• 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?

sleahead said:
No, you are saying that this was a near symmetrical, near perfect CD. Therefore, you are implying that they chose to do this way. I am asking why they would do this?
Click to expand...

it was near symetric, i dont gona say it was near perfect CD. but it was almost perfectly symetrical, almost.
 
scissorhands said:
You mean how he didnt know it was structurally damaged, on fire and collapsed on 9/11, until told so by the reporter?


I wonder why he will no longer discuss his "analysis"?

;)
Click to expand...

i wonder why he never retracted his statement, he does indeed not want to discuss it anymore, but he also confirmed that he does not restract his statement.
 
he does indeed not want to discuss it anymore
Click to expand...

Im sure he doesnt.
If I was him, I would also consider a damage limitation strategy similar to this.
The embarrassment must be intense.
 
scissorhands said:
Im sure he doesnt.
If I was him, I would also consider a damage limitation strategy similar to this.
The embarrassment must be intense.
Click to expand...

why damage limitations?
prolly he simply does not want to discuss his statment over and over again.

Also Dr. Schneider is not restracting his statement that in his oppinion WTC7 was most propably a Controlled Demolition.

but according to JREFers a real expert cannot come to the CD conclusion so they are not real experts or are not informed.......
 
Less prep work, less explosives, less wiring. Now, please answer my question.
 
Drs_Res said:
You are indeed entitled to your opinion. I don't understand it after our exchange, but it is your opinion.

All I ask is that you think about our exchange here and think through it logically.

And I thank you for your time.
Click to expand...

do you think we duscussed something i did not already discuss with others?
when you think it debunks any possibility of a CD, well fine for you :)
its not for me.
 
sleahead said:
Less prep work, less explosives, less wiring. Now, please answer my question.
Click to expand...

why exactly?how much influence has it exactly on the prep work?
how do you know?

afaik the only diffrence would be the possitions of the explosives, and the delays in the sequence.

but you seem to know more about it, tell me.
 
its a queston like, why did teh alleged hijackers act so early in the morning, why not later, when more ppl would have been in the towers? why did they take the risk of missing a flight on the same day and risked the whole operation with it?
 
Last edited:
but according to JREFers a real expert cannot come to the CD conclusion so they are not real experts or are not informed.......
Click to expand...

When the only evidence they have to go on is a few videos of a partially obscured building falling down, then they certainly arent informed, wouldnt you say?
 
scissorhands said:
When the only evidence they have to go on is a few videos of a partially obscured building falling down, then they certainly arent informed, wouldnt you say?
Click to expand...

and who based his oppinion just on some videos of WTC7 CD/Collapse?
not Jovenko, im not sure about Schneider or Bachman, but both are Structural engineers and both belive WTC7 was a CD, i doubt they just say so cause they saw some videos, im pretty sure they did inform themself before they stated theyr oppinion in one of the major newpapers in my country. but i dont know and i dont really care.

when you care, email them and ask them. i will help you tranlating it into German if you want.
 
Last edited:
btw, what is your evidence that damage and fire caused the collapse?
 
im pretty sure they did inform themself before they stated theyr oppinion in one of the major newpapers in my country.but i dont know and i dont really care.
Click to expand...

You dont care about how informed they were?
Really?
 
not really , because even when they would say the do not belive it was a CD, it would not change my oppinion.

but when you know how they informed themself, pls present it :)
 
Dictator Cheney said:
why exactly?how much influence has it exactly on the prep work?
how do you know?

afaik the only diffrence would be the possitions of the explosives, and the delays in the sequence.

but you seem to know more about it, tell me.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, something like toppling a building sideways is far easier to achieve than a symmetrical implosion. Only one side of the building is worked on and when this is blown, it pulls the rest of the building with it. But I don't think you want to answer my question, DC. That's fine by me.
 
sleahead said:
As far as I know, something like toppling a building sideways is far easier to achieve than a symmetrical implosion. Only one side of the building is worked on and when this is blown, it pulls the rest of the building with it. But I don't think you want to answer my question, DC. That's fine by me.
Click to expand...

i would want to answer your question, but i cant. i dont even know who was the conspirators :)

so you best ask the conspirators, not me
 
Dictator Cheney said:
not really , because even when they would say the do not belive it was a CD, it would not change my oppinion.

but when you know how they informed themself, pls present it :)
Click to expand...

So you have no idea how informed or uninformed they are and their opinion is of little relevance to your position?
Then why mention their names?
 
btw, when a toppeling over is far more easy, why did that not happen? the building was damaged onesided.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom