Split Thread 7WTC - controlled demolition or fire and damage induced collapse?

[alienentity]

I know you are only puppeting what you glean from those who understand the principles alienentity, so I'll try and keep this simple.

The East Penthouse collapse was the first indication of the imminent total building collapse and was a few seconds out-of-sync with the rest of the demolition.

MM

Aha Sensei, then perhaps you can teach us all how the structure directly below the East Penthouse was destroyed with no explosions, using proven physics, not just your opinion.

And dear teacher, since you have yet to provide any evidence which proves explosives, you would be well advised to avoid the loaded word 'demolition', as it biases the inquiry.

If I call you a Great Sage, even in sarcasm, does it make you one? No, it doesn't. Calling something a demolition does not make it one, perhaps that is a lesson you need to learn.

Thank you for teaching me these things, and for teaching C7 that the collapse did indeed start with the PH falling into the building, with no explosion.

I am most grateful.

 

[Miragememories]

It seems that C7's rather clumsy mental gymnastics have left him in this corner:

He cannot provide a single reference in the entire history of controlled demolition to support his claim that freefall = CD.

He is in the process of attempting to obfuscate about the collapse initiation of WTC7 in order to avoid the implications. But the facts cannot be changed - the collapse began internally about 8 seconds before the parapet wall began to fall.
The period of freefall took place after this point, not before.

His reliance on circular reasoning is his downfall, based on a subtle yet deliberate misstating of this axiom: a period of freefall = removal of support
Dr. Sunder stated the axiom thus.

C7 misstates this as 'a period of freefall = controlled demolition' and wrongly attributes it to Sunder. So he's actually committing two false statements in one.

Yes, support was removed. We know that. The NIST report gives a full accounting of exactly how that probably happened.

It is still not proof of CD. You have not yet met the burden of proof for your claims.

Is there a bad echo in here?

MM

 

[alienentity]

Is there a bad echo in here?

MM

It's just the stench of your bad ideas bouncing back in your face.

You have no real evidence or arguments, that's why you must start to attack the person, not the idea.

ETA, speaking of echoes, please explain, using known physics, how the very loud sound of demolition explosives did not echo off the hard building surfaces and manage to get captured by even a SINGLE microphone in the area.
Please try, It'll be ever so amusing.

And explain why another random explosion was caught by a camcorder at another location and time; or for that matter, why ALL known controlled demolitions can easily be captured by Joe Average's camcorder, but not a single one on 9/11.

Damn, must suck to be on your side of the argument.

 

[Miragememories]

Know what I enjoy most about this conversation? The longer it continues, the more you truthers deny the evidence, and the weaker your arguments become.

Works for me!

I'm still waiting to see something more than rhetoric from you alienentity.

MM

 

[beachnut]

Source please.

Fire did it, you can't grasp 911's simple plot;
1. kill pilots
2. Crash planes
So you make up wild moronic lies of CD based on nothing. Please show some substance to support your idiotic CD lies? You have nothing. Jumping in the eutectic thread is like fly paper to failed ideas of CD.

Your right. I have a problem with organizations whose leadership participate in the coverup of 3,000+ murders.

19 terrorists did 911 and you failed to realize it. UBL said he would kill Americans; he is not a liar like the 911 truth CD conspiracy nuts.

Apparently you don't.

NIST had broad goals; go ahead do a paper, publish it in a real journal and prove your point! Wait, you have no point, only failed CD lies. There you go.

Show me your qualifications to make such a diagnosis and I'll consider remedial action.

You have no evidence for CD, it makes your conclusion on WTC7 an illusion based on lies. Grade school education where I grew up is overkill to make such a diagnosis. If you can't figure out 911, your education has failed you. Refund time.

You very confidently go about calling people liars, insane, delusional...

You say WTC 7 was CD. You are a liar, insane or delusional. Take your pick; I can't figure out which without a doctor or meeting you in person. Jones seems to be insane with his thermite scam; what would you call irrational conclusions based on some unknown bias while ignoring evidence and facts.

Since you aren't qualified to make such judgements, I can only assume those opinions come from your own experience coping with such conditions?

If you insist WTC 7 was CD, you are spreading a lie. Present your evidence or retract you lie; very simple.

Too funny.

You are the one who needs NIST so you can spew lies about NIST and spread your failed CD delusion. Why do I need NIST? I know buildings fail in fire; you need moronic conspiracies and fantasy. Fire is enough.

Without that lame NIST WTC 7 Report as a crutch, you have nothing.

I am an engineer, and I don't that training to know how destructive fires is. Fire has totaled high-rises before, and will in the future. Your obsession with NIST is icing on your delusion.

OMG

Just call me sir.

Now the mainstream media is being cited as a source of credible 9/11 analysis. Well Tea Party on.

If your CD delusion was real you would have a Pulitzer Prize; you only have a delusion, no prize for fantasy unless it is in the fiction category. The mainstream media would take your ideas, if not for the fact they are moronic delusions, and make you famous. Sad you have no substance.

Way too funny.

MM

Yes is is way too funny you can't take your failed delusions to a real news source and make a difference. What does the eutectic have to do with your delusion of CD? Where does it fit in with your other evidence. too funny, way too go

 

[funk de fino]

Why?

Because fires alone have a long history of not causing concrete and steel buildings to collapse.MM

Think again

 

[alienentity]

I'm still waiting to see something more than rhetoric from you alienentity.

MM

You should talk. I gave you specs on cardioid microphones, off-axis calculations, db levels, spectrographic analysis of CD's and WTC7 for comparison, timing references for collapse, etc.

You? Your response was to ignore it and tell me I had the qualifications of a cleaning lady. And your comment was a violation of the forum guidelines and was removed.

Since then you've offered nothing. Aren't you being just a teeny bit hypocritical? LOL

 

[Miragememories]

Fire did it, you can't grasp 911's simple plot;
1. kill pilots
2. Crash planes
So you make up wild moronic lies of CD based on nothing. Please show some substance to support your idiotic CD lies? You have nothing. Jumping in the eutectic thread is like fly paper to failed ideas of CD.


19 terrorists did 911 and you failed to realize it. UBL said he would kill Americans; he is not a liar like the 911 truth CD conspiracy nuts.

NIST had broad goals; go ahead do a paper, publish it in a real journal and prove your point! Wait, you have no point, only failed CD lies. There you go.


You have no evidence for CD, it makes your conclusion on WTC7 an illusion based on lies. Grade school education where I grew up is overkill to make such a diagnosis. If you can't figure out 911, your education has failed you. Refund time.

You say WTC 7 was CD. You are a liar, insane or delusional. Take your pick; I can't figure out which without a doctor or meeting you in person. Jones seems to be insane with his thermite scam; what would you call irrational conclusions based on some unknown bias while ignoring evidence and facts.

If you insist WTC 7 was CD, you are spreading a lie. Present your evidence or retract you lie; very simple.


You are the one who needs NIST so you can spew lies about NIST and spread your failed CD delusion. Why do I need NIST? I know buildings fail in fire; you need moronic conspiracies and fantasy. Fire is enough.

I am an engineer, and I don't that training to know how destructive fires is. Fire has totaled high-rises before, and will in the future. Your obsession with NIST is icing on your delusion.


Just call me sir.

If your CD delusion was real you would have a Pulitzer Prize; you only have a delusion, no prize for fantasy unless it is in the fiction category. The mainstream media would take your ideas, if not for the fact they are moronic delusions, and make you famous. Sad you have no substance.


Yes is is way too funny you can't take your failed delusions to a real news source and make a difference. What does the eutectic have to do with your delusion of CD? Where does it fit in with your other evidence. too funny, way too go

As expected, nothing from you.

MM

 

[alienentity]

What really sucks is trying to explain things to those who are too ignorant to comprehend their meaning.

I'm not attacking the person.

That would be against the rules.

No, if anything, I'm challenging them to display some credibility.

Show me they actually understand the position they are taking and why they are doing so.

Rather than delve into physics, a field of science which you previous admitted little expertise in, as a self-professed audio expert, maybe you can explain why we have no sound recording of the East Penthouse collapse?

You seem to feel that all the camcorders in the area were doing a grand job recording every significant sound, it would be quite enlightening to hear your explanation for such an omission?

MM

By all means lets discuss your claim that the collapse of the PH into the building would be extremely loud.
On what engineering and physics models do you base that opinion? Remember, it is your claim, not mine.

I don't have to prove your claim for you.

I await your learned response. (which you've evaded for days)

ETA ps, while you're at it, please explain to the forum readers how the microphone used by Ashleigh Banfield in particular was able to faithfully pick up her interview, the street noise, crowd noise, the rumble from the collapse of WTC7, but not one single explosion at the time truthers claim they must've happened?

Burden of proof is on you again, boyo. Hop to it.

 

[funk de fino]

The fact that WTC 7 fell straight down [and then a little to one side], landing mostly in it's own footprint is enough for most people. A fire cannot possibly do that to a building.

Try again

 

[Miragememories]

You should talk. I gave you specs on cardioid microphones, off-axis calculations, db levels, spectrographic analysis of CD's and WTC7 for comparison, timing references for collapse, etc.

You? Your response was to ignore it and tell me I had the qualifications of a cleaning lady. And your comment was a violation of the forum guidelines and was removed.

Since then you've offered nothing. Aren't you being just a teeny bit hypocritical? LOL

What I've done is 'cut to the chase'.

It would be all too easy to flood you with technical bs which had no bearing on the subject.

Why don't you take on Dr. Greening's disbelief in the NIST theory if you want to really grab the bull by the horns?

The simple fact is, microphones, depending on time and place, only picked up some of the audio.

It's a fact Jack.

And I'm sorry. I now believe you don't have the qualifications of a cleaning lady.

No offense intended to all the cleaning ladies out there.

MM

 

[332nd]

Yada, yada, yada. WTC 7 looks like a CD. All the double talk, childish insults and stupid questions do not change that.

Again, my wife looks like Blair Segal yet she is not. (I know because we met her at the AVN Awards years ago.)

 

[alienentity]

What I've done is 'cut to the chase'.

It would be all too easy to flood you with technical bs which had no bearing on the subject.

Why don't you take on Dr. Greening's disbelief in the NIST theory if you want to really grab the bull by the horns?

The simple fact is, microphones, depending on time and place, only picked up some of the audio.

It's a fact Jack.

And I'm sorry. I now believe you don't have the qualifications of a cleaning lady.

No offense intended to all the cleaning ladies out there.

MM

LMAO!! The technical supremo is too coy to offer a comprehensive technical explanation?
That's one of the lamest excuses I've ever seen, truly.

You are dodging the questions which challenge you to meet the burden of proof. Show us, with physics, how an extremely loud sound would fail to transmit 3 or 4 blocks.
Show us, with both physics and engineering, how loud the collapse of the PH into WTC7 would have been.

Until then, please realize you have diminished yourself and your arguments by evading their implications.

 

[Miragememories]

You have a delusion WTC 7 was destroy by CD. Why do you fail to comprehend you only have talk to support your position and no substance.

You can't get on topic and explain how the eutectic works in your fuzzy scenario you can't define, defend, or explain.

You have failed for 8 years, debunked years ago, and return to spew nonsense again.

Can you explain the eutectic stuff and how it dovetails to your idiotic CD claims based on nothing?

You have no technical stuff to support your CD lie. lol
Go ahead bring on something technical to support your lies. make my day, bring on your technical BS. That is all you have is BS, it will not be technical, it will be zero substance and your CD claims will remain delusions based on nothing. Eutectic; how does it fit your delusion. The topic...

I have seen no technical refute from you.

For the last three years, your favored anti-911/Truth argument is to accuse those whom you disagree with as being liars.

Ya that's really technical.

At least Ryan Mackay presents a technical argument albeit one referenced to NIST Reports.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

LMAO!! The technical supremo is too coy to offer a comprehensive technical explanation?
That's one of the lamest excuses I've ever seen, truly.

You are dodging the questions which challenge you to meet the burden of proof. Show us, with physics, how an extremely loud sound would fail to transmit 3 or 4 blocks.
Show us, with both physics and engineering, how loud the collapse of the PH into WTC7 would have been.

Until then, please realize you have diminished yourself and your arguments by evading their implications.

I'm still waiting to hear your explanation as to why your wonderful world of microphones failed to pickup the sound of the East Penthouse collapse.

I'll add to that.

Where is the sound of all the internal destruction that was supposedly occurring at that time inside WTC 7 as well?

MM

 

[TexasJack]

Why don't you take on Dr. Greening's disbelief in the NIST theory if you want to really grab the bull by the horns?

How does Dr. Greening's criticism of the NIST support any kind of CD theory? Has Greening come up with a CD theory? Does he support any kind of CD theory?

 

[alienentity]

MM - your evasion of the burden of proof for your own claim is noted.

It is you who has claimed that the PH collapse would be very loud.
Show your proof.

 

[alienentity]

I'm still waiting to hear your explanation as to why your wonderful world of microphones failed to pickup the sound of the East Penthouse collapse.

I'll add to that.

Where is the sound of all the internal destruction that was supposedly occurring at that time inside WTC 7 as well?

MM

Are you positing that the microphones weren't able to for technical reasons?

Or that the sounds were not loud?

You've now asked yourself both questions, and expect me to answer them.
Yet they are your ideas, not mine.

Please have the courtesy to explain your own theories, with full technical details. Now is your chance to show you are not just engaging in empty rhetoric. Don't waste it.

 

[beachnut]

I have seen no technical refute from you.

For the last three years, your favored anti-911/Truth argument is to accuse those whom you disagree with as being liars.

Ya that's really technical.

At least Ryan Mackay presents a technical argument albeit one referenced to NIST Reports.

MM

You have no technical material that supports your delusion of CD. When you find some material to support your lie of CD, it will no longer be a lie and we can discuss it as a real event instead of a fantasy, an idiotic delusion you have now to satisfy your paranoid conspiracy theories on 911.

Good dodge avoiding being on topic and explain how the eutectic scam plays with your failed CD delusion. Got Chemical Engineering?

 

[Miragememories]

How does Dr. Greening's criticism of the NIST support any kind of CD theory? Has Greening come up with a CD theory? Does he support any kind of CD theory?

After 7 years of waffling, the NIST came up with a theory that they claimed
put the mystery of the WTC7 collapse to rest.

Dr. Greening blew their theory out of the water with his argument that insufficient heat was available to make the NIST theory float.

What remained was the CD explanation.

Until Dr. Greening, or the NIST come up with a better alternative theory, the CD explanation is the best available.

MM