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

[dafydd]

I was wondering, do you have a coherent alternative hypothesis that better explains the collapse of WTC7? Don't forget, it would have to take ALL evidence into account.

I have asked every truther here to present a clear and concise alternative hypothesis but have never recieved an answer. You won't get one.

 

[Christopher7]

I have asked every truther here to present a clear and concise alternative hypothesis but have never recieved an answer. You won't get one.

You have been given the hypothesis and the evidence many times.

Long story short: WTC 7 + FFA = CD

That's all that is necessary to prove CD but you cannot and will not accept this simple law of physics: FFA means falling thru air - NO resistance. Something REMOVED all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors.
A progressive collapse always provides resistance.

 

[Bell]

No one has ever been in a similar situation but reporting that a 50 story building went down at 10:45 is very specific and it is not a the kind of mistake anyone would make.

MM laid it out quite well but you will deny this just like you deny everything else that pokes holes in the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Christopher7, why do you and Miragememories keep lying?

Nowhere in the video is said that a 50 story building went down. Only that 50 stories went down:

[...] "But at a quarter to 11:00 there was another collapse or explosion following the 10:30 collapse of the second tower. And a firefighter who rushed by us estimated that 50 stories went down. The street filled with smoke. It was like a forest fire roaring down a canyon."

And this was written down by your buddy Miragememories who, after writing it down, keeps saying that was said that a 50 story building went down.

 

[leftysergeant]

FFA means falling thru air - NO resistance. Something REMOVED all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors.
A progressive collapse always provides resistance.

Once a sufficient number of elements failed, it is quite possible for the strain on the remaining joints to be so great that they would pop simultaneously over several floors. The NIST models have the walls bulging outward below what we can see in the collapse. The debris in that area could well have knocked out the walls ahead of newly-arrived debris so that it was not there to interfere.

 

[excaza]

That's all that is necessary to prove CD but you cannot and will not accept this simple law of physics: FFA means falling thru air - NO resistance. Something REMOVED all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors.
A progressive collapse always provides resistance.

Saying it over and over again won't make it true. You're still wrong.

 

[jaydeehess]

You have been given the hypothesis and the evidence many times.

Long story short: WTC 7 + FFA = CD

That's all that is necessary to prove CD but you cannot and will not accept this simple law of physics: FFA means falling thru air - NO resistance. Something REMOVED all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors.
A progressive collapse always provides resistance.

SOME points on the structure can be shown to have experienced very short durations of free fall.
Some points were falling faster than free fall acelleration Chris. What do you make of that? Rocket motors attached to them?

You are aware that twisting/rotating objects will have portions moving faster than other portions of that object, right?
There is a whole thread dedicated to determining a much better resolution of what WTC 7 was doing over this 7 second period. How come you haven't shown up there? Want a link?

 

[triforcharity]

No one has ever been in a similar situation but reporting that a 50 story building went down at 10:45 is very specific and it is not a the kind of mistake anyone would make.

MM laid it out quite well but you will deny this just like you deny everything else that pokes holes in the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Did he say 50 story building?? Or did he say 50 story collapse?

From the original....

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.11.html

 

[willhaven]

Long story short: WTC 7 + FFA = CD

Ok, you win, it's a CD. Let's go get some ice cream.

 

[bill smith]

delete.

 

[Gamolon]

You have been given the hypothesis and the evidence many times.

Long story short: WTC 7 + FFA = CD

That's all that is necessary to prove CD but you cannot and will not accept this simple law of physics: FFA means falling thru air - NO resistance. Something REMOVED all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors.
A progressive collapse always provides resistance.

After reading your previous answer to my post and the post above, I would like to ask you some more questions.

What does it mean when a structural component FAILS? Does said component still provide some support or does FAILURE mean it no longer provides support?

If you have a series of structural steel components designed (together) to support a certain amount of weight and then start FAILING certain parts of it, does the load not get transfered top the other remaining structural components? At what point of what remains of the structure will the structure as a whole fail and collapse?

Are you saying that heating a column to a point that it cannot support it's load can not be similar to physically removing said column by cutting it?

 

[funk de fino]

You have been given the hypothesis and the evidence many times.

Long story short: WTC 7 + FFA = CD

That's all that is necessary to prove CD but you cannot and will not accept this simple law of physics: FFA means falling thru air - NO resistance. Something REMOVED all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors.
A progressive collapse always provides resistance.

This is one huge lie.

 

[funk de fino]

Christopher7, why do you and Miragememories keep lying?

Nowhere in the video is said that a 50 story building went down. Only that 50 stories went down:



And this was written down by your buddy Miragememories who, after writing it down, keeps saying that was said that a 50 story building went down.

Is it possible to lie so much you do not even know how to tell the truth?

C7 has been here years repeating that same lies and distortions. It's scary stuff.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I said this on another forum: The almighty "never before in history" argument is for people too lazy to learn how to do a proper architectural/engineering case study.

Cross out architectural/engineering and replace it with just about anything that this topic deals with. You don't exactly have to be in either profession to do a "case study", since it's synonymous with applied research. :\

When I see this:

FFA means falling thru air - NO resistance. Something REMOVED all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors.

and the guy concludes absolutely CD I have to ask exactly how far out of the box the guy thinks.... because "always CD" is a pretty grim lack of "distance" there

 

[Miragememories]

"No, I can't imagine a FDNY firefighter being that incredibly wrong."

"Except he DOES NOT say that a 50 storey building collapsed. He says 50 storeys collapsed. It is patently obvious that most reasonable explanation for what he said is that he , at that time, thought that 50 storeys of WTC 1 had come down. It is also pataently obvious that the reporter mistook this passing comment as referring to a separate structure."

Look at the video again.

http://www.youtube.com/v/9_E6RhuEQu4

Allan Dodds Frank: ".But at a quarter to 11:00 there was another collapse or explosion following the 10:30 collapse of the second tower. "

Obviously Allan Dodds Frank was quite clear in his understanding that at 10:30, the second tower had collapsed.

While on the phone with Aaron Brown of CNN, Allan Dodds Frank spoke with certainty that this was a totally new 3rd event. He reported that at 10:45 there was another collapse or explosion, indicting he was not sure which, but he obviously considered both to have a similar sound quality. And then he says a firefighter rushed by who told him "50 stories went down".

The fact is, he reported, without sourcing the firefighter, the occurrence of this 3rd event (an explosion or collapse).

He then said; "and" a passing firefighter gave him a specific figure of 50 stories (no indication that the firefighter meant part of a building), which argues against it being confusion over the collapse of WTC1 at 10:29 a.m.

"No, I can't imagine a FDNY firefighter being that incredibly wrong.

Of course he was wrong and that is not under dispute."

"Hmm, you mean you do not believe a separate 50 storey structure collapsed. Either I misread what you posted or you are being deliberately obtuse, or you just cannot express yourself properly."

You clearly misread my post.

No 50 stories collapsed at the time in question. Hopefully that is clear enough for you?

"The real, underlying question, is why was he wrong?"

"BEcause he saw WTC 1 coming down, turned and ran for his life. All he was wrong about was the amount of damage to WTC 1. I simply do not believe he was referring to a separate structure. YOU DO because YOU require overly complex, vast and unneccessary conspiracies rather than logical explanations."

Well you are speculating without having been part of the event which the reporter describes.

Also, the firefighter had to have had some idea that the 110 story twin Towers were not 50 storys in height. 50 storys, being a height that was a close match to only one other WTC building, WTC7.

My point is, the firefighter must certainly have known that the 110 story WTC2 had completely collapsed at 9:59 a.m.

Why would the firefighter mistakenly believe, that an earlier event which the CNN reporter already knew was the complete collapse of the 110 story WTC1, was a very specific 50 stories collapsing from WTC1?

If it was WTC1 he was talking about, don't you think he would just say the second tower just collapsed rather than it had 50 stories collapse?

I just saw 50 stories of WTC1 collapse doesn't sound very plausible.

Or, like the CNN reporter, he knew of the 10:29 a.m. WTC1 collapse.

That during the dust storm following the collapse of WTC1, when visibility was very poor, he was told that a 50 story building had also collapsed.

"A failed controlled demolition of WTC7, timed to be masked by the collapse of WTC1, fits with the failed cover story."

"Yes, of course, the conspirators persuaded a lone FF to walk around telling people that a 50 storey(or so) structure had also collapsed so that people would know that WTC 7 had collapsed rather than actually allow the dozens of newsagencies in and around the area to find out for themselves a few minutes later that WTC 7 was also down.
It was soooo very important to have everyone be informed that WTC 7 had also fallen rather than allow that to be discovered a few minutes later when the dust cleared........why again?"

If 9/11 was an inside job, as I believe the collapse of WTC7 proves it must, then there must have been an overall plan of battle.

A battleplan requires players and a script.

Once in motion it requires coordination and people following a script based on the assumption that certain objectives will be achieved.

Reinforcing the lie that WTC7 collapsed during the collapse of WTC1, would be a logical part of such a script.

If the firefighters were incredulous, reporters would be less likely to support the Official Conspiracy Theory.

WTC7 was expected to be felled in the aftermath of WTC1's collapse.

Had that occurred, the CNN report would have fit nicely. Certainly the CNN reporter, Allan Dodds Frank, appeared unsurprised about this 50-story collapse.

The planners of 9/11 hoped to shock 'n awe the public and the press into believing that the 19 arab terrorist-hijackers with box cutters story was the cause of the WTC Tower collapses, but it also must have crossed their minds that people might be incredulous.

It might not be believed that 2 planes crashing into the towers could make them collapse. A very reasonable concern.

By spreading plausible-sounding disinformation while the shocking events unfolded, there would be a greater likelihood of acceptance.

This was readily observed over the 7 hours that WTC7 remained standing. There were numerous reports by firefighters and their superiors of how WTC7 was definitely going to collapse.

Reports supported by emotion rather than experience-based deduction and logical expectation.

MM

 

[excaza]

There was a news report saying Flight 93 was shot down. Does that mean it was?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Admit it you make it up as you go along, twisting and turning what you already posted to make it fit your latest idea and trying to make mutualy exclusive ideas fit together and patch over the holes that keep getting blown by the other posters.

 

[GlennB]

By spreading plausible-sounding disinformation while the shocking events unfolded, there would be a greater likelihood of acceptance.

This was readily observed over the 7 hours that WTC7 remained standing. There were numerous reports by firefighters and their superiors of how WTC7 was definitely going to collapse.

Reports supported by emotion rather than experience-based deduction and logical expectation.

Except that they detected that the burning building was also creaking and leaning. These are very bad signs for a building.

However, you know best it seems. The FDNY were either deluded or duped. Right.

 

[jaydeehess]

Look at the video again.

http://www.youtube.com/v/9_E6RhuEQu4

Allan Dodds Frank: ".But at a quarter to 11:00 there was another collapse or explosion following the 10:30 collapse of the second tower. "

Obviously Allan Dodds Frank was quite clear in his understanding that at 10:30, the second tower had collapsed.

I never said that Dodds was not sure about what he said. I said he was wrong and that he was wrong because he based this info on his own misinterpretation of what the passing FF said.

While on the phone with Aaron Brown of CNN, Allan Dodds Frank spoke with certainty that this was a totally new 3rd event. He reported that at 10:45 there was another collapse or explosion, indicting he was not sure which, but he obviously considered both to have a similar sound quality. And then he says a firefighter rushed by who told him "50 stories went down".

The fact is, he reported, without sourcing the firefighter, the occurrence of this 3rd event (an explosion or collapse).

Dodds heard a BOOM. A passing FF says something, we know not exactly what, about 50 storeys of some structure. Dodds extrapolates this and comes to a wrong asumption, that a 3rd structure has collapsed. It is quite likely that parts of WTC 3,4,5,6 may have gave way causing the sounde. Its possibvle that the SW cormer of WTC 7 gave way causing this sound. In point of fact approx 15 storeys of the SW corner of WTC 7 were destroyed. It is possible that this is what the FF referred to, again we just don't know because this is sedcond hand report.(NOTE: the word 15 sounds a lot like 50 does it not?)
WE DO NOT KNOW what the FF said, only Dodds interpretation of it.

MM, this is exactly why heresay testimony is not allowed on court.

He then said; "and" a passing firefighter gave him a specific figure of 50 stories (no indication that the firefighter meant part of a building), which argues against it being confusion over the collapse of WTC1 at 10:29 a.m.

WHAT!!??
You want to cast doubt that the FF was referring to a bvuilding at all? What would he be referring to, 50 Dr Suess books?

However, you do pass very close to the real point here. We simply DO NOT know exactly what the FF said, we do not know what structure he was referring to.
MM, this is exactly why heresay testimony is not allowed on court.

WE DO KNOW that two 110 storey structures had collapsed. WE DO NOT KNOW how much info the FF had about the collapses, did he know all 110 stories came down? Perhaps he did but what was he referring to when he spoke the words "50 stories" to Dodds? He may well have been describing what he saw of the collapse of WTC 1.

WE DO of course know, and you agree, that WTC 7 was still standing.

Well you are speculating without having been part of the event which the reporter describes.

You are spedculating wildly what this erroneous report signifies.

My point is, the firefighter must certainly have known that the 110 story WTC2 had completely collapsed at 9:59 a.m.

Maybe, maybe not. We still don't know that he was not referring to WTC 1 and what he witnessed of its collapse because we do not know exactly what the FF said.
MM, this is exactly why heresay testimony is not allowed on court.

Why would the firefighter mistakenly believe, that an earlier event which the CNN reporter already knew was the complete collapse of the 110 story WTC1, was a very specific 50 stories collapsing from WTC1?

We do not know that is what the FF believed or said. We only know what Dodds took from the conversation.
MM, this is exactly why heresay testimony is not allowed on court.

If it was WTC1 he was talking about, don't you think he would just say the second tower just collapsed rather than it had 50 stories collapse?

I just saw 50 stories of WTC1 collapse doesn't sound very plausible.

Since you are putting words in the FFs mouth how about, "I saw at least 50 stories coming down and ran."

IF he was referring to what he saw of the collapse then yes it does make sense. Speaking of making sense see my comments below.

If 9/11 was an inside job, as I believe the collapse of WTC7 proves it must, then there must have been an overall plan of battle.

You are acting from a prejudice that there was a huge conspiracy. Bad form.

A battleplan requires players and a script.

Once in motion it requires coordination and people following a script based on the assumption that certain objectives will be achieved.

Reinforcing the lie that WTC7 collapsed during the collapse of WTC1, would be a logical part of such a script.

If the firefighters were incredulous, reporters would be less likely to support the Official Conspiracy Theory.

WTC7 was expected to be felled in the aftermath of WTC1's collapse.

Had that occurred, the CNN report would have fit nicely. Certainly the CNN reporter, Allan Dodds Frank, appeared unsurprised about this 50-story collapse.

The planners of 9/11 hoped to shock 'n awe the public and the press into believing that the 19 arab terrorist-hijackers with box cutters story was the cause of the WTC Tower collapses, but it also must have crossed their minds that people might be incredulous

.


SENSE! THIS makes no sense in the context of what you are proposing. You are proposing that it was seen as neccessary to plant a report suggesting that WTC 7 collapsed as a result of the fall of WTC 1 in order to reinforce the notion that WTC 1's fall caused this collapse.
IF WTC 7 was to fall at that time and be blamed on WTC 1 then what possible reason would there be to plant such a report mere minutes before the entire world would see the dust settle with WTC 7 down?
NONE, pure and simple there is NO REASON whatsoever to take the risk of 'planting' such a report.
NONE, and shoehorning of such a fantasy into your senario belies the prejudice you begin with.

It might not be believed that 2 planes crashing into the towers could make them collapse. A very reasonable concern.

How does that relate in any way to having people believe that fire and structural damge could make a WTC 7 come down?

Seems to me that this would be an arguement for planting erroneous reports that WTC 2 was about to collapse before its actual collapse. Odd, there were no reports to that conclusion. However once WTC 2 did come down a greater effort was made to get people out of WTC 1 and all structures near the towers including WTC 7.

By spreading plausible-sounding disinformation while the shocking events unfolded, there would be a greater likelihood of acceptance.

You don't think that the dust clearing and WTC 7 being down would not allow great acceptance that it had come down as a result of the fall of WTC 1? That makes no sense either MM.

This supposed plausible disinformation was not in evidence concerning WTC 2.
The idea that WTC 1 could collapse was the result of the very visible collapse of WTC 2. This being the case the notion that a second collapse could cause the collapse of other nearby structures wopuld be highly 'acceptable' even without a report suggesting such an event a few minutes before the dust cleared. The premature reports of WTC 7 having come down are simply not going to be needed in any way shape or form if the dust settles and WTC 7 is already on the ground.

This was readily observed over the 7 hours that WTC7 remained standing. There were numerous reports by firefighters and their superiors of how WTC7 was definitely going to collapse.

Reports supported by emotion rather than experience-based deduction and logical expectation.

MM

NO, over the course of 7 hours, with much information coming in, the structure inspected and a transit used to determine how much it was tilting, the FF regarded WTC 7 as being in grave danger of also collapsing. The earliest reports are of the structure leaning, tilting, groaning AND it was on fire, AND there was no way to fire the fires. Simple deductive reasoning would dictate that the structure is in very real danger of collapsing.

Again you are shoehorning the reports that WTC 7 was in grave danger of coming down into a senario you build starting with your prejudice that WTC 7 was deliberatly brought down as part of a huge and overly complicated and wholly unneccessary Rube-Goldberg contraption of a conspiracy.

 

[dafydd]

You have been given the hypothesis and the evidence many times.

Long story short: WTC 7 + FFA = CD

That's all that is necessary to prove CD but you cannot and will not accept this simple law of physics: FFA means falling thru air - NO resistance. Something REMOVED all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors.
A progressive collapse always provides resistance.

No,I meant where were the explosives planted,when,by whom,how did they do it without anyone noticing,how big was the conspiracy,who knew about it,stuff like that.We call them facts.

 

[jaydeehess]

Did he say 50 story building?? Or did he say 50 story collapse?

From the original....

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.11.html

Do we even know he (the firefighter) did not say "15 storeys"?

After all Dodds was wrong about a 3rd collapse, he could easily be in error about what a 'passing' firefighter said.