• 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?

WildCat said:
The nozzle would have to be as big as the column, yes? And it would have to be big enough to hold enough thermite to cut a large coumn.


Follow the cables/hoses and it connects to a larger box, several times larger than the cutting device.


I would bet you the mass density of a human body is more than that of a large building. At any rate, the prnciple is the same - static load vs. dynamic load. I can easily carry a 80lb bag of concrete on my head, I doubt I'd survive one falling on me from 10 feet up. The kinetic energy involved is too great, same as with the towers once collapse is initiated.


Now who's comparing apples to oranges? This makes me think you're not really an engineer.

The towers were not solid blocks. The lower mass wasn't destroyed all at once, it was destroyed one floor at a time.
Click to expand...
CTists want to maneuver the debate such that we are required to prove it wasn't "x" or "y", that's what's going on here, don't allow that to happen. This is basic stuff, they want you to prove a negative.

The burden of proof is on the CTist.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
what device is connected pls? how big is it and especially, what does it do?
Click to expand...
Did you not even look at the vid you posted? Your claim, you tell me what it does and how.

strange strange
Click to expand...
Let me kow when you or anyone else in the pathetic truth movement manages to cut a column the size of a WTC column with thermite.

Until then, you don't have a claim to stand on.
 
WildCat said:
Did you not even look at the vid you posted? Your claim, you tell me what it does and how.


Let me kow when you or anyone else in the pathetic truth movement manages to cut a column the size of a WTC column with thermite.

Until then, you don't have a claim to stand on.
Click to expand...

you have troubles with your eyes? you think that thing on the left side is a device?
isnt that a stone "brick" ?

and sure the cable goes prolly to the device that will deliver the electricity to get the thermite reaction started, wich then will creat the needed gas to cut steel.
 
Last edited:
wooooody64 said:
http://freethoughtmanifesto.blogspot.com/2007/11/explosive-ny-firefighters-testimony-9.html
Click to expand...

Taking first responder testimony out of context and pretending it means something it doesn't? Yeah, haven't seen that one before.

These firefighters were describing their experiences using similes and metaphors, not making definitive statements about what happened. And an easy way to establish that is to actually contact them and ask for clarification.

But I notice nowhere in that blog does it indicate that MacQueen even attempted to do this. I wonder why. I guess his reasons are the same as every other Truther that flat out refuses to contact the FDNY. (Hint: The terms "coward" and "fraud" are applicable.)

And of course you realize that if you believe what MacQueen is asserting , you believe that by keeping silent all these years, the FDNY is complicit after the fact of assisting in the cover up to murder 3,000 innocent people, including 343 of their own.

Classy stuff!
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
Taking first responder testimony out of context and pretending it means something it doesn't? Yeah, haven't seen that one before.

These firefighters were describing their experiences using similes and metaphors, not making definitive statements about what happened. And an easy way to establish that is to actually contact them and ask for clarification.

But I notice nowhere in that blog does it indicate that MacQueen even attempted to do this. I wonder why. I guess his reasons are the same as every other Truther that flat out refuses to contact the FDNY. (Hint: The terms "coward" and "fraud" are applicable.)

And of course you realize that if you believe what MacQueen is asserting , you believe that by keeping silent all these years, the FDNY is complicit after the fact of assisting in the cover up to murder 3,000 innocent people, including 343 of their own.

Classy stuff!
Click to expand...

Please accept my sincerest apologies for breaking the rules :rolleyes:


You are correct, nowhere in the blog does it indicate that MacQueen even attempted to actually contact the firefighters in question and ask for clarification. So we dont know whether he did or did not

If you believe what Mcqueen is saying, you would obviously believe that those firefighters made statements about their experiences, so how is that "staying silent"?
 
Dictator Cheney said:
you have troubles with your eyes? you think that thing on the left side is a device?
isnt that a stone "brick" ?
Click to expand...
OK, I'll concede it is a brick.

Still need to demonstrate this for a WTC sized column though. When do you plan to do so?
 
Last edited:
wooooody64 said:
If you believe what Mcqueen is saying, you would obviously believe that those firefighters made statements about their experiences, so how is that "staying silent"?
Click to expand...
If you believe what he is saying the firefighters are being silent, in fact there's not a single one I'm aware of who thinks there were bombs in the towers. It seems to me that would be something they wouldn't just shrug off, don't you think?
 
Dictator Cheney said:
WTC7 didnt need preperations for CD. when fires and damage could bring down the building, then for sure explosives or thermite can do it.
Click to expand...

Which brings us back to the topic of the thread:

WHY, for God's sake WHY, do you think WTC7 was a CD?

And WHY don't you simply answer the question?

Although I think I know the answer to that second one.
 
Last edited:
Dictator Cheney said:
would oversimplified elementary calculations be enough?
Click to expand...

Why do you keep asking other people questions? The purpose of this thread is to get YOU to answer a very simple question: WHY DO YOU BELIEVE WTC7 WAS A CD?

If you have already answered this question, then I must have missed it. Please direct me to the post where you answered it.

If you haven't...WHY NOT? TEN PAGES so far!
 
aggle-rithm said:
Which brings us back to the topic of the thread:

WHY, for God's sake WHY, do you think WTC7 was a CD?

And WHY don't you simply answer the question?

Although I think I know the answer to that second one.
Click to expand...

i answered several times now.

i dont think a onesided damaged and asymetric uncontrolled burning building would collapse nearly symmetrically.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
i answered several times now.

i dont think a onesided damaged and asymetric uncontrolled burning building would collapse nearly symmetrically.
Click to expand...

Okay, I apologize for missing that. The signal-to-noise ratio on this thread is very low.

Of course, you do realize that this is an argument from personal incredulity, unless you can define "nearly symmetrically" and say why NO building could possibly collapse in that fashion under the conditions seen on 9/11.
 
pomeroo said:
We will assume that you were unable to read Arthur Scheuerman's paper.
Click to expand...

oh why would you assume that?
i even agree on some things he wrote, like this one

NIST can do a computer analysis of the forces involved and connection strength to confirm or disprove the analysis and clarify this theory.
Click to expand...
 
aggle-rithm said:
Okay, I apologize for missing that. The signal-to-noise ratio on this thread is very low.

Of course, you do realize that this is an argument from personal incredulity, unless you can define "nearly symmetrically" and say why NO building could possibly collapse in that fashion under the conditions seen on 9/11.
Click to expand...

i knew nearly simmertically would cause a reaction.

while, UA93 impacted straight down while in fact it was 40° is ok......
 
i dont think a onesided damaged and asymetric uncontrolled burning building would collapse nearly symmetrically.
Click to expand...

On what experience of damaged and burning 47 story skyscrapers falling down, do you base this expectation?
 
while, UA93 impacted straight down while in fact it was 40° is ok......
Click to expand...

Off topic, but I have already asked you in another thread why you think this is an important detail?
You failed to answer.
 
scissorhands said:
On what experience of damaged and burning 47 story skyscrapers falling down, do you base this expectation?
Click to expand...

On what experience of damaged and burning 47 story skyscrapers falling down, do others base their expectation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom