What? The Man screwed up twice in one day over the exact same issue? I'm shocked. Say it ain't so. Say it was part of a black psyop disinfo campaign or I could lose my faith in The Man here.
Split Thread 7WTC - controlled demolition or fire and damage induced collapse?
- Thread starter Christopher7
- Start date
-
- Tags
- wtc 7
What? The Man screwed up twice in one day over the exact same issue? I'm shocked. Say it ain't so. Say it was part of a black psyop disinfo campaign or I could lose my faith in The Man here.
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 4,627
Actually yes, you do. You say that the structure was removed, I say ok, how was it removed? NIST says fire was the primary cause and I have no good reason to doubt them as 99.9% of their peers agree (and honestly I'd still believe them if only 90% agreed but the number is obviously much higher than that). I also know what it takes to perform CD on a major structure like that and have yet to hear from all but one person in the demolition industry worldwide who said it was CD based upon a silent 7 second video clip and the word of demonstrable liars and even he hasn't been heard from in three years.
So the two most common theories have been discussed to to death and one has much more validity than the other for reasons that I and others have brought up in this very thread. If you have a new, better theory then now would be the time to present it. If you don't that's fine too, but nobody will listen to you anymore than they will when someone says it was a space beam, a rainbow colored unicorn fart or Mothra. Laughter would be the expected result and rightly so.
So again: Now all you have to do is show how it was removed and how fire couldn't have been the cause of that removal.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
C7 said:
Get serious. You ask for something I could not possibly know in a vain attempt to ignore what we both know. WTC 7 fell at FFA for about 100 feet and the only way that can happen is if all the supporting structure is removed on 7 to 8 floors.
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 4,627
No, actually we don't know that. We know that's your assertion with zero evidence to support it other than your gut feelings which mean nothing in the long run. Going with your gut is a normal human response and there's nothing wrong with it... at first. However, when your gut leads you off into a place with nothing to back it up after you look into it a bit then the rational thing to do is reexamine what led you to that gut feeling and see if it has some fatal underlying flaw. Which in this case is that you have no known mechanism to do what you claim happened that fits the known evidence.
Truthers like to say that they want a new investigation but they can't even seem to find a good starting point for that investigation. Your starting point seems to be that you think structure was removed but you can't tell us in the most simplest of terms how it was done while there are plenty of qualified people telling us not only how and why (fire) but also what the fatal flaw in the structure was and what to do to prevent it from happening in the future.
Basic questions to ask when diagnosing mechanical faults or failures: What, where, when, why and how. Come up with a theory that answers those 5 basic questions that isn't contradicted by the evidence and you then have a theory. You refuse to answer the how part which really is the crux of your theory. Without that you really have nothing to base anything else in your theory on other than your gut (see above).
Truthers like to say that they want a new investigation but they can't even seem to find a good starting point for that investigation. Your starting point seems to be that you think structure was removed but you can't tell us in the most simplest of terms how it was done while there are plenty of qualified people telling us not only how and why (fire) but also what the fatal flaw in the structure was and what to do to prevent it from happening in the future.
Basic questions to ask when diagnosing mechanical faults or failures: What, where, when, why and how. Come up with a theory that answers those 5 basic questions that isn't contradicted by the evidence and you then have a theory. You refuse to answer the how part which really is the crux of your theory. Without that you really have nothing to base anything else in your theory on other than your gut (see above).
Sam sums it up, Chris.
Let's look at specifics of your theory which seem to be fatal flaws:
1. It requires 600+ columns to be demolished in a synchronised manner. Why? Such a scheme is totally unneccessary to bring such a building down. In fact your proposed mechanism only draws attention to its fall.
2. Most of these columns would be in external walls. But no flashes or CD explosions were witnessed occurring in large synchronised bursts. In fact bugger-all were witnessed at all, at any time.
3. The project would take months to complete, in a fully occupied commercial office building.
4. You agree it was 'supposed' to come down at 10:30(ish) along with WTC1. Yet these explosives survived the lengthy ensuing fires.
5. It was widely predicted to come down during the day. Hell, even that punk in the apartment with the video camera screamed to his friend "I told ya' that sucker was gonna come down!!!" (or words to that effect)
6. Only zero resistance can result in FFA? Not quite. Negligible resistance and the margin of error of any measurements may appear to give the same result.
7. In any case (as has been mentioned several times to you, and been ignored) even your 8-storey CD doesn't lead to zero resistance. It leads to very low resistance. See 6. Your theory actually requires negligible resistance to look like zero.
Why do you persist with a theory that is so utterly useless at describing known events? Because you want to believe in a 9/11 CT. You have begun with belief and now need to torture the reality of the evidence to make it fit your belief.
Last edited:
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
You are blocking it out.
No, it's a statement of fact which is affirmed by NIST and Dr. Sunder.
Keep reading this until you understand it:
[FONT="]the[/FONT][FONT="] north face descended at gravitational acceleration[/FONT] . . . .[FONT="]This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft)[/FONT]
[FONT="]The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed[/FONT] [FONT="], [/FONT]
[FONT="]"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case."
[/FONT]If you can think of something other than explosives that could remove all the supporting structure on 7 or 8 floors simultaneously, tell us what it is. Otherwise, accept the only possible explanation - explosives.
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,452
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
You are blocking it out.
No, it's a statement of fact which is affirmed by NIST and Dr. Sunder.
Keep reading this until you understand it:
[FONT="]the[/FONT][FONT="] north face descended at gravitational acceleration[/FONT] . . . .[FONT="]This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft)[/FONT]
[FONT="]The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed[/FONT] [FONT="], [/FONT]
[FONT="]"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case."
[/FONT]If you can think of something other than explosives that could remove all the supporting structure on 7 or 8 floors simultaneously, tell us what it is. Otherwise, accept the only possible explanation - explosives.
This is really funny,keep it up.
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
Disbelief
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,608
So, add Chris to the group that believes that the firefighters were either in on it or not smart enough to assess the condition of WTC7. You and MM should keep talking, as you are shining a great spotlight on the TM.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 69,571
So the news reporter was reading from a script? So that means that he and the rest of his crew were in on it, and his production team and therefore the executives of the company as well.
It keeps getting bigger.
Who didn't know? the team that planted the Explosives? those that went in to fix them up after they didn't go off?
YOu make less sense all the time.
Where was the Tnermite/Thermate in all this?
It keeps getting bigger.
Who didn't know? the team that planted the Explosives? those that went in to fix them up after they didn't go off?
YOu make less sense all the time.
Where was the Tnermite/Thermate in all this?
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
You are blocking it out.
No, it's a statement of fact which is affirmed by NIST and Dr. Sunder.
Keep reading this until you understand it:
[FONT="]the[/FONT][FONT="] north face descended at gravitational acceleration[/FONT] . . . .[FONT="]This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft)[/FONT]
[FONT="]The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed[/FONT] [FONT="], [/FONT]
[FONT="]"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case."
[/FONT]If you can think of something other than explosives that could remove all the supporting structure on 7 or 8 floors simultaneously, tell us what it is. Otherwise, accept the only possible explanation - explosives.
Aparently YOU do not understand it EITHER Chris.
BTW, Fire could cause the failure. An inward bowed colum could cause the FFA you see.
Or, since you love factless speculation, mothra.
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
Do these guys even know what happens when you have a column that buckles while supporting the weight of a building above it? Apparently not if the thought doesn't even enter their minds as an alternatively to "explosive removal." This is why this WTC 7 conspiracy is stupid, they think there's no such thing as structural failure unless it is removed specifically by explosives. In their world if a column undergoes buckling it's absolutely harmless. I sincerely fear for the safety of those people who occupy buildings designed by professionals that believe this clap trap. :\
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Removed.
Last edited:
I think that was me, suggesting that the impact damage of WTC1 debris wouldn't explain WTC7 unobtrusively coming down while still shrouded in the dust from the WTC1 collapse.
eta: yep, post 1760
Last edited:
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
C7 said:
You cannot think of another possible explanation. So you avoid admitting that there are no other possibilities by effectively denying the above.
The FFA we are talking about is the entire upper portion of the building, not column 79. Your ability to grasp the subject [much less the point] is impaired.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
1 thru 4 are supposition based on you incomplete knowledge of state of the art of CD.
Correct
Negligible means too small to be considered.
The NIST analysis gave a result within 1 tenth of 1% - negligible.
They stated that the north face fell AT free fall acceleration for ~100 feet because it did. Deal with it.
7. Nonsense
I ask you that same question. The NIST model does not fall at FFA nor does it look like the videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixwx19t2IMQ
Had this simulation video run it a little longer the difference would have become more pronounced.
[FONT="]http://nate.flach.s3.amazonaws.com/WTC7_Debris_Impact_Damage.wmv
[/FONT]
Last edited:
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
Sure. 7 hours of uncontrolled fires and structure damage from the collapse of towers 1 and 2. Case closed.
lapman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,717
What you refuse to grasp is that the columns did not fail simultaneously. The internal structure failed over several seconds starting with the east penthouse and then the east-west progression of the rest of the rest of the roof structures. The kink in the facade shows that's where the external columns started to fail. It progressed out from there. Therefore, there was not a simultaneous collapse of the building. Now for you're assertion that explosives is the only explanation. Since you have yet to show that FFA is a part of CD, you cannot state that it is what caused it. The same goes for a collapse due to fire. Either case, it's a first-time-in-history event. So we have to look at all the other evidence. First, there is no sound of explosives in any video that is available. These explosives would have been set off at the time of the collapse, not hours earlier. You're claim that NIST has thousands of video clips is irrelevant since the sound would be recorded on 100% of every piece of raw video that was shot in the vicinity. Second, there was no visual evidence of explosives. No flashes, blown out windows or even "squibs." Third, explosives do not survive well in fire. Finally, there was no physical evidence of explosives. This would include det chord, flash burns on columns, blast caps, etc. The claim of thermite in any form is unfounded since it hasn't been shown that it could be used to cut or "remove" columns. So the evidence is against CD, not for it.
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
No, there is no EVIDENCE of anything else bringing down 7WTC. No loud booms consistant with an explosive cutting a core column, no seismic signatures of an explosive, no reports of a loud boom, or booms, immediately before the collapse, and no physical evidence of it. Remember, there were dogs all thoroughout that complex that would have detected the smell of an explosive, or thermite. None of this happened.
Aparently the cranial-rectal inversion that you seem to be suffering from is an extreamly bad case. Nowhere did I mention Column 79.