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

Christopher7 said:
Gamolon said:
Can you please explain how claiming 40% of free fall IGNORES the 2.25 secs of supposed free fall? Are you saying that since the collapse HAD 2.25 secs of free fall incorporated into it, the percentage should be something different? That it should NOT be 5.4 secs for the roof line to disappear from view?

I don't get it. The videos I see show the roof line dropping out of view in 5.4 secs. Do you have a video that shows a different time?

:confused:
Click to expand...
Chances are, you will never get it, but that's OK. :rolleyes:

Ignore - disregard intentionally

Their model does not have a period of FFA as Dr. Sunder stated.
Click to expand...

So you DON'T understand what Chandler means therefore you cannot explain it. I thought so.
 
Last edited:
Chris, I have a question:

If FFA = CD, then why do no other CDs cause FFA?
 
Christopher7,

How long, in seconds, did it take for the roof line to start it's collapse and then disappear from view in Chandler's video?
 
Miragememories said:
You pre-suppose the NIST hypothetical blast scenario is the only plausible explanation for a controlled demolition of WTC7 which has any validity.



MM
Click to expand...

It's been 9 years. Why haven't 9/11 Truth offered an engineering-based alternative blast scenario?

What are you waiting for? I think the second coming of Christ has a greater chance of happening than 9/11 Truthers putting together a comprehensive case.
I wager neither will happen within my lifetime.
 
alienentity said:
it's been 9 years. Why haven't 9/11 truth offered an engineering-based alternative blast scenario?

What are you waiting for? I think the second coming of christ has a greater chance of happening than 9/11 truthers putting together a comprehensive case.
I wager neither will happen within my lifetime.
Click to expand...

2012?
 
Miragememories said:
So you claim the public is privy to all possible demolition technologies?

That to believe that there are in existence demolition technologies which are
deemed TOP SECRET, is fantasy and constitutes a belief in magic?
Click to expand...
No, I am not saying that. However to invoke an unknown simply because you cannot accept the findings of a competant group of engineers is indeed invoking magic.



Before they were publicly revealed, but immediately after they had been detonated in Japan, a claim that those nuclear explosions represented a TOP SECRET technology could have been treated in identical fashion.

They were real, and it was not pixie dust!
Click to expand...

In that case there was
1) only one attacking aircraft
2) it managed to level an entire city all by itself
3) the theory of a nuclear detonation was well known in all scientific circles. In fact the Germans were themselves also working on it.

That would be evidence that something other than conventional weaponry had been used.

Do you have something akin to that for WTC 7?

Otherwise don't go spewing your unknown facts (isn't that an oxymoron?)about.





We have nothing but the NIST's pathetic theory.
Click to expand...
"Pathetic" in the minds of you and your compatriots only. None of whom have the cache of education and experience that the creators of the NIST reports do.
It is not considered "pathetic" by the professional organizations, the ASCE and the CTBUH. In fact other than AE911T, which has as members a few engineers and a few architects and a lot of wholly unqualified persons, can you name one professional organization which would consider the NIST report "pathetic"? In fact can you name one that disagrees strongly with NIST findings? Can you name one that believes that any structure in the WTC complex was subject to other influences besides those commonly accepted (aircraft, fire, impact)?

I've repeatedly asked for one single example of a concrete and steel building that was completely demolished by fire and to this day no one has been able to present one.

So don't go spewing your known facts supporting that bs 9/11 narrative.

MM
------
Click to expand...

WHY is it neccessary to show a complete collapse of a steel structure(the concrete was in the floors only and contributes little to the effect of the fire)?
We have given you and your compatriots examples though. The Kader Toy factory comes to mind.
Examples abound indicating that steel does buckle and fail in fires and causes collapses that go beyond the area of the fire alone.
WTC 7 was constructed in a fashion far removed from a common post and beam set up even to the point that many floor trusses were assymetrically laid out.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
Because they have assumed their conclusion that WTC7 was blown up by someone so they pick the evidence to fit. When it is shown it doesn't fit they jump on another nugget and so on.
I honestly think they don't realise they contradict themselves and change their reasoning and move their goalposts because it happens slowlly over a period of time.

Like Apollo Hoaxers they have to ignore a lot of facts and evidence that disproves their ideas, believe things that are mutualy contradictory and invent their own facts and science.

It's only that those opposing them have been doing it over a long period and the 'encounters' are on record that these things are easily visible.

New 'truthers' just jumping onto the bandwaggon haven't seen the history of it, they only see the current cliams, that's why they look clueless and spout the same debunked ideas.

For perfect examples look over on the Apollohoax Forums or BAUTs Conspiracy Foruma t some of the long running hoax claimers.
Click to expand...

It seems their first assumption is that "the Amerikan gobment is teh evil", all else follows from that.
 
Bell said:
Stop lying Miragememories.

No where in that video is said that a 50 story building collapsed. 50 stories, yes. So the most likely explanation is that the firefighter described the collapse of WTC1, thinking the top half collapsed.
Click to expand...

That's exactly how I read the quote. The firefighter was right 50 stories did collapse you couldn't see any more due to the dust.
 
1)
jaydeehess said:
Now getting back to that FF who supposedly told Dodds of a 3rd 50 storey or so building having collapsed.
I outlined the three choices that I can think of and two of them would require that the FF be lieing, the other that the FF's statement was misinterpreted by Dodds. You and I both assert that the veracity of the common NYC firefighter is such that one lieing about this is most likely not the case here. I still await your explanation then as to how Dodds could have been misinformed by a FF who was misinformed but who (the FF) is also not lieing about having witnessed, first hand, the collapse of this 50 storey structure.
Click to expand...

2)
I also still await an explanation as to why it could be neccessary to 'plant' a story about a collapse of a structure similar to WTC 7 within minutes of the dust clearing which would reveal WTC 7 erither down as well or still standing. Given that had WTC 7 been down when the dust cleared then simple reasoning would have been that it had suffered enough damage to its south side by the collapse of WTC 2, and later the much closer WTC 1, to have caused it to come down.
Click to expand...

3)
Others still await your explanation as to how demolishing an entire building is more efficient at destroying the contents of the building than are the more conventional and controllable methods.
Click to expand...

Three very relevent questions for MirageMemories about his own contentions.
Three very relevent questions that MirageMemories will likely not adress other than to perhaps re-state his contentions.
Three very relevent questions that likely indicate to MirageMemories, somehow, that I and others here are "ignorant and bigoted".
 
jaydeehess said:
1)


2)


3)


Three very relevent questions for MirageMemories about his own contentions.
Three very relevent questions that MirageMemories will likely not adress other than to perhaps re-state his contentions.
Three very relevent questions that likely indicate to MirageMemories, somehow, that I and others here are "ignorant and bigoted".
Click to expand...
4)

All of your questions have been answered but no doubt you will continue to ignore any responses until you hear what you want to hear.

Are you sure you aren't a Harper supporter?

MM
 
Miragememories said:
4)

All of your questions have been answered but no doubt you will continue to ignore any responses until you hear what you want to hear.

Are you sure you aren't a Harper supporter?

MM
Click to expand...

5)

Claiming questions have been answered that obviously haven't makes the claimant either insane or a liar.
 
Christopher7 said:
Premature detonation perhaps. I take their 9/11 statements at face value although I'm skeptical about both of them because they both changed their stories. You may take them any way you like.
Click to expand...

Just like Jones did. First it was thermate, then thermite, then nano-thermite, then a mixture of conventional explosives and nano-thermite. But yet, you still cling to this like a drowning bafoon to a raft.
 
uke2se said:
Chris, I have a question:

If FFA = CD, then why do no other CDs cause FFA?
Click to expand...
I have answered this several times. It does not matter that no other CD have fallen at FFA.

The point is: FFA requires that all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors must be removed simultaneously.
 
Gamolon said:
Christopher7,

How long, in seconds, did it take for the roof line to start it's collapse and then disappear from view in Chandler's video?
Click to expand...
You are missing the point. The rest of the fall is irrelevant to the point.

We are discussing the 2.25 seconds of FFA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom