DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

applecorped said:
Will you accept the findings of the final NIST report if it doesn't support your view?
Click to expand...

that depends on the report.
when they really wil do the FEA sims with fire and blast events and they can show a collapse like we saw it with only fire events, well then maybe. But its to early to say. we will see.
 
Well I may not agree with some of your views DC, I give you credit for sticking around and answering and responding to the numerous inquiries directed at you.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
no, look at the picture closely, the parts are NOT on top of 6.
do you have other pictures that would show that?
Click to expand...

Yes, you can see from this picture that the WTC 7 debis lying on that shelf of WTC 6 wasn't an optical illusion.

Aerial20Shot_jpg.jpg


http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ardoucette/Aerial20Shot_jpg.jpg
 
tsig said:
I can't see you either.
Click to expand...

you dont need to see me, you need to see where the WTC7 was and where the WTC7 debris is on the Picture-

why dont you simply point out where you think to see WTC7 debris on top of another building.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
you dont need to see me, you need to see where the WTC7 was and where the WTC7 debris is on the Picture-

why dont you simply point out where you think to see WTC7 debris on top of another building.
Click to expand...

Twelve days later, several of them rather rainy, it's rather difficult to tell the debris of one building from the other. From this perspective they are quite commingled.
 
i thaught a few posts ago it was clearly to see that the debris is on the other building. now its hard to say.....
 
applecorped said:
Well I may not agree with some of your views DC, I give you credit for sticking around and answering and responding to the numerous inquiries directed at you.
Click to expand...

btw, some?
does that mean you agree on some of my views? :D
i guess it would be my views on Loose Change and Alex Jones ;)
 
Belz... said:
Will it depend on the conclusions or the data and methodology ?
Click to expand...

why did you only quote a part of my answer?
the rest of it pretty well explains it.

ETA: and to my full answer you can add:
when they will show the collapse simulation with blast events, then i have no problem to accept it.
 
Last edited:
If the firefighters are such experts at predicting collapses, why did none of the predict the towers collapse?
 
theauthor said:
If the firefighters are such experts at predicting collapses, why did none of the predict the towers collapse?
Click to expand...

Evidence that the towers were going to collapse was harder to spot. A structural engineer gave the first warning when he saw the state of the elevator shafts in WTC1. Also, the external buckling in the towers occurred high above the ground. It was recognized by helicopter crews taking a closer look from the air, but would not have been so obvious from below. Unfortunately, it was difficult at that point to communicate any of this to all the firefighters, and many would not have stopped their rescue efforts at any rate unless they KNEW a collapse was imminent. Recall that Building 7 was unoccupied; there was nothing at stake except an empty office building and the lives of the firefighters.

Finally -- don't you think the sight of two huge skyscrapers collapsing might have opened the firefighters' minds a little bit about the possibility of a large building collapsing?

But do you really need me to tell you this? Honestly, it's not that difficult to figure out if you do a little research and think about it.
 
theauthor said:
If the firefighters are such experts at predicting collapses, why did none of the predict the towers collapse?
Click to expand...

So either firefighters must correctly predict the collapse of burning buildings every single time or they are not at all knowledgeable in assessing the stability of such buildings? You present a false dichotomy. And a rather silly one at that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom