• 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?

Billdave2 said:
Reminiscent: awakening memories of something similar; suggestive (usually fol. by of)

Reminiscent of CD =/= is CD.

And just how level should the roof have been in your opinion (please list your credentials that show you are qualified to make this juudgment)? Or is this simply more arguing from incredulity? Don't most buildings that are brought down with CD fall in the middle first? (Hint: that is how you get it to fall in its on footprint)
Click to expand...

Please see the below thread in which Mackey discuss' WTC7 collapse.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3685247#post3685247
 
applecorped said:
Please see the below thread in which Mackey discuss' WTC7 collapse.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3685247#post3685247
Click to expand...

Exactly! That was the point I was trying to make. If WTC7 had been a CD, you wouldn't expect any unevenness in the roof line as it fell. The fact that you can see it is uneven as it drops shows that it is not a CD. As Mackey states in his excellant post, it just can't tip very far with collapsing and pulling the rest down too.
 
applecorped said:
Dictator Cheney:

You made a statement that WTC7 was a controlled Demolition. Please inform this forum as to how you arrived at your conclusion.
Click to expand...

Dictator Cheney said:
by thinking and reading :)
Click to expand...

Dictator Cheney said:
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.
Click to expand...

Dictator Cheney said:
ok something that bothers me is, the logation of the damage from impacting WTC debris. and the first visible failure of the building we see. the penthouse that collapses first.

also that the building came down in almost perfect simetric.
CD experts normally need pretty well calculated delays in theyr sequence to move the building into the direction they want it.

and i doubt that asymetric fires and asymetric damage can do the same.
but like i sayd, maybe NIST can comeup with a convincing theory about it.
Click to expand...

Dictator Cheney said:
what bothers me more is, why did other buildings that was far more damaged than WTC7 not collapse completly, while WTC7 contained a bullet or even bomb proof "bunker" or command center. i would have expected that especially that building can take more than others.

i see that WTC had a very special column pattern, a special design. wich even worrys me more when i see it collapsing almost perfectly symertic.

the motive for WTC7 CD? i dunno.
Click to expand...

i think i did answer the topic
 
Billdave2 said:
Exactly! That was the point I was trying to make. If WTC7 had been a CD, you wouldn't expect any unevenness in the roof line as it fell. The fact that you can see it is uneven as it drops shows that it is not a CD. As Mackey states in his excellant post, it just can't tip very far with collapsing and pulling the rest down too.
Click to expand...

NOVA: Why do the explosive charges go off at intervals rather than all at once?

SL: Well, if I kick both your legs out from under you, you're going to fall right on your butt. If I kick one leg out from under you, you'll fall left or right. So the way we control the failure of the building is by using the delays. And, again, that varies structure to structure and depending on where we want the building to go. A lot of people, when they see a building implosion, expect it to go into its own basement, which is not always what the contractor wants. Sometimes the contractor wants to lay the building out like a tree. And, sometime, we need to bring down buildings that are actually touching other buildings.
Click to expand...

source
 
Dictator Cheney said:
source
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight, now you are saying that the lean was intentional, so that the building would not fall into its footprint? I am confused, I thought the Truther line is that the building falling into its on footprint with a level roofline was the sign that it was a CD. Now you are saying that since sometimes CD's are designed to fall/lean taht does not rule out CD. What this means is that no matter how a building falls or what makes it fall it can always be described as "looking like a CD". This means that it is immpossible to make an argument for CD based only on what the collapse looks like. Therefore you needs some other evidence (explosives, denonaters, etc)before you can claim it is CD. Do you have any?
 
Billdave2 said:
Let me get this straight, now you are saying that the lean was intentional, so that the building would not fall into its footprint? I am confused, I thought the Truther line is that the building falling into its on footprint with a level roofline was the sign that it was a CD. Now you are saying that since sometimes CD's are designed to fall/lean taht does not rule out CD. What this means is that no matter how a building falls or what makes it fall it can always be described as "looking like a CD". This means that it is immpossible to make an argument for CD based only on what the collapse looks like. Therefore you needs some other evidence (explosives, denonaters, etc)before you can claim it is CD. Do you have any?
Click to expand...

when they want a building to collapse sideways , they damage the load bearing columns on the side the want it to go first.
but WTC7 was damaged on one side, it was on fire weakening the remaining support and then it came almost straight down. almost into its own footprint.

thats not what i would expect from a onesided damaged building that is on fire.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
when they want a building to collapse sideways , they damage the load bearing columns on the side the want it to go first.
but WTC7 was damaged on one side, it was on fire weakening the remaining support and then it came almost straight down. almost into its own footprint.

thats not what i would expect from a onesided damaged building that is on fire.
Click to expand...

The key is that it is not what youexpect. Are you an expert on building demolitions? Also the canard that WTC7 fell into it's own footprint has been disproven by pictures showing debris that is scattered. Doyou think it is easier or harder to do a CD where the building falls out? You notice in the interview after talking about how you do it she says "it can be done". As a native english speaker, this phrase at the end of the sentance implies that it can be done but is not easy. It is a qualifier. If you think about for even a few seconds you would realize that bringing a buiding down this way would be much harder. You would have to be much more precise. So do you think a natural global collapse would be as precise? Of coarse it wouldn't! So what would happen? The building would be pulled more or less straight down by gravity, not over like a tree. Once again, without any other evidence than "It looks like a CD to me", you have nothing.
 
Billdave2 said:
The key is that it is not what youexpect. Are you an expert on building demolitions? Also the canard that WTC7 fell into it's own footprint has been disproven by pictures showing debris that is scattered. Doyou think it is easier or harder to do a CD where the building falls out? You notice in the interview after talking about how you do it she says "it can be done". As a native english speaker, this phrase at the end of the sentance implies that it can be done but is not easy. It is a qualifier. If you think about for even a few seconds you would realize that bringing a buiding down this way would be much harder. You would have to be much more precise. So do you think a natural global collapse would be as precise? Of coarse it wouldn't! So what would happen? The building would be pulled more or less straight down by gravity, not over like a tree. Once again, without any other evidence than "It looks like a CD to me", you have nothing.
Click to expand...

well my english is indeed not good, but i thikn the "it can be done" was related to the "buildings that touch eachother"......
 
lapman said:
Which is also a no steel, no fire, no damage, uneven foundation initiated collapse as well. You claim that your location is Planet Earth. I'm really starting to wonder, though. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

you got some collapses of steel structures failing without CD?
we can compare those :)
 
Dictator Cheney said:
you got some collapses of steel structures failing without CD?
we can compare those :)
Click to expand...

We got a couple that collapsed from jet impacts and fires and another one that collapsed from structural damage and fires. Do they count?

On the subject of demolitions, perhaps you can answer the question I pose in this thread, DC.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjcQOlX8Xw

a no CD collapse
Click to expand...
And this prove 9/11 happened by impact and fire. But you need to have knowledge and rational thinking. Got physics? Gee gravity blew up that building, must of been CD. NWO never sleeps, we even do India, and the world. You are starting to debunk 9/11 truth! Better than the terrorist have done..

Knowledge is the key to not being fooled by 9/11 truth, the fantasy masters of the world.
More fiction flows from 9/11 truth than a Tom Clancy novel.

Tom Clancy novels are based on more facts than 9/11 truth's best efforts!
 
theauthor said:
Why do you continue to claim that?
Click to expand...
Because you refuse to acknowledge just how incredibly LOUD a demolition charge used to bring down a building actually is. The sound produced by any demolition charges in WTC7 would be sufficiently loud as to be heard CLEARLY by anyone within BLOCKS AND BLOCKS of the building. It couldn't be hidden, it couldn't be confused with anything else. It would have been utterly unmistakable. And, I would add, recorded by the microphone of any working video camera within blocks and blocks of the building.

In any case, you still have to address the lack of light flashes, the lack of a blast wave and subsequent spray of shrapnel.
 
Last edited:
So far, another day in the years since 9/11 that the CIT lacks any sufficient evidence to challenge the heavily researched conclusions.

new-car-fail.JPG
 
Corsair 115 said:
Because you refuse to acknowledge just how incredibly LOUD a demolition charge used to bring down a building actually is. The sound produced by any demolition charges in WTC7 would be sufficiently loud as to be heard CLEARLY by anyone within BLOCKS AND BLOCKS of the building. It couldn't be hidden, it couldn't be confused with anything else. It would have been utterly unmistakable. And, I would add, recorded by the microphone of any working video camera within blocks and blocks of the building.
Click to expand...


Would it have sounded anything like 04:57 in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0


(Incidentally, can any debunkers explain why that video shows rescue workers walking round building seven saying "the building is about to blow up"?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom