• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gravity defying buildings? :D

jaydeehess said:
Except that there is a great deal of evidence of major office fires in WTC 7, even more docuementation of the effects of fire on steel. There is no evidence pf explosive or incidiary use in WTC 7.

What would Occam think?
Click to expand...

Idiocy was on the rise maybe?

There is no evidence that supports the possibility of any fire ever resulting in the complete, symmetrical, high speed collapse of a modern steel structure like WTC7.

On the other hand, there is ample evidence to show that controlled demolitions could easily achieve the type of collapse that was observed
with WTC7.

I believe Occam would clearly see where to stick his razor.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Idiocy was on the rise maybe?

There is no evidence that supports the possibility of any fire ever resulting in the complete, symmetrical, high speed collapse of a modern steel structure like WTC7.
Click to expand...

Find us a building that burned for hours with no water for firefighting.
 
Miragememories said:
Idiocy was on the rise maybe?

There is no evidence that supports the possibility of any fire ever resulting in the complete, symmetrical, high speed collapse of a modern steel structure like WTC7.

On the other hand, there is ample evidence to show that controlled demolitions could easily achieve the type of collapse that was observed
with WTC7.

I believe Occam would clearly see where to stick his razor.

MM
Click to expand...

How is a controlled demolition (without any plausible motive) requiring the complicity of multiple parties simpler than a building falling due to structural damage and unfought fires?
 
jaydeehess said:
Except that there is a great deal of evidence of major office fires in WTC 7, even more docuementation of the effects of fire on steel. There is no evidence pf explosive or incidiary use in WTC 7.
Click to expand...

1. In what way does gravity influence the size of office fires?

2. In what way does gravity influence the effects of fire on steel?

3. In what way does gravity influence the existence of evidence of explosives or incendiary use?


jaydeehess said:
What would Occam think?
Click to expand...

Occam would think that, since gravity is common to both the truther explanation and the debunker explanation, it can be factored out, allowing the debate to focus on the main area of disagreement, which is the question of what compromised the building's structure. He would agree with ozeco41 that the question in the OP is a silly one, and he would think that debunkers who pretend that truthers are denying gravity are desperately trying to divert attention away from the real issues.
 
Garb said:
How is a controlled demolition (without any plausible motive) requiring the complicity of multiple parties simpler than a building falling due to structural damage and unfought fires?
Click to expand...

A controlled demolition is simpler than a building doing an impersonation of a controlled demolition.
 
bardamu said:
A controlled demolition is simpler than a building doing an impersonation of a controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

Elaborate. Especially your assertion that wtc7 impersonated a controlled demolition other than the fact that it collapsed.
 
bardamu said:
A controlled demolition is simpler than a building doing an impersonation of a controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

And a Truther is doing a lousy job of impersinating a real investigator.

Where's this evidence of a CD? It's been 9 yrs. & totally nothing! Are you just yanking our chains or do you have something to contribute to this thread?
 
Garb said:
Elaborate. Especially your assertion that wtc7 impersonated a controlled demolition other than the fact that it collapsed.
Click to expand...

A standard debunker argument is: "Just because it looks like a controlled demolition, it doesn't mean it is a controlled demolition".

Are you suggesting it doesn't even look like a CD?
 
Miragememories said:
Idiocy was on the rise maybe?

There is no evidence that supports the possibility of any fire ever resulting in the complete, symmetrical, high speed collapse of a modern steel structure like WTC7.

On the other hand, there is ample evidence to show that controlled demolitions could easily achieve the type of collapse that was observed
with WTC7.

I believe Occam would clearly see where to stick his razor.

MM
Click to expand...

symmetrical??
Most of the debris landed towards the south except for the portion that damaged 30 West Broadway.

There is ample evidence that steel can be and has been in hundreds of fires, weakened, buckled, twisted by the effects of fire. There is ample examples of local fire induced failures that developed into progressive failures.
Your problem lies not with fire damage. You have a problem with a progressive collapse initiated by a fire induced local failure that develops into a global collape. THAT is a question that requires that one look at the design of the structure NOT the amount of fire in that structure.
The DESIGN of WTC 7 and the specific location of the initial local failure combined to allow a progression to global collapse.
The assymettric placement of the lateral girders, the long span open floor construction, and to some extent the cantilever trusses over a pre-existing structure allowed this local failure of one major column to progress to global collapse.

Then again you'd know this already if you were not blinded by your political world view that requires vast conspiracies by shadowy power brokers bent on world domination.
 
Last edited:
bardamu said:
A standard debunker argument is: "Just because it looks like a controlled demolition, it doesn't mean it is a controlled demolition".

Are you suggesting it doesn't even look like a CD?
Click to expand...

From the approx WTC 7 20th floor up, yes. Too bad we cannot see the entire collapse especially given that the resultant debris spread is NOT like that of any CD I have ever seen reported on.

The towers much more resemble buildings that have suffered collapse due to fire damage in which the collapse follows the impact of falling material from initiation to collapse end.

ETA: while I am at it, the Pentagon looks nothing like a car bombed building nor one that suffered an internal explosion. In fact given its missing 100 feet of ground floor wall I really see it as resembling one that has been hit at ground level by something at least 100 feet wide.
 
Last edited:
bardamu said:
A standard debunker argument is: "Just because it looks like a controlled demolition, it doesn't mean it is a controlled demolition".

Are you suggesting it doesn't even look like a CD?
Click to expand...

Oh it certainly looks like a controlled demolition. The problem is it doesn't have any of the characteristics that are unique to controlled demolitions or occur only in controlled demolitions.

It is curious though, as to why you are obsessive over whether it looks like a CD or not because orbital laser cannons are never used in controlled demolitions.
 
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
Where's this evidence of a CD?
Click to expand...

The evidence is the fact that 58 steel columns helped the roof to defy gravity for over 14 years, then in the space of a few hundred milliseconds, all 58 were totally overwhelmed by the same gravity.


9/11 Chewy Defense said:
It's been 9 yrs. & totally nothing! Are you just yanking our chains or do you have something to contribute to this thread?
Click to expand...

I'm the one who's keeping it on topic.
 
bardamu said:
A standard debunker argument is: "Just because it looks like a controlled demolition, it doesn't mean it is a controlled demolition".

Are you suggesting it doesn't even look like a CD?
Click to expand...

No, we're suggesting that we never heard it as like being a CD. It collapsed silently & without the use of explosives.

Find us a quote of someone, 1/2 mile away, saying that they heard explosives coming from WTC7. I bet your silly ass can't find such a quote!
 
bardamu said:
The evidence is the fact that 58 steel columns helped the roof to defy gravity for over 14 years, then in the space of a few hundred milliseconds, all 58 were totally overwhelmed by the same gravity.

I'm the one who's keeping it on topic.
Click to expand...

Umm still not proof or evidence of a CD!

Really, then mind if I ask: "Where's your evidence of a CD at WTC7?"

Remember, firefighters quotes that you take out are quote mined by you. Explosions doesn't prove explosives!
 
Last edited:
bardamu said:
The evidence is the fact that 58 steel columns helped the roof to defy gravity for over 14 years, then in the space of a few hundred milliseconds, all 58 were totally overwhelmed by the same gravity.




I'm the one who's keeping it on topic.
Click to expand...

Fire has more energy, heat energy than explosives used to bring down buildings. The office fires in WTC 1 and 2 were more heat energy than used in CD by a factor of 100 or more; the jet fuel alone has the heat energy of 130 TONs of TNT.

It took more than milliseconds to destroy the WTC towers, you exaggerate and make up more lies to fuel your delusions.

Gravity caused the collapse after impacts and fires weakened the structure. The best part is your delusion has no evidence. zero
 
bardamu said:
A standard debunker argument is: "Just because it looks like a controlled demolition, it doesn't mean it is a controlled demolition".
Click to expand...

Is that statement incorrect?

bardamu said:
Are you suggesting it doesn't even look like a CD?
Click to expand...

I did not suggest that there were zero elements that to the naked eye looked like controlled demolition.

However suggesting it was an "imitation" is laughable at best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom