CTer say "wow, you're right, the evidence really does favor the debris and fire collapse hypothesis" And I wouldn't care if they followed it up with "I still totally believe it was a conspiracy, thanks for the info though old man" I don't care. Believe it was a conspiracy, to the eternal depths of your heart and soul, continue on in a noble pursuit of truth, just have the intellectual honesty to admit that currently, the evidence does not support your conclusions.

It's obviously a waste of time applying keystrokes in response to your replies since you are only responding with rhetoric whereas I'm actually seeking human thought processes.

MM

With your help in identifying it, I will most definitely attempt to remove any rhetoric from my argument. I'm in this for a debate based in fact, evidence and logical critical thinking. Don't quit on me. You, along with Christopher7, are one of the few CTers in this forum with whom I enjoy the dialogue.

 

[einsteen]

I'm sure MM is aware that the collapse will be fast once there is a simultaneous structural failure somewhere at the bottom. But I'm also sure that MM mentioned the near free fall speed because it is not a feature of buildings that are on fire, these collapse gradually.