Truthers...what is your best piece of evidence ?

[RedIbis]

What is your point? A "gunshot" is not as loud as man-made demolition. Nobody heard anything like man-made demolition at WTC.

Who is "they"? Firemen? No fireman has said that they think they saw man-made demolition in any way other than the use of simile, hyperbole and metaphor.

You've got nothing.

You seem friendlier and more reasonable than many here, but c'mon man. You know as well as I do that there were descriptions consistent with man-made demolition, whether accurate or not.

 

[RedIbis]

Apples to bricks. Try harder, apply some critical thinking skills.



Nobody ever suggested that a single column was responsible for the collapse. Multiple floors failed. Multiple columns failed. The very definition of a progressive collapse is not a single failure, but cascading failures that happen one after the other. When the integrity of the structure is too forgone to hold the building up, gravity pulls it down.

You're not only disingenuous on both points but ignorant of the studies involved in understanding the collapses. Just how are able to talk that way with a straight face?

You appear ignorant of the fact that NIST does single out Column 79 as the critical column failure that initiates the global collapse.

 

[johnny karate]

You seem friendlier and more reasonable than many here, but c'mon man. You know as well as I do that there were descriptions consistent with man-made demolition, whether accurate or not.

Even if that were true, it would be irrelevant, because according to you eyewitness testimony is unreliable:

Which is precisely what's wrong with relying entirely on eyewitnesses. People tend to exaggerate when they are going through or recalling a traumatic event.

 

[johnny karate]

You appear ignorant of the fact that NIST does single out Column 79 as the critical column failure that initiates the global collapse.

No, it doesn't. NIST cites a chain of events, of which the failure of Column 79 was only a part, that led to global collapse.

Determining the probable collapse sequence for WTC 7, NIST found that the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, and the fires burned out of control on six lower floors. The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. This collapse of floors left the critical column unsupported over nine stories.

You should probably familiarize yourself with the NIST report before you accuse others of being ignorant about what it says.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You appear ignorant of the fact that NIST does single out Column 79 as the critical column failure that initiates the global collapse.

A building will continue to stand as long as it has the ability to compensate for the loss of other load bearing members. Every loss brings that component closer to its limit, until finally one final piece snaps cascading it to the rest of the structure. So in effect, all collapses begin from single point failure. I fail to see what the problem here is; In WTC 7, several floors failed around a critical column which carried upwards of 2,000 sq ft of floor space that column buckled. Loads were transferred to adjacent columns which in turn couldn't compensate, and so on and so on. The exterior of the structure stood until there was not enough left of the interior to support it.

 

[BigAl]

You seem friendlier and more reasonable than many here, but c'mon man. You know as well as I do that there were descriptions consistent with man-made demolition, whether accurate or not.

Clearly only as simile, hyperbole, exaggeration or metaphor, none of which ever caused a building to collapse.

 

[johnny karate]

If a single column's failure was able to globally collapse a 47 story bldg...

Again, if buildings can be brought down with the loss of a single column...

You appear ignorant of the fact that NIST does single out Column 79 as the critical column failure that initiates the global collapse.

Red, is it your contention that NIST cites the failure of column 79, and the failure of that column alone, as the cause of collapse of WTC7?

 

[stateofgrace]

You seem friendlier and more reasonable than many here, but c'mon man. You know as well as I do that there were descriptions consistent with man-made demolition, whether accurate or not.

No you c'mon man. This as been explained to you over and over again. And over and over again you cherry pick statements with the word “explosion “in it to fit your predetermined conclusion. You and your ilk put forward any sentence with the word "explosion" in it as some sort of validation of your theories. The statements do not in any shape or form add any credibility what your say.

People describe very loud noises as sounding like, or felt like, or thought it was an "explosion” , take for example,

Felt like an explosion,
thought at first furnace had exploded
Felt explosion with rumbling.
Felt a sudden jolt and "heard" rumbling; like an explosion
thought it was explosion.
sounded like explosion
thought it was an explosion of some sort.
Felt like a small explosion.
thought it was explosion;
Thought there had been an explosion.
Heard explosion
Police department received several calls reporting possible explosion

This is one website where I have taken each sentence that contains the word explosion and quoted them. Read them Red, every one of them is describing the same event. Are they describing man made explosions? Maybe some massive bomb went off ? Or are they describing some other event?

Have a look yourself Link.

And that Red is how easy it is to fool the gullible; those who really want to believe your inside job theories. Why you can not figure this out for yourself is beyond me but if you want to cling to your theories, feel free, or maybe just once you could question them yourself and apply the same level of critical thinking to them that you demand of others here, ok, man?

 

[alienentity]

But blowing a single column in the interior of an empty building may not be very loud, especially in the chaos of that day.

Again, if buildings can be brought down with the loss of a single column, maybe AQ, smart enough to catch the entire military/intel community with their pants down, also knew the fatal flaw in WTC 7.

Hi Red. Just a quick comment about your last statement. But first, I noticed that you were attacked as soon as you showed up on the thread, so I don't necessarily blame you for being defensive.

You are engaging in wishful thinking when you say 'blowing a single column in the interior of an empty building may not be very loud..'. The problem is, you're just pulling that idea from nowhere; it has no basis is fact, but is speculation. I assume you wouldn't be able to point to any scientific study, or demolition footage, or demolition experts to back you up.

In contrast, NIST actually used several different methods to examine the explosives claim; you have been informed about this already, I'm sure. This included consultation with actual demolition experts, who did analysis; the use of standard industry software, etc..
In other words, competent engineering opinions.

You're not offering proof, you're just looking for excuses not to accept legitimate inquiry and investigation that has been completed and published.

You also use the further excuse that the chaos of the day may have distracted? people, but you fail to acknowledge the audio recordings, which were not distracted, and didn't pick up any noticeable explosions at the time of collapse (when the main column in question failed).

If you continue to ignore solid engineering, you will probably continue to come up with the wrong answer to the questions. It's your choice if you want to do this, but don't expect accolades from thinking people!

cheers

AE

 

[alienentity]

'You know as well as I do that there were descriptions consistent with man-made demolition, whether accurate or not. '

Red, you're completely ignoring the abundant testimony from FDNY that the building was losing structural integrity. There was a multi-story bulge forming; the building was creaking and groaning; intense fires were raging on multiple floors...
For that reason, it is on record that FDNY cleared personnel out of the area, and announced that the building was likely to collapse. This is foreknowledge based on their correct professional observations made on scene.

Please stop ignoring the obvious. Stop straining to sell the implausible fantasy, and show some respect for the professionals who risked their lives and lost, their families, and the countless hours of investigation by competent engineers who also care about what happened.

That's all I ask. Show some respect for the facts.

 

[RedIbis]

Since several of you seem to be missing the same point. Al said that "Nobody heard anything like man-made demolition at WTC", which we all know is not true. Notice that he uses the word "like", so he's even discounting figurative descriptions.

I think he's just being inaccurate. You guys call it lying.

 

[BigAl]

Since several of you seem to be missing the same point. Al said that "Nobody heard anything like man-made demolition at WTC", which we all know is not true. Notice that he uses the word "like", so he's even discounting figurative descriptions.

I think he's just being inaccurate. You guys call it lying.

Nobody heard anything at WTC consistent with man-made demolition. All of your dodging can't change that.

 

[twinstead]

Red, Heiwa, bill, et all do indeed show a huge amount of disrespect to the hundreds of people who gave a lot of time and effort to try to understand the collapses. According to our resident truthers, any investigation that doesn't come to their inside job conclusion was bogus and preformed by fools, shills, or people complicit in mass murder.

To people who actually know just what a huge investigation 911 was, this is disgusting.

 

[dtugg]

I am astonished to see that RedIbis still hasn't explained his alleged theory, how it's better than NIST's and how column 79 is his best piece of evidence.

 

[RedIbis]

Nobody heard anything at WTC consistent with man-made demolition. All of your dodging can't change that.

Really? Nobody heard anything consistent, as in similar to, controlled demolition? Are you sure about that?

 

[johnny karate]

RedIbis, you previously stated "Which is precisely what's wrong with relying entirely on eyewitnesses. People tend to exaggerate when they are going through or recalling a traumatic event." as a means to discount eyewitness testimony regarding the size of the fires in WTC7.

Now you insist on using eyewitness testimony to support a controlled demolition hypothesis.

Why do you engage in such blatant hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty?

 

[RedIbis]

Red, Heiwa, bill, et all do indeed show a huge amount of disrespect to the hundreds of people who gave a lot of time and effort to try to understand the collapses. According to our resident truthers, any investigation that doesn't come to their inside job conclusion was bogus and preformed by fools, shills, or people complicit in mass murder.

To people who actually know just what a huge investigation 911 was, this is disgusting.

A nice blend of appeal to emotion and appeal to authority. Well done.

 

[RedIbis]

RedIbis, you previously stated "Which is precisely what's wrong with relying entirely on eyewitnesses. People tend to exaggerate when they are going through or recalling a traumatic event." as a means to discount eyewitness testimony regarding the size of the fires in WTC7.

Now you insist on using eyewitness testimony to support a controlled demolition hypothesis.

Why do you engage in such blatant hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty?

Wrong. I am pointing out that Al's statement is incorrect. Next, as you can clearly see in the quote you obsessively post, I use the phrase, "relying entirely on eyewitnesses." You do know what "entirely" means, right?

 

[johnny karate]

Really? Nobody heard anything consistent, as in similar to, controlled demolition? Are you sure about that?

"Consistent" and "similar" are not synonymous terms.

 

[RedIbis]

"Consistent" and "similar" are not synonymous terms.

Use whatever word you want, he'll still be wrong and so will you for defending such nonsense.