Would anyone care to elaborate for/against the elaborate WTC7 CT?

[T.A.M.]

I'm new to what the conspirators are claiming. I've always heard "fire can't collapse steel buildings". I've never cared enough to look into truth. I don't remember why I did it this year around 9/11 but there had to of been something on the internet...

I didn't even know about building 7 until, like I said, around a week ago

uh huh. You seem knowledgeable enough to have said that the heart of your issue with WTC7 is the 2 seconds of free fall...that is pretty specific for a newbie who barely knows anything about the conspiracy theories.

I'm calling Mark of Woo on this one guys.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

back when I was practically convinced about the truther argument I posted this picture because I see a huge mass of junk and I can't visualize too well the zero resistance

-------------------------
(a side note - I can understand why a lot of people would be obsessed with trying to prove a conspiracy. but what's the deal with debunkers being so obsessive? there are debunkers that do "counter-resistance" forum posting for hours, practically daily. I don't get how you can be obsessed with disproving conspiracy. isn't NIST's official report satisfying enough? It's kind of weird, i mean, the amount of obsessed debunkers)

hi uke2se

It is amazing that;

(A) uke2se knows you well enough to tell you your crap will not fly here, if you have only been at this for a week.
(B) That you would have such knowledge and a grasp on the truther concepts in just a week
(C) That you would have formulated such opinions about "debunkers" with only a week of this stuff under your belt.

Just come clean, admit you have been at this a lot longer then a week, and move on.

TAM

 

[triforcharity]

with debunking.

You might be obsessive too but from what I gather in other threads you appear to be a cheerleader of some sorts. Every post I can sort of recall from you has been a variation of "we told you so", "why are u asking us?", "ohhh snap", "that's idiotic" or an emoticon of a dog laughing. I have yet to see you contribute rational thinking but maybe you are taking a couple days off

Wow, um......That's a pretty tall accusation for a new kid in town.

Just.....amazing.

Are you going to post any kind of evidence as to why you believe what you believe? Or are you going to continue with your argument from personal ignorance?

 

[T.A.M.]

Wow, um......That's a pretty tall accusation for a new kid in town.

Just.....amazing.

Are you going to post any kind of evidence as to why you believe what you believe? Or are you going to continue with your argument from personal ignorance?

Wait for it. Right now he is still in the "pretend to be a newbie so they won't metaphorically gang rape me until I have them where I want them." stage.

TAM

 

[TJM]

 

[triforcharity]

Wait for it. Right now he is still in the "pretend to be a newbie so they won't metaphorically gang rape me until I have them where I want them." stage.

TAM

NSFW. Foul language, crude humor.

This is him.

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1939725

 

[Patriots4Truth]

It is amazing that;

(A) uke2se knows you well enough to tell you your crap will not fly here, if you have only been at this for a week.
(B) That you would have such knowledge and a grasp on the truther concepts in just a week
(C) That you would have formulated such opinions about "debunkers" with only a week of this stuff under your belt.

Just come clean, admit you have been at this a lot longer then a week, and move on.

TAM

it's been a week pal so I take that all as a compliment

 

[Dog Town]

Ask him a serious question about flying, and you'll see why we like having him around.

Don't talk to "Capt." Boobie like that!

 

[uke2se]

(A) uke2se knows you well enough to tell you your crap will not fly here, if you have only been at this for a week.

He came to another forum I frequent and started dropping twoofer talking points. It was less than a week ago, but I find it amazing that he's been able to inundate himself in crap and lies in that short period of time. It's got to be some sort of record.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

He came to another forum I frequent and started dropping twoofer talking points. It was less than a week ago, but I find it amazing that he's been able to inundate himself in crap and lies in that short period of time. It's got to be some sort of record.

This is hardly surprising with the sheer amount of truther material on the web including old theories that have been disproved but one wouldn't know until they do the extra research.

But as I said earlier in this thread, I am still undecided. No one has been able to disprove that explosives could have been used at World Trade Center building 7. The collapse has characteristics of a controlled demolition. I find the symmetrical collapse to be interesting along with the 2.25 second free fall.

 

[uke2se]

This is hardly surprising with the sheer amount of truther material on the web including old theories that have been disproved but one wouldn't know until they do the extra research.

What's surprising is the arrogance you displayed.

No one has been able to disprove that explosives could have been used at World Trade Center building 7.

That's because no one has to. It's up to the twoofers to prove that explosives were used at WTC 7. They haven't done so in 9 years.

The collapse has characteristics of a controlled demolition.

Which characteristics other than the fact that it fell down?

I find the symmetrical collapse to be interesting along with the 2.25 second free fall.

Symmetrical collapse? Explain yourself. How is a collapse that is spread over several city blocks and hitting several surrounding buildings symmetrical?

Also, why is the 2.25 seconds of free fall significant? Would you say that free fall is a characteristic of a controlled demolition?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Here's what you need to do, P4T:
Join the Army. Enlist in the Infantry (with a Ranger option), or Engineers ( Sapper School). You'll live up to your screen name in a way that no one can easily challenge, and at the same time learn everything you ever wanted to know about demolitions.

 

[TruthersLie]

Before I started reading numerous JREF posts today I was definitely leaning towards CD. Several posts have put me in limbo since then.

I answered your question. Now can you tell me what science is wrong with whatever is the current WTC7 CT? (the specifics)

Is there more up to date WTC7 conspiracy theories than the ones in my links?

There is a search function, and countless threads which go over wtc7 indepth.

As for heiwa... he is a crackpot and a loon.
https://sites.google.com/site/resip...ant_Discussion_Closure.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

Here is an excellent refutation of his basic claims on the towers by Bazant... it is rather amusing to watch the beatdown.

any of his claims are waaaaay out there...
My particular favorite flavor of his woo

the top of the towers could have been dropped from 2 miles up in the air and they wouldn't have crushed down the lower parts.

 

[TruthersLie]

I'm new to what the conspirators are claiming. I've always heard "fire can't collapse steel buildings". I've never cared enough to look into truth. I don't remember why I did it this year around 9/11 but there had to of been something on the internet...

I didn't even know about building 7 until, like I said, around a week ago

<snort>
<snicker>
<lol>

which socky are you?
Don't worry.. the truthiness will seep out.

 

[TruthersLie]

back when I was practically convinced about the truther argument I posted this picture because I see a huge mass of junk and I can't visualize too well the zero resistance

-------------------------
(a side note - I can understand why a lot of people would be obsessed with trying to prove a conspiracy. but what's the deal with debunkers being so obsessive? there are debunkers that do "counter-resistance" forum posting for hours, practically daily. I don't get how you can be obsessed with disproving conspiracy. isn't NIST's official report satisfying enough? It's kind of weird, i mean, the amount of obsessed debunkers)

hi uke2se

Found your problem.

You don't understand the image. This is what was happening BEFORE The 2.25 seconds of freefall. This is where that was starting. What you may not realize is that once those columsn start to shear and buckle, it is a done deal. You are looking at that image and thinking, that should hold up.

Here is a good experiment for you (if you really are honest about looking for the truth.)

Take an empty soda can. Now carefully stand on top of it. don't twist, don't jump, just stand on it. You should be able to do that.

it shoudl be able to hold your weight and be very stable.

now have a friend poke the can with a stick, or start twisting and watch how quickly that aluminum can provides "zero" resistance and your body weight crushes the can.

Your image is the can, JUST AS IT IS STARTING to buckle.

 

[TruthersLie]

This is hardly surprising with the sheer amount of truther material on the web including old theories that have been disproved but one wouldn't know until they do the extra research.

But as I said earlier in this thread, I am still undecided. No one has been able to disprove that explosives could have been used at World Trade Center building 7. The collapse has characteristics of a controlled demolition. I find the symmetrical collapse to be interesting along with the 2.25 second free fall.

<facepalm>

Yes wtc7 does KINDA look like a CD. In that the building goes KINDA straight down.

Tell me what is MISSING from any and all video footage of the collapse of wtc7?

oh there is NO BOOM, BOOM, BOOM's present.

That is the FIRST sign that it isn't CD.

Now go to the FULL collapse of the wtc7 which includes the eastern mechanical penthouse. The full collapse is over 18 seconds. Yet again, there are no characteristic boom boom boom's.

What is also missing? OH bright flashes as the cd charges are detonated. You can't miss those. yet there are none.

What else is missing? MILES of det cord, unexploded/partially exploded CD charges, blasting caps... all of which are very recognizable to anyone who has worked in CD.

and you bring up the "symmetrical" twoofie argument. Can you tell me how it is symmetrical? How does a building which collapses and strikes two adjacent buildings which are about 270ish degrees apart symmetrical? Now if it struck 2 buildings which were 180 degrees apart, that would be symmetrical.

How does a building in which the eastern mechanical penthouse collapses 8 seconds PRIOR to the exterior wall collapsing be symmetrical? Now if there was a WESTERN MECHANCIAL PENTHOUSE which collapsed at the same time, OR 8 seconds AFTER that would be symmetrical.

How does a building which collapses and strikes another building across the street ON THE ROOF and causes a partial collapse do that symmetrically? Did it strike a building on the OTHER side of the stree and hit it from the roof? That would be symmetrical.

You are using a twoof talking point which doesn't make any sense. What part of the collapse of wtc7 was symmetrical?

 

[Patriots4Truth]

The odds are I won't be around long enough for my real identity to come slipping out (if I were a sock) because this thread is for people to elaborate on current WTC7 CT and I don't think anyone wants to. Unfortunately I can't elaborate much more than quoting scientists and web reports.

Symmetrical features during the building collapse and the change of speed during the collapse (including the 2.25 second free fall) and when the speed changes happened are all of interest to me. I could just dig through google but the numbers aren't what interest me. Finding Implications to CD would be interesting. In general this thread could be interesting if talking heads from both sides wanted to elaborate on implications. I understand that there is a very good chance this won't happen.

Goodnight

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No one has been able to disprove that explosives could have been used at World Trade Center building 7.

That's the biggest gawddamn lie you've told yet.

No sounds of explosives.

No mass shattering of windows.

No injuries from flying debris.

No Seismic signatures of explosives.

The collapse has characteristics of a controlled demolition.

Yeah... it fell down!

WTC7 didn't have any characteristics that only a controlled demolition would have.

Not a single bloody one.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

<facepalm>

Yes wtc7 does KINDA look like a CD. In that the building goes KINDA straight down.

Tell me what is MISSING from any and all video footage of the collapse of wtc7?

oh there is NO BOOM, BOOM, BOOM's present.

That is the FIRST sign that it isn't CD.

Now go to the FULL collapse of the wtc7 which includes the eastern mechanical penthouse. The full collapse is over 18 seconds. Yet again, there are no characteristic boom boom boom's.

What is also missing? OH bright flashes as the cd charges are detonated. You can't miss those. yet there are none.

What else is missing? MILES of det cord, unexploded/partially exploded CD charges, blasting caps... all of which are very recognizable to anyone who has worked in CD.

and you bring up the "symmetrical" twoofie argument. Can you tell me how it is symmetrical? How does a building which collapses and strikes two adjacent buildings which are about 270ish degrees apart symmetrical? Now if it struck 2 buildings which were 180 degrees apart, that would be symmetrical.

How does a building in which the eastern mechanical penthouse collapses 8 seconds PRIOR to the exterior wall collapsing be symmetrical? Now if there was a WESTERN MECHANCIAL PENTHOUSE which collapsed at the same time, OR 8 seconds AFTER that would be symmetrical.

How does a building which collapses and strikes another building across the street ON THE ROOF and causes a partial collapse do that symmetrically? Did it strike a building on the OTHER side of the stree and hit it from the roof? That would be symmetrical.

You are using a twoof talking point which doesn't make any sense. What part of the collapse of wtc7 was symmetrical?

there are tons more ideas that you could try to cancel out but I will leave you guessing which ones are the best.

also, there is a 'boom' sound recording out there and maybe seismic readings too. I can't verify how accurate they are. but I don't think either has been officially debunked. I don't know, I haven't looked into this. Plus how important is seismic readings and 'boom' recordings to CD theories. It depends on the theory, when the boom happened, and the distance to the source of the sound recording.

ps. the penthouse collapse means nothing to me. it doesn't eliminate certain CD theories

pss. at the beginning of the fall it was a lot more symmetric. all I'm saying that there are certain things about the symmetry and asymmetry that interest me.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

WTC7 didn't have any characteristics that only a controlled demolition would have.

well if someone was trying to get away with a conspiracy they probably would plan to hide at least one characteristic of a CD