Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

[Christopher7]

Incorrect

It could not have been an explosion because a demolition is a series of explosions.

Every CD is different.

The screenwall and penthouse collapsed simultaneously. Therefore, all the columns [that hadn't been taken out with thermite] failed at the same time. That was the clap of thunder that Daryl heard.

Gravy asserted that what Daryl heard was a single column snapping like the crane.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Every CD is different.

Explain please how much the the basic principal differs. I suspect the only thing you'll be able to offer for this is the requirements for each unique building that is imploded.

The screenwall and penthouse collapsed simultaneously. <remaining crap snipped out>

You are a pathological liar... and a terrible one at that... On top of which you're repeating it after being corrected. I've discussed this already.




Truthers who use the second video always leave out the penthouse collapse, and as you see, there's nothing "simultaneous" about it. The third one is of the same video without the jump in the footage.

 

[Bell]

Then conventional explosives were used to finish the job. That's what Daryl heard and saw.

Wrong. That is what YOU assert what Daryl heard and saw. Don't present this as a given.

 

[Bell]

Wait! What?!

First you say:

Then conventional explosives were used to finish the job. That's what Daryl heard and saw.

And then in the span of ONE post, you turn and say:

The screenwall and penthouse collapsed simultaneously. Therefore, all the columns [that hadn't been taken out with thermite] failed at the same time. That was the clap of thunder that Daryl heard.

If you yourself can't even make up what happened on 9/11, then you are the least qualified person to conclude 9/11 was an inside job.

 

[Christopher7]

Explain please how much the the basic principal differs. I suspect the only thing you'll be able to offer for this is the requirements for each unique building that is imploded.

Correct. The basic principle is the same but the details are dictated by the unique design of each building.

You are a pathological liar... and a terrible one at that... On top of which you're repeating it after being corrected. I've discussed this already.

I quoted NIST.

NIST L pg 33
"The simultaneous failure of screenwall and west penthouse structures"

NIST L pg 27
7.0 sceonds
West penthouse and screenwall begin to move downward into building
Movement of entire north face of WTC7 (visible above Floor 21)


NCSTAR 1A
They left out the initial downward motion of the screenwall and west penthouse and noted when they disappeared behind the north face. [to gain a couple tenths of a second?]

6.9 seconds
Initial downward motion of the north face roofline at the eastern section of the building
8.5 seconds
Descent of the east end of the screenwall below the roofline
9.3 seconds
Descent of the west penthouse below the roofline

The screenwall and west penthouse started collapsing within a second of each other. That is virtually simultaneous as was stated in NIST L

We are talking about a building collapsing, not a track and field event.

You called me a pathological liar for saying an 8 tenths of a second difference was 'simultaneous'.

That's desperation.

 

[Christopher7]

Then conventional explosives were used to finish the job. That's what Daryl heard and saw.

Wrong. That is what YOU assert what Daryl heard and saw. Don't present this as a given.

Fair enough. I believe the explosion was demolition charges.

However, what Daryl heard was an explosion, not a column snapping as Gravy proposes.

First you say: And then you . . . . say:

Read it again and note the part in brackets.

 

[Minadin]

You once again fail at descriptive language. Not that that should surprise anyone. Please refer to similies, metaphors, idioms, figures of speech, turns of phrase, and the like.

 

[Christopher7]

You once again fail at descriptive language. Not that that should surprise anyone. Please refer to similies, metaphors, idioms, figures of speech, turns of phrase, and the like.

I prefer to talk about the specific facts at hand. You-all prefer similes, metaphors, idioms, figures of speech, turns of phrase, and the like to fog the truth.

Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9Sy...com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4422169

Gravy implied that the clap of thunder Daryl heard was just a column snapping despite the FACT he knew the progressive collapse NIST was proposing lasted about 15 seconds.

 

[Minadin]

 

[Gravy]

This seems to be all that’s left of your argument Chris, ask Richard Gage he’s 12!!

I have Christopher7 on ignore, but I've never seen a better summary of his attempts at argument. Sadly, Chris says he's 65 years old.


I like to read this quote to WTC 7 demolition claimants, as I did with Richard Gage on a Hardfire show. It's from witness Tom Noonan:

“The sides of it were apparently made with some sort of fascia, like concrete fascia that was exploding out, and fluttering across the street, and landing onto the other side.”

The demolition claimants puff themselves up on hearing this, then deflate when I tell them that Noonan was describing the scene an hour before WTC 7 collapsed.

Yeah, the fires weren't hot. The building wasn't in imminent danger of collapse. The experts on the scene were idiots and didn't know what they were seeing. But armchair paranoiacs have it all figured out. Why won't any one listen?

 

[Christopher7]

I have Christopher7 on ignore, . . . . . . . Why won't any one listen?

What you have on ignore is the facts. You just attack your opponent and straw men.

What Daryl heard was an explosion. It was NOT a single column snapping.

 

[Baylor]

What you have on ignore is the facts. You just attack your opponent and straw men.

What Daryl heard was an explosion. It was NOT a single column snapping.

Hey Christroller7, look. It's the inside of WTC 7 on 9/11. And what do you know. No stripped columns, no wiring, no "thermite cutter charges". Just a vacant building. Sucks to be a truther.

Christroller7?

 

[Gravy]

The saddest thing about the nutbars' WTC 7 claims is that thousands of people, including numerous experts in engineering, demolitions, and building collapses, were on the scene watching WTC 7, waiting for its collapse, eager to get back to rescue work on the piles. Yet the kooks take the "thunderclap" account of one witness who didn't see the start of the collapse, and who to my knowledge has never claimed that he thought explosives were involved, to claim that explosives definitely were involved. What staggering, deliberate ignorance.

Meanwhile, reality remains unperturbed. Please do not encourage trolls by arguing with them.

 

[Baylor]

Even a civilian in this video predicts the collapse.

WARNING: THIS IS A SIMON SHACK VIDEO! VIEW AT OWN RISK.

 

[Christopher7]

The saddest thing about the nutbars' . . . . . . What staggering, deliberate ignorance.

What Daryl heard was an explosion. As you have said, it could have been a transformer in the ConEd station or a diesel fuel tank.
However, I believe it was explosives.


ETA: "Please do not encourage trolls by arguing with them"

is Gravy speak for:

"Don't engage in debate, just insult any one who presents facts we don't like."

 

[Bananaman]

CrazyChris:

The only explanation for the clap of thunder is an explosion.

Oh, I enjoyed that one. You don't even realise what a fool you are. OK, carry on, you make my day.

Bananaman.

 

[Bananaman]

GravyTrain:

Sadly, Chris says he's 65 years old.

You have to be joking. Has he got Parkinson's or something. I took him for a retarded 15 year old who is on hallucinogenic drugs and needs his bottom wiped by his mum.

65? Dear God. May Chris's fate never happen to me.

Bananaman.

 

[Disbelief]

What Daryl heard was an explosion. As you have said, it could have been a transformer in the ConEd station or a diesel fuel tank.
However, I believe it was explosives.

Once again, your belief that is not supported by the evidence.

ETA: "Please do not encourage trolls by arguing with them"

is Gravy speak for:

"Don't engage in debate, just insult any one who presents facts we don't like."

There is no debating you, as you have been shown incorrect numerous times and do not change your position. You have no idea what a simile is, you have no idea about material specs and temperatures, you have no idea about controlled demolitions - yet you think you are an expert at all.

If you are so sure about this stuff, take it to the FDNY union and get them to support you. You would be a hero for helping bring to justice those who murdered 343 of their own. So, will you continue to be another truther afraid of the truth, or will you do something of substance?

 

[Christopher7]

Once again, your belief that is not supported by the evidence.

What?

Daryl heard an explosion, saw a shock wave rip thru the building and all the windows busted out. That is evidence of an explosion.

It is not proof, it is just one piece of evidence.

 

[Dave Rogers]

However, I believe it was explosives.

"Don't engage in debate, just insult any one who presents facts we don't like."

Just placing those two comments in closer juxtaposition. Presenting facts is fine; it's the statements of belief and spurious lines of reasoning that tend to garner the insults.
Dave