So you didn't do your research.
DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?
- Thread starter applecorped
- Start date
So you didn't do your research.
lapman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,717
And you did? Oh, I forgot, in twooferdom, research only means using twoofer sites or just shooting from the hip and hope that nobody notices. Gotya.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Ad hominem. Please address the argument, not the arguer.
That isn't an ad hominem. And it was just a repeat of what you said to me earlier.
applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
It was an irrelevant attempt to distract from the main argument. Call it what you will.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Yea. It's either that or semantics. Anything to keep from discussing the facts. Next thing you know we'll be discussing the meaning of 'pull it' on THIS thread too.
applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
A W Smith
Philosopher
Despite your attempt to change the subject, the question still stands
Again, Has your question been answered, theauthor/paul?
http://911stories.googlepages.com/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande
Again, Has your question been answered, theauthor/paul?
http://911stories.googlepages.com/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande
applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
Bump for theauthor.
A W Smith
Philosopher
bump for theauthor/paul
if they don't answer im going to start adding those post links to my sig as "'schooled'
if they don't answer im going to start adding those post links to my sig as "'schooled'
Last edited:
applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
good idea
No evidence yet? At least your sig is correct; You look up stuff and repeat it without understanding the meaning or parameters. After you gain more knowledge you could understand 9/11 and your why your sig is correct.
So far you think WTC7 was a CD because you think it was. Fetzer's way.
MIKILLINI
Incromulent Logic
- Joined
- May 3, 2007
- Messages
- 2,979
So far nothing significant from the twoof side that would be construed as tangible evidence. Perhaps DC, you could consider there was an electrical transformer demolition in WTC 7.
This makes a bit more sense than a super secret demo rigging crew. Which is something da twoof can't seem to get away from.
This makes a bit more sense than a super secret demo rigging crew. Which is something da twoof can't seem to get away from.
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,201
hi everyone
why i think 7 was a CD
1. the so-called “collapse” of 7 does not look like a natural collapse; it looks like a CD. now i know this fact alone does not prove it was a CD nevertheless can anyone cite me just ONE example of a natural collapse that "looked" like a CD?
The truth is prior to 911 debunkers have not one single example of a natural collapse resembling a CD and yet they still believe that wtc 7 was a natural collapse eventhough the honest among them admit that it does resemble a CD?
Truthers on the other hand believe wtc 7 was a CD. Since no collapse that wasnt a CD resembled a CD, historically at least truthers are in a much stronger position that debunkers.
2. Loud explosions were caught on video http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0 and heard by several witnesseses including Craig Bartmer and a radio host et cetera. her are som etelling testimonies:
“When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes” CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.secondary.explosions.wmv
There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connors http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 69
Last time I checked controlled demolitions use explosives that sound like loud explosions. Now I am not saying however that the same kind of explosives used in regular CD were used in 7 and i am not saying that the explosives in CD were detonated in the same manner as in a regular CD. it appears to me that explosives were detonated over a long period of time disguising the fact that it was a controlled demolition.
i am simply saying that i believe the witnesses that they heard a loud explosion and whe i hear the explosion in the video i sighted it sounds like an explosive detonation. here you will find a link that shows the difference between the sound of a deflagration and detonation http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=33&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
3. No plane hit 7 so fireproofing was not removed from the steel and fires were not feed by jet fuel
the fires were not feed by diesel tanks either, they were just “normal office fires” 28 feb Hardfire http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8171587265178134516
prior to and after 911 no steel frame skysraper has ever “collapsed” due to an office fire and some relatively minor damage when compared to wtc 3, 4, 5 and 6, who all by the way still remained standing.
one column failure should not have resulted in global collapse. according to city code when the building was comstructed “if one column is removed the other columns have to take up the load” Artur Scheueman http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8171587265178134516
FEMA admit that the best hypothesis for collapse of wtc 7 has a “low probability” of occurance.
Q: what has a higher probability of occurence? (a) a steel frame highrise structure collaping near symetrically due to an office fire and asymetric structural damage or (b) a steel frame highrise structure collapsing near symterically due to an office fire, structural damage, and contolled demolition?
In terms of probability truthers again are in by far a stronger position than debunkers.
summary:
(1) truthers have stronger historical argument
(2) it both "looks" and at times "sounds" like a CD
(3) truthers have a stronger argumnet from probability
why i think 7 was a CD
1. the so-called “collapse” of 7 does not look like a natural collapse; it looks like a CD. now i know this fact alone does not prove it was a CD nevertheless can anyone cite me just ONE example of a natural collapse that "looked" like a CD?
The truth is prior to 911 debunkers have not one single example of a natural collapse resembling a CD and yet they still believe that wtc 7 was a natural collapse eventhough the honest among them admit that it does resemble a CD?
Truthers on the other hand believe wtc 7 was a CD. Since no collapse that wasnt a CD resembled a CD, historically at least truthers are in a much stronger position that debunkers.
2. Loud explosions were caught on video http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0 and heard by several witnesseses including Craig Bartmer and a radio host et cetera. her are som etelling testimonies:
“When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes” CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.secondary.explosions.wmv
There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connors http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 69
Last time I checked controlled demolitions use explosives that sound like loud explosions. Now I am not saying however that the same kind of explosives used in regular CD were used in 7 and i am not saying that the explosives in CD were detonated in the same manner as in a regular CD. it appears to me that explosives were detonated over a long period of time disguising the fact that it was a controlled demolition.
i am simply saying that i believe the witnesses that they heard a loud explosion and whe i hear the explosion in the video i sighted it sounds like an explosive detonation. here you will find a link that shows the difference between the sound of a deflagration and detonation http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=33&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
3. No plane hit 7 so fireproofing was not removed from the steel and fires were not feed by jet fuel
the fires were not feed by diesel tanks either, they were just “normal office fires” 28 feb Hardfire http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8171587265178134516
prior to and after 911 no steel frame skysraper has ever “collapsed” due to an office fire and some relatively minor damage when compared to wtc 3, 4, 5 and 6, who all by the way still remained standing.
one column failure should not have resulted in global collapse. according to city code when the building was comstructed “if one column is removed the other columns have to take up the load” Artur Scheueman http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8171587265178134516
FEMA admit that the best hypothesis for collapse of wtc 7 has a “low probability” of occurance.
Q: what has a higher probability of occurence? (a) a steel frame highrise structure collaping near symetrically due to an office fire and asymetric structural damage or (b) a steel frame highrise structure collapsing near symterically due to an office fire, structural damage, and contolled demolition?
In terms of probability truthers again are in by far a stronger position than debunkers.
summary:
(1) truthers have stronger historical argument
(2) it both "looks" and at times "sounds" like a CD
(3) truthers have a stronger argumnet from probability
Last edited:
applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
sigh....it never ends.
lapman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,717
You obviosly haven't heard of the Kader Toy Factory fire. Oh well. Of course the truthers have never produced a CD where any part of the roof structures collapsed into the building first either. I guess that doesn't count.
So you not only don't know the difference between explosion and explosions as well as what timing is. All sorts of things explode. However, CD have a very distinct sequence that is unique. Nothing like that was ever reported or recorded.
Again with the "explosion and only mean explosives" fallacy. All sorts of things make the sharp sound that can me interpreted as an explosion.
If you really checked, the explosives are set off in a specific sequence to first cut the steel columns and then a second set is used to push the columns the way they want them to go. It would sound very much like this:
No of you twoofers have yet to provide a single video with that sound on it. Period.
Again, with the "explosion can only mean explosive" fallacy. Please explain this:
And fireproofing is only meant to last 2 to 4 hours. Do your research.
Prior to 9/11, no steel skycraper had ever been hit by large airliners going 480+mph either. Prior to 9/11, no steel skyscraper had ever been hit by tons of steel falling from another skyscraper as well. Stop cherry picking your "first time in history" arguments and address them all.
A. The explosive would not have survived the office fire.
False. Truther blatently refuse to take into account everything that happened that day.
- False. There are too many other first time in histories that truther ignore.
- It does not sound like any CD of a steel structure that has ever been done and no CD has ever had the roof structures behave like WTC 7. Strike 2
- False. The probability in next to nil that the explosives would have survived the fires, let alone be placed without anyone noticing.
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
the mainpoint is how it collapsed, not that it collapsed, oc buildings can collapse when they are on fire long enough, but normally those collapses dont look like a CD or WTC7.
to bring a building down that symmetrically and straight needs normaly a well calculated sequence of exploding well placed explosives, or it will not come down that straight.
and that is very very unlikely to happen in a fire. Especially when the building is onesided damaged.
to bring a building down that symmetrically and straight needs normaly a well calculated sequence of exploding well placed explosives, or it will not come down that straight.
and that is very very unlikely to happen in a fire. Especially when the building is onesided damaged.
Last edited: