• 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?

you both perfectly got the point, but oc you cant adress it.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
you both perfectly got the point, but oc you cant adress it.
Click to expand...

You will have to do much better than this DC.
You have no basis for your presumptions about how a building like that should or should not behave in such circumstances, have you?
No experience of a similar event and no clue about the specific damage or the specific amount of fire induced failure of columns.
Nothing in fact, other than it "looked like a cd" from a blurry youtube video of a partially obscured building falling down.:)
 
wooooody64 said:
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
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm sure what happened was that MacQueen called all 118 of the firefighters he's quoting, got them to admit that they in fact thought controlled demolitions were in involved in the collapses of the WTC, and as part of his relentless quest to expose "The Truth", just forgot to mention it in is blog. Or ever.

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...

They're not staying silent about their experiences. That's the point. What they are staying silent about, according to Truthers, is they believe that any of the buildings on 9/11 collapsed due to controlled demolition.

I break it down to you like this:

According to reality, the fact that no firefighters have expressed a belief in controlled demolition = They don't believe there were controlled demolitions.

According to Truthers, the fact that no firefighters have expressed a belief in controlled demoltion = They were paid off/coerced/too stupid to realize what was going on.

Which camp are you in?
 
Last edited:
DC, no evidence yet? DC, where is your evidence?

Oh, you just think it was a CD. Your thermite device needs to be specified. How big is it? Do you understand jet fuel has more energy per pound than thermite? Does CD know thermite was made up by Jones four years after 9/11. How many mols of this stuff does it take to destroy a steel column, and what stops it from just hardening back into a steel alloy.

Better get your themo stuff out and all the engineering you have to specify how this thermite device could do what the impact and fire did better. Your lack of evidence is enormous.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
DC, no evidence yet? DC, where is your evidence?

Oh, you just think it was a CD. Your thermite device needs to be specified. How big is it? Do you understand jet fuel has more energy per pound than thermite? Does CD know thermite was made up by Jones four years after 9/11. How many mols of this stuff does it take to destroy a steel column, and what stops it from just hardening back into a steel alloy.

Better get your themo stuff out and all the engineering you have to specify how this thermite device could do what the impact and fire did better. Your lack of evidence is enormous.
Click to expand...

can Jetfuel generate the same thermal energy in 1 minute like a Thermite reaction?

and why do i get asked about the size of the devide? i thaught you guys figured that out already, the size if a truck, i got told....
 
And off on the merry-go-round once more....

DC,

If it was thermite cutters, you need to explain exactly how they would work.

If it was conventional explosives, you need to explain why there was no coordinated sequence of deafeningly loud bangs before WTC7 fell.

Alternatively you could always go back to being a no-claimer.
I'd go for the third option, you were better at it.
 
Evilgiraffe said:
And off on the merry-go-round once more....

DC,

If it was thermite cutters, you need to explain exactly how they would work.

If it was conventional explosives, you need to explain why there was no coordinated sequence of deafeningly loud bangs before WTC7 fell.

Alternatively you could always go back to being a no-claimer.
I'd go for the third option, you were better at it.
Click to expand...

i showed a patent, that describes how it work, i also tryed to explain it in my own word. but thats not enough, the goalposts have now been moved to a video of such a device cuting a WTC like column. cause the video that showed the principle working was also not good enough.

and for the explosives, i showed an interview with a former NY Cop, that claims to have heard explosives. it is not just a similie or a quote ripped out of contect, he clearly says that he thinks that he heard explosions. and he also implied that those are related to the collapse and prolly come from explosives devices. there are also other testemonys.
also the peoples was "pull it" out of the collapse zone. and still we have peoples that seem to have heard explosives.

and about WTC7 there are several experts that say it was most propably a CD. but here we get asked a very very detailed and perfect proven theory.
while when a retired fireman writes a very little theory where he describes the stresses in steel when heated up unevenly and or cool down uneven. and shows in 2d how a failure of 1 or 3 columns would pull in all the other columns and result in a nearly symmetric collapse. without much details.
Especially would i miss the details in his theory that are in his field. the fires and the fireproofing.
but here nobody yells for evidence.
 
Last edited:
i showed a patent, that describes how it work, i also tryed to explain it in my own word. but thats not enough, the goalposts have now been moved to a video of such a device cuting a WTC like column. cause the video that showed the principle working was also not good enough.
Click to expand...

The video showed a device that was much larger than the steel section it was cutting. It has been pointed out to you, repeatedly, that for such a device to have a hope of working on WTC7 it would have to be the size of a small truck. This is not moving the goalposts, it is merely following your line of reasoning to a logical conclusion.

Many processes do not scale up well. And it is not unreasonable to ask for some evidence that thermite cutters can actually perform the job you claim they can. If they're so good at this sork of work providing the evidence will be easy, right?


and for the explosives, i showed an interview with a former NY Cop, that claims to have heard explosives. it is not just a similie or a quote ripped out of contect, he clearly says that he thinks that he heard explosions. and he also implied that those are related to the collapse and prolly come from explosives devices. there are also other testemonys.
also the peoples was "pull it" out of the collapse zone. and still we have peoples that seem to have heard explosives.
Click to expand...

You can't really use the terms explosions and explosives interchangeably.
Explosives sound, well, like explosives, but there are many other phenomena that make loud explosive sounds.
 
care to backup the claim of a device the size of a small truck?

are you talking about box columns or I shaped columns? what thickness?

i thaught JREFers dont claim without evidence?
it sounds like you are experts on those devices, at least when it comes to trucke sized devices....


so Bartmer did NOT mean explsoions from explosive devices? are you sure? did you watch the interview?
 
care to backup the claim of a device the size of a small truck?
Click to expand...

The core columns were 3' wide, yes?
Therefore the nozzle of your putative cutter need to be this wide. Then you need a supply of thermite big enough to supply this nozzle with gas while it cuts the column. That's going to be a lot of thermite => big device.
Very noticeable when it comes to installing the thing.

so Bartmer did NOT mean explsoions from explosive devices? are you sure? did you watch the interview?
Click to expand...

I refer you to your own signature.

Yes he may well have heard a loud bang. But that doesn't mean it was caused by an explosive charge. Particularly when there was no other evidence of explosives being used.

This is what truthers always conveniently forget. Your theory has to be consistent with the totality of the evidence.
 
Evilgiraffe said:
The core columns were 3' wide, yes?
Therefore the nozzle of your putative cutter need to be this wide. Then you need a supply of thermite big enough to supply this nozzle with gas while it cuts the column. That's going to be a lot of thermite => big device.
Very noticeable when it comes to installing the thing.



I refer you to your own signature.

Yes he may well have heard a loud bang. But that doesn't mean it was caused by an explosive charge. Particularly when there was no other evidence of explosives being used.

This is what truthers always conveniently forget. Your theory has to be consistent with the totality of the evidence.
Click to expand...

indeed the wide needs to be the same as the columns, you also neeed enough thermite to cut the thickness of the steel.
and how much would that be? where exactly will it be comaparebale to a small truck? are US trucks only 0.5m wide?

would Cheney admit his criminal involvement, you would be first to say he is either misstaken or a liar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom