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

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Christopher7
Can you admit that the implosion of WTC7 was cd?

Originally Posted by Christopher7
Can you admit that WTC7 looks like a CD?

To you that's the same question?

My bad.
The second question

 

[Christopher7]

What difference does that make? Just because one thing looks like another doesn't make that thing the other thing.

You're going to need a hell of a lot more substantive evidence than some supposed visual similarity to prove controlled demolition.

Can you admit that the implosion of WTC7 looks like a CD?

 

[einsteen]

What difference does that make? Just because one thing looks like another doesn't make that thing the other thing.

You're going to need a hell of a lot more substantive evidence than some supposed visual similarity to prove controlled demolition.

I agree with you Corsair that it will be hard to prove that, because something that has been covered up (billions matter) is by definition hard or impossible to prove.

 

[Christopher7]

I agree with you Corsair that it will be hard to prove that, because something that has been covered up (billions matter) is by definition hard or impossible to prove.

Can you admit that the implosion of WTC7 looks like a CD?

 

[CptColumbo]

Can you admit that the implosion of WTC7 looks like a CD?

It's been pointed out to you on several occasions that the building didn't implode. So you are starting from a false premise. Then you are also asking others to admit to a logical fallacy.

All buildings that have controlled demolition done to them fall.

This building fell, so it must be a controlled demolition.

What it "looks" like is unimportant, what actually happened is the issue at hand. Also, limiting yourself to only one of the senses is as helpful to an investigation as making a conclusion without looking at all the evidence (as you have stated Jowenko did).

 

[pomeroo]

The point?

Of course, the POINT!

Can you admit that the implosion of WTC7 was cd?

All right. Jowenko states that the collapses of the Twin Towers were caused by the impacts of the planes and the resultant fires. He is correct.

Now, seven hours after the jihadists flew planes into the Towers, WTC 7 came down. Why did your imaginary conspiracy blow up this building?

 

[einsteen]

Can you admit that the implosion of WTC7 looks like a CD?

You're longer here aren't you ? Of course it looks like a CD. It seems that for some CDs only charges are needed on one level, what I've learned is that the collapse then is not really as clean as a collapse in which you place them on several levels. The question is why such a collapse is possible due to an intense but ordinary office fire. Since the diesel fire is irrelevant and fire is only believed to be the cause then that could also happen on an other day. 9/11 is totally irrelevant then for wtc7. Away with the "a building fell on another building". That's what we can conclude, isn't it ? Or accept that wtc7 was a time-bomb designed by incapable architects. Building's are not designed to fall due to fire, especially not such an extremely important building. It is odd. I don't believe it.

 

[CptColumbo]

You're longer here aren't you ? Of course it looks like a CD. It seems that for some CDs only charges are needed on one level, what I've learned is that the collapse then is not really as clean as a collapse in which you place them on several levels. The question is why such a collapse is possible due to an intense but ordinary office fire. Since the diesel fire is irrelevant and fire is only believed to be the cause then that could also happen on an other day. 9/11 is totally irrelevant then for wtc7. Away with the "a building fell on another building". That's what we can conclude, isn't it ? Or accept that wtc7 was a time-bomb designed by incapable architects. Building's are not designed to fall due to fire, especially not such an extremely important building. It is odd. I don't believe it.

Why did you leave out the structural damage? How many ordinary office fires involve diesel fuel? How is the diesel fire irrelevant?

 

[Christopher7]

It's been pointed out to you on several occasions that the building didn't implode.

Wrong
I guess you missed this:

FEMA 5-30
If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why
the building imploded

5-31
the façade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse.

Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why
the building imploded

What it "looks" like is unimportant,

Wrong

what actually happened is the issue at hand.

Wrong again

The question at hand is:
Can you admit that the implosion of WTC7 looks like a CD?

Also, limiting yourself to only one of the senses is as helpful to an investigation as making a conclusion without looking at all the evidence (as you have stated Jowenko did).

Jowenko is qualified to make the call, you are not qualified to say what he needs to determine that WTC7 imploded.

Jowenko can see it, FEMA can see it, i can see it, 234 architects and engineers can see it, millions of others can see it, why can't you admit the obvious?

WTC7 IMPLODED.

 

[Christopher7]

All right. Jowenko states that the collapses of the Twin Towers were caused by the impacts of the planes and the resultant fires. He is correct.

Now, seven hours after the jihadists flew planes into the Towers, WTC 7 came down. Why did your imaginary conspiracy blow up this building?

You haven't answered my question yet:

Can you admit that the implosion of WTC7 looks like a CD?

 

[CptColumbo]

Wrong
I guess you missed this:

FEMA 5-30
If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why
the building imploded

5-31
the façade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse.

Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why
the building imploded

And you missed the part where the terminology was explained to you, since you are ignorant of it's usage.

Wrong

So, what it looks like is more important than what it actually is? The sun looks like it orbits the Earth, thankfully science doesn't depend on how things look.

Wrong again

The question at hand is:
Can you admit that the implosion of WTC7 looks like a CD?

So, what actually happened to WTC7 is unimportant to you? Then why are you wasting all this time talking about it? This thread is about the collapse of WTC7.

Jowenko is qualified to make the call, you are not qualified to say what he needs to determine that WTC7 imploded.

Really. The fact that he got the order in which parts of the building collapsed doesn't tell you that he should look again? That maybe he wasn't shown the whole picture? That perhaps someone manipulated the evidence to get
the answer they wanted? And what about the demolition experts who were there and saw heard and felt what happened?

Jowenko can see it, FEMA can see it, i can see it, 234 architects and engineers can see it, millions of others can see it, why can't you admit the obvious?

WTC7 IMPLODED.

Do you have a source for those numbers or does it just look that way?

 

[Christopher7]

You're longer here aren't you ? Of course it looks like a CD.

Eureka!

Thank you for your honesty.

It seems that for some CDs only charges are needed on one level, what I've learned is that the collapse then is not really as clean as a collapse in which you place them on several levels. The question is why such a collapse is possible due to an intense but ordinary office fire.

Not quite, the question is how could office fires heat a column weighing over 4 tons per floor to 1,000[FONT=&quot]° [/FONT]F.

Since the diesel fire is irrelevant and fire is only believed to be the cause then that could also happen on an other day.

A hypothesis is a set of assumptions that have yet to be proven.

You may believe these assumptions but that doesn't mean it could happen any day.

9/11 is totally irrelevant then for wtc7. Away with the "a building fell on another building". That's what we can conclude, isn't it ?

That's what NIST concluded.

Or accept that wtc7 was a time-bomb designed by incapable architects. Building's are not designed to fall due to fire, especially not such an extremely important building. It is odd. I don't believe it.

Neither do i.

 

[Miragememories]

Nice equivocation.

The fact remains- the building did not implode in the controlled demolition sense of the term. The building fell into other buildings on its way down, and fell outside of its own footprint... facts that conspiracists are often unwilling to admit.

Then you are accusing FEMA of equivocation.

The fact does remain that FEMA, in their professional opinion, specifically stated the collapse of WTC7 was an implosion using language that is not in the least vague on that point.

If anyone is equivocating it's you Toto.

Since when do controlled demolitions normally result in no debris falling outside of the collapsed building's natural footprint?

Up until 9/11, no building as tall as WTC7 had been subjected to controlled demolition so how is it proven to be odd that nearby buildings were impacted by some of it's debris?

MM

 

[einsteen]

Why did you leave out the structural damage? How many ordinary office fires involve diesel fuel? How is the diesel fire irrelevant?

I have to verify the source but what I've heard is that Sunder called the fire ordinary office fires. The structural damage seems to have disabled the water supply, that is indeed relevant I guess. You have to believe Murphy's law.

 

[Miragememories]

What difference does that make? Just because one thing looks like another doesn't make that thing the other thing.

You're going to need a hell of a lot more substantive evidence than some supposed visual similarity to prove controlled demolition.

And why the great fear from so many members here to admit something so obvious?

I can understand if a professional like Danny Jowenko refused to give an immediate response but he didn't refuse did he?

And years after the fact, after doing his own research, he still gives the same response.

Yet the amateurs here, refuse to admit what is patently obvious.

Whether you agree that it was or not, WTC7 most definitely does look like a CD!

Why such reluctance to make a concession that does not betray your point of view?

MM

 

[CptColumbo]

I have to verify the source but what I've heard is that Sunder called the fire ordinary office fires. The structural damage seems to have disabled the water supply, that is indeed relevant I guess. You have to believe Murphy's law.

So, you don't think that structural damage might damage the structure and be a contributing factor in the collapse?

 

[johnny karate]

Can you admit that the implosion of WTC7 looks like a CD?

I'll play.

Although I object to the use of the word "implosion", I will admit that to my layperson's eye, the collapse of WTC7 did look like a CD. As did the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2.

Now it's my turn.

Did WTC7 sound like a CD?

Furthermore, do any of the professionals that were on scene think that the collapse of WTC7 was a CD? Why or why not?

Please answer the questions honestly.

 

[johnny karate]

And why the great fear from so many members here to admit something so obvious?

I can understand if a professional like Danny Jowenko refused to give an immediate response but he didn't refuse did he?

And years after the fact, after doing his own research, he still gives the same response.

Yet the amateurs here, refuse to admit what is patently obvious.

Whether you agree that it was or not, WTC7 most definitely does look like a CD!

Why such reluctance to make a concession that does not betray your point of view?

I'm not sure you are one to make accusations of fear and reluctance. You have left many unanswered questions in this thread and others regarding your multitude of contradictions.

 

[Christopher7]

And you missed the part where the terminology was explained to you, since you are ignorant of it's usage.

Do you mean this part?
[FONT=&quot]Stacy Loizeaux:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. [/FONT]

So, what it looks like is more important than what it actually is?

No, it is what it looks like.

Really. The fact that he got the order in which parts of the building collapsed doesn't tell you that he should look again? That maybe he wasn't shown the whole picture? That perhaps someone manipulated the evidence to get the answer they wanted?

Maybe they water boarded him.

Dude, he's an expert.

He saw the videos, after seeing one video he was certain.

And what about the demolition experts who were there and saw heard and felt what happened?

They did not see the collapse because they were several blocks away like everybody else.

Can you admit that the implosion of WTC7 looks like a CD?
Or will you continue to dodge the question?

 

[Totovader]

Wrong

http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,16,1

Not wrong- and that link proves it. Every single building there over 10 stories was not the technique we're talking about.

Remember how you were saying that a CD implosion is difficult work? Well, Jowenko doesn't do it. In every case he's simply bringing the building down- and nothing close to the size of WTC7.