• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

beachnut said:
Still no evidence. You read hearsay and glom on to the errors.

You reading and thinking have failed you. Try some facts next time.

You lack of logic is standard for 9/11 truth, who have all missed, that CD looks like gravity collapse, not the other way around, Gravity is the big mover for both.
Click to expand...

hey, you belive also things without evidence, 180 MPH for example. you go even so far and call it fact.
 
well maybe i will present evidence when i am done with reading the NIST report on WTC7. Who knows, aybe they are able to prove that it was do to damage and fires the building came down. but i think that hypothesis has a low chance to be correct.

but when they can show us the failled columns, it will maybe make sence.
but NIST will have a hardtime to do it, afaik most of the steel is already molten and is now called USS NY.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
hey, you belive also things without evidence, 180 MPH for example. you go even so far and call it fact.
Click to expand...
WTC7 was not CD. You have no evidence just hearsay. You believe in fantasy.

By calculating energy, it is clear 180 mph was the design point Roberson did. NIST has it in their 10,000 plus pages. You prefer to cherry pick and believe made up stories. How is your study going? You should have done better at physics, you would understand.

I presented the evidence from three sources, and still you can not see the truth. You are being obstinate and are just a no fact 9/11 believer in the lies proposed by 9/11 truth. Over 6 years and no evidence. You are impervious to evidence, you prefer the ignorance of 9/11 truth. Some people prefer fantasy to reality, you got 9/11 truth and lies, you must prefer fantasy.
 
beachnut said:
WTC7 was not CD. You have no evidence just hearsay. You believe in fantasy.

By calculating energy, it is clear 180 mph was the design point Roberson did. NIST has it in their 10,000 plus pages. You prefer to cherry pick and believe made up stories. How is your study going? You should have done better at physics, you would understand.

I presented the evidence from three sources, and still you can not see the truth. You are being obstinate and are just a no fact 9/11 believer in the lies proposed by 9/11 truth. Over 6 years and no evidence. You are impervious to evidence, you prefer the ignorance of 9/11 truth. Some people prefer fantasy to reality, you got 9/11 truth and lies, you must prefer fantasy.
Click to expand...

you have no evidence, other that Robertsons word.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
you have no evidence, other that Robertsons word.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. I have show you all the evidence, you failed to understand. You presented evidence that proves the impact study was low speed. You have shown you lack the skills to understand; so go back and see the thread where you failed to learn. Did you take physics yet in college? Just as you think WTC7 is a CD, you failed to get the evidence first, you just think it is. You come to a fact fight with hearsay and what you think, you lack knowledge, evidence, experience, and logic. Have I left out something.

You have hearsay, you should try evidence. You even confessed you have only hearsay and what you think. Your ideas have been debunked years ago, and on 9/11.

Where is your evidence?
 
Last edited:
Dictator Cheney said:
well maybe i will present evidence when i am done with reading the NIST report on WTC7. Who knows, aybe they are able to prove that it was do to damage and fires the building came down. but i think that hypothesis has a low chance to be correct.

but when they can show us the failled columns, it will maybe make sence.
but NIST will have a hardtime to do it, afaik most of the steel is already molten and is now called USS NY.
Click to expand...

Hey, not bad. You've done more research than I thought. Most people don't even know that the WTC steel went into building a ship.

Alrighty. I'll let my question slide for now.

But, when NIST releases its next report, I'll expect you to read it, and tell me what you think. In fact, tell us all what you think. Deal?
 
beachnut said:
Wrong again. I have show you all the evidence, you failed to understand. You presented evidence that proves the impact study was low speed. You have shown you lack the skills to understand; so go back and see the thread where you failed to learn. Did you take physics yet in college? Just as you think WTC7 is a CD, you failed to get the evidence first, you just think it is. You come to a fact fight with hearsay and what you think, you lack knowledge, evidence, experience, and logic. Have I left out something.

You have hearsay, you should try evidence. You even confessed you have only hearsay and what you think. Your ideas have been debunked years ago, and on 9/11.
Click to expand...

you have no evidence, and thats a fact, you do belive its evidence when robertson says it was 180 mph.

and about physics, you better take some lessons to repeat your knowledge.
i have no doubt about your electric engineering, but when it comes to physics you seem to be not so well educated.

you think you are so super knowing when it comes to physics, just because your a EE. im pretty sure in my education mechanical physics was alot more important that in an education to an EE.
 
Travis said:
Which in any world other than Conspiracy Fantasy Land of Paranoia and Fairies would be enough.
Click to expand...

oh sure, his word is enough for you. well aslong they agree with your belive, would they contradict it, he had to backup his stuff.

strange peoples here.
 
1337m4n said:
Hey, not bad. You've done more research than I thought. Most people don't even know that the WTC steel went into building a ship.

Alrighty. I'll let my question slide for now.

But, when NIST releases its next report, I'll expect you to read it, and tell me what you think. In fact, tell us all what you think. Deal?
Click to expand...

i for sure will read it once it comes out, and i oc will say what i think about it.
and i hope they do a more convincing job than they did with the report about 1 and 2.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
you have no evidence, and thats a fact, you do belive its evidence when robertson says it was 180 mph.
Click to expand...
 It is a fact Robertson design the impact for 180 mph, he said so, it check with when you do an energy analysis. The design impact would give some holes in the shell, but no damage to the core. That is called local damage. Building survives. Darn, I was simple if you knew physics. I have multiple sources, you have zip.
Dictator Cheney said:
and about physics, you better take some lessons to repeat your knowledge.
Click to expand...
Dictator Cheney said:
i have no doubt about your electric engineering, but when it comes to physics you seem to be not so well educated.
Click to expand...
I am only graduated with honors in engineering, and made straight As in Physics. You seem to lack experience in physics, or you would not believe so many wrong ideas of 9/11 truth. Study harder.
Dictator Cheney said:
you think you are so super knowing when it comes to physics, just because your a EE. im pretty sure in my education mechanical physics was a lot more important that in an education to an EE.
Click to expand...
Your education did not include physics or you would not be so wrong on so many 9/11 topics. You should take statics and dynamics too. Many engineers do, but you seem to messing up 9/11 due to lack of knowledge and no real training in physics. I guess you are wrong on this too.

You do not need to be an engineer to see you have no evidence. You said you have no evidence, you just think things. You are taking the hearsay and lies of 9/11 truth and failing to present evidence. I have evidence, you have not. Simple, no engineering needed.
Dictator Cheney said:
i for sure will read it once it comes out, and i oc will say what i think about it.
and i hope they do a more convincing job than they did with the report about 1 and 2.
Click to expand...
You have failed to present evidence showing that is wrong. So you failed to back up this statement with facts.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
It is a fact Robertson design the impact for 180 mph, he said so, it check with when you do an energy analysis. The design impact would give some holes in the shell, but no damage to the core. That is called local damage. Building survives. Darn, I was simple if you knew physics. I have multiple sources, you have zip.
I am only graduated with honors in engineering, and made straight As in Physics. You seem to lack experience in physics, or you would not believe so many wrong ideas of 9/11 truth. Study harder.
Your education did not include physics or you would not be so wrong on so many 9/11 topics. You should take statics and dynamics too. Many engineers do, but you seem to messing up 9/11 due to lack of knowledge and no real training in physics. I guess you are wrong on this too.

You do not need to be an engineer to see you have no evidence. You said you have no evidence, you just think things. You are taking the hearsay and lies of 9/11 truth and failing to present evidence. I have evidence, you have not. Simple, no engineering needed.

You have failed to present evidence showing that is wrong. So you failed to back up this statement with facts.
Click to expand...

your arrogance is unbelivable.

the analysis predicted local damage, the impacts on 9/11 caused local damage, i know you call it global, but other experts do also call it local, just because it was local damage. atleast on that one i agree with Bazant.

funny guy, i even had Thermo Dynamics.

huge rubber blocks lol.....
 
Off topic guys.

If you want to debate this aircraft impact stuff AGAIN, why don'y you take it back to that thread? Thanks

I am waiting on DC to back up his WTC 7 CD claim.
 
To the truthers here: If Alex Jones, Avery, Gage, the other Jones, all reported tomorrow that they switched positions on the CD issue, and that they now believed the official story..but had no evidence to support it..would you, as Truthers, fall in line with them, without any evidence to support their new claim? Or would you still hold onto the CD idea?

I know this is a hypothetical, but there is an interesting point that can be made.
 
well before i would consider the CD of WTC 7 a fact, i would like to read the official theory to it first.

maybe they have a good and convincing explenation for the collapses. especially i am looking into investigations to the steel column 81 and the columns nearby.
 
To the Realists here: If almost all of the most revered thinkers in your world, came out tomorrow, in support of the truth movement, but without any convincing evidence..would you fall in line with them? Or would you become the new minority speaking against the new mainstream support of CD theory?

Again, I know it's a hypothetical, but i am after some data here...flow with me if you can.
 
janarian start a new thread. This is about DC's comment that WTC 7 was a controlled demoltion; so far he has yet to provide evidence.
 
Since I am relatively new here, DC, am I wrong in saying that you currently hold the CD idea up as the reality? After reading hundreds of posts it seems you do, but I could be wrong.

Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom