• 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.

Wtc 7

papasmurf said:
Btw you think some damage to the exterior of the building from debris adds anything to your argument, prove it.

PROVE IT.
Click to expand...

You've misplaced the burden of proof. As it stands now, the entire world, with the exception of a handful of what are apparently punks on the intertubes, has the impression that fires and damage caused WTC7 to collapse.

We don't need to prove anything - with no further action, our side prevails!

On the other hand, if you want to show how WTC7 could not have fallen due to fires and damage from WTC1, then that task is up to you.
 
This is hopeless. He/ she won't even do any research or reading. Oh, Stevens Tech, how sad.
 
papasmurf said:
Do you honestly believe that anyone believes that the FDNY would be the ones to plant the demolitions?
Click to expand...
So we won't hear anything about Silverstein and "pull it" from you, yes?

Give me a break.

Does anyone want to point in the direction of the official theory that you have read.

The part that says " the collapse is highly improbable" is useless to me, sorry.
Click to expand...
What about the Con Ed substation papasmurf? You know all about it, don't you?
 
SDC said:
You show no signs of having done any preparation whatsoever. It is easy to find information. Go to the NIST site. Go to the Pop Mechanics volume for easy explanations. Use the search function on this site for prior discussions.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute...

Let me get this straight...

You just tried to attack my qualifications personally on my engineering studies and my level of preparation... but... you just posted Popular mechanics as a source of information...

Okay, we're just going to pretend you didn't say that. I know you like your "easy explanations" so that you can get on with your life...

But that doesn't fly in the real world of science.
 
papasmurf said:
Do you honestly believe that anyone believes that the FDNY would be the ones to plant the demolitions?

Give me a break.

Does anyone want to point in the direction of the official theory that you have read.

The part that says " the collapse is highly improbable" is useless to me, sorry.
Click to expand...

You read that wrong, you failed to grasp the meaning and have made up a lie. The part did not say collapse was highly improbable, try again. Try quoting things right! You may learn how to understand what the quote really means is not what you think it is.

Changing meaning is not good.

Fire it destroys steel strength, see, and this fire was fought, WTC7 WAS NOT FOUGHT.
onemeridiansag.jpg

Fire makes steel fail, quickly. This fire was fought! But…


Firefighting Operations Suspended
All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors. Bearing this risk in mind along with the loss of three personnel and the lack of progress against the fire despite having secured adequate water pressure and flow for interior fire streams, an order was given to evacuate the building at 0700 on February 24. At the time of the evacuation, the fire appeared to be under control on the 22nd though 24th floors. It continued to bum on floors 25 and 26 and was spreading upward. There was a heavy smoke condition throughout most of the upper floors. The evacuation was completed by 0730. After evacuating the building, portable master streams directed at the fire building from several exposures, including the Girard Building #l and One Centre Plaza, across the street to the west were the only firefighting efforts left in place.
Page 17
Click to expand...
What was different in WTC7.

Excerpt: Summary of World Trade Center Building 7 Emergency Response.

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors [fires were visible on at least 16 floors]. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.
Click to expand...
Lack of knowledge, false information, and lies are the standard characteristics of 9/11 truth. I expect people would study 9/11 before picking the losing side.
 
WildCat said:
So we won't hear anything about Silverstein and "pull it" from you, yes?


What about the Con Ed substation papasmurf? You know all about it, don't you?
Click to expand...

Quit trying to shift the focus to me, i came here to see what you know, which is turning out to be nothing.

Answer my questions. I told you my views on the matter, now attempt to address them.
 
papasmurf said:
Wait a minute...

Let me get this straight...

You just tried to attack my qualifications personally on my engineering studies and my level of preparation... but... you just posted Popular mechanics as a source of information...

Okay, we're just going to pretend you didn't say that. I know you like your "easy explanations" so that you can get on with your life...

But that doesn't fly in the real world of science.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to be polite but it doesn't look like you plan to reciprocate.

You have shown no signs of having an engineering education. Popular Mechanics is just what it claims to be, on the other hand. I regard it as an entirely respectable publication. I wish you would show some signs of being able to function at a similar respectable level.
 
SDC said:
This is hopeless. He/ she won't even do any research or reading. Oh, Stevens Tech, how sad.
Click to expand...
Hey, until one of these guys supports this nonsense Stevens is OK. Don't judge a school by it's most ignorant student.

None of those guys supports the OMGINSIDEJOB!!!1!!!1 theory, do they papasmurf? Are they stupid, or in on it?
 
papasmurf said:
Quit trying to shift the focus to me, i came here to see what you know, which is turning out to be nothing.

Answer my questions. I told you my views on the matter, now attempt to address them.
Click to expand...

Your views are no different than the 100s of other trolls that have received continuous mental smackdowns on this forum. Use the search engine and remove the silly, uneducated chip that resides on your foul-mouthed shoulder if you have a nanoseconds chance of being dealt with respect here.
 
papasmurf said:
Still can't answer my questions? Anyone?

Please, at least ...try...

Pretty please?
Click to expand...

Oh look! Anther cute little twoofer who keeps pretending that no one is answering his little questions. I think these twoofers must wear some special goggles that prevents them from seeing answers to their questions. Idiot glasses.

BTW kid, still waiting from anyone from your little cult to show a single piece of evidence of a controlled demolition. Heck, I would settle for a demolition company that agrees to WTC 7 being a CD.

As previously directed, stop the name-calling.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81
 
Last edited by a moderator:
papasmurf said:
Quit trying to shift the focus to me, i came here to see what you know, which is turning out to be nothing.
Click to expand...
Look kiddo, you said:

papasmurf said:
Well first off, i don't understand how even if one critical beam did fail somehow, which i believe it would have had to have failed over 3 consecutive floors or something, how that would even explain the collapse as it occurred. We are talking about a very fast and symmetrical collapse that would have required multiple simultaneous failures across the structure.
Click to expand...

And you don't even know about the Con Ed substation and how this affected the construction of WTC 7?

And you don't think you should even be asked about it? :boggled:
 
Ahhhh.... Geeze. You think i'm here to get your respect? I don't want your respect. Here is what i gathered from your remarks so far.

1. The burden of proof is on me. The official story doesn't need proof because as long as most people believe it, that is good enough.

2. Popular mechanics is a respectable article. I can't believe this idea is held by anyone here. Even when i did believe the official theory a few months ago, i despised this article for its ad hominem attacks and misinformation. It even goes as far as to use the proven-wrong pancake theory of collapse among other fallacies.

3. Somehow, subjective accounts of damage are enough to convince you people of reason to believe a building collapsed by fire and debris.

4. You are unable to address my concerns as to how fire damage explained by NIST resulted in the simultaneous and uniform failure of the entire structure.

5. You think there are no scholars or experts against the official theory and anyone who disagrees is an uneducated moron.


6. Sigh...
 
papasmurf said:
Do you not think your own personal convictions are blinding you to the truth?
Click to expand...

Pot - Kettle - Black

Do you not have your own lack of imagination?
Click to expand...

That is the problem with truthers. You are so busy *imagining* what might have happened that you clearly can't see what *did* happen.

I'm supposed to be able to "imagine" that fire magically caused that collapse, while its unimaginable that someone was able to bring it down with demolition charges?
Click to expand...

I would think that a person in your position would understand why they use fire protection on steel framed buildings in the first place.

I also seriously question any engineer who thinks a video of a collapse explains everything. You would think that an engineer would be interested in what was going on *inside* the building...

Have you researched the damage to the building?

Have you researched the fires in building 7?

Do you even care that real engineers have researched those things with many more resources than the truth movement could ever come up with, and found that the building could have collapsed from the damage and fires?
 
WildCat said:
Hey, until one of these guys supports this nonsense Stevens is OK. Don't judge a school by it's most ignorant student.

None of those guys supports the OMGINSIDEJOB!!!1!!!1 theory, do they papasmurf? Are they stupid, or in on it?
Click to expand...
papasmurf, are the entire faculty of the engineering department in your school too stupid to see that WTC 7 was a CD? Or are they in on it?

eta: and about that Con Ed substation, do you know anything about it?
 
It's seems most probable that he/ she isn't an engineering student, faculty member, or research staff. Just a troll, masquerading under the name of a reputable institution. And certainly adding nothing to the discussion here.

How pointless. How silly. What a waste.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom