'What about building 7'?

[Edx]

s zero technical confirmation of WTC 7 leaning prior to its collapse.

Like what would you want?

Nmerous firefighters are on record saying they all expected it to collapse and that it was in serious trouble. That it was leaning, groaning and bulging and things were cracking and falling. None express any surprise that it collapsed and none of them have ever backed up a single contention the truth movement have ever made about Building 7.

You have not explained how the existence of a bulge in WTC7 negates the possibility of controlled demolition?

Of course you think that because you believe in demolition even though it requires you to believe in quiet nano-thermite explosives that cannot physically exist in order to fuel your fantasy.

The question for you should be how does a bulge fit with a demolition?

 

[Miragememories]

If the simulation is wrong, why haven't the engineers, architects and firefighters with the epxerience, expertise and relevant qualifications pointed it out?

Do you have any idea how long it takes to prepare and run a simulation of that
magnitude?

Without proper funding, independent professionals are unlikely to test the NIST simulation results.

MM

 

[excaza]

You have not explained how the existence of a bulge in WTC7 negates the possibility of controlled demolition?

For you, nothing is going to negate the possibility of CD. Everything that's brought up, you'll just say "well that could have been done by CD." It could have been done by a meteor. You can't rule out that possibility either.

 

[Sabretooth]

You have not explained how the existence of a bulge in WTC7 negates the possibility of controlled demolition?

MM

The whole "bulge" and "bow" thing is not important. I'll agree to drop the word "bow" in favor of "bulge".

And I did explain why a bulge is significant...hilited:

"Either way, bulging or bowing in the context isn't that different. What I was getting at is that bulging or bowing or leaning of the structure implies that something was happening inside the building other than explosives. In other words, they are most certainly not characteristics of a CD."

...meaning that there is some part of internal structural was failing or about to see failure.

CD's do not see internal failure so far prior to demolition.

 

[Miragememories]

The question for you should be how does a bulge fit with a demolition?

Why?

Based on evidence presented, combined with the NIST's theory of collapse, the bulge was never presented as a factor in the day's events.

Maybe you could explain exactly what the bulge was and how its existence shortly following the collapse of WTC1 precludes the possibility of controlled demolition?

The structural integrity of WTC 7 was not dependent on the damaged southwest corner location where this bulge supposedly occurred.
It could very well have been local in nature.

The NIST did report the FDNY's use of a transit but the NIST did not report any finding which I'm 100% certain they would have. A proven lean would have benefited their theory.

MM

 

[Sabretooth]

Why?

Based on evidence presented, combined with the NIST's theory of collapse, the bulge was never presented as a factor in the day's events.

Maybe you could explain exactly what the bulge was and how its existence shortly following the collapse of WTC1 precludes the possibility of controlled demolition?

The structural integrity of WTC 7 was not dependent on the damaged southwest corner location where this bulge supposedly occurred.
It could very well have been local in nature.

The NIST did report the FDNY's use of a transit but the NIST did not report any finding which I'm 100% certain they would have. A proven lean would have benefited their theory.

MM

But bulging or leaning is a byproduct, not a cause. The fires caused the collapse. I'm not so sure they would spend a lot of time looking into it when it's rather obvious that the collapse initiated at C79.

 

[GlennB]

The east penthouse does not fit with your reply.

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/5530/wtc7eastpenthouse.jpg

Clearly, the floor below it failed, and according to the NIST theory all the other floors below it.

MM

If you're talking about the top, don't post diagrams of the bottom.

Meanwhile how would CD avoid these 'missing' phenomena of which you speak?

 

[BigAl]

Why?

Based on evidence presented, combined with the NIST's theory of collapse, the bulge was never presented as a factor in the day's events.

Maybe you could explain exactly what the bulge was and how its existence shortly following the collapse of WTC1 precludes the possibility of controlled demolition?

The structural integrity of WTC 7 was not dependent on the damaged southwest corner location where this bulge supposedly occurred.
It could very well have been local in nature.

The NIST did report the FDNY's use of a transit but the NIST did not report any finding which I'm 100% certain they would have. A proven lean would have benefited their theory.

MM

Nonsense much?

 

[Miragememories]

And I did explain why a bulge is significant...hilited:

...meaning that there is some part of internal structural was failing or about to see failure.

CD's do not see internal failure so far prior to demolition.

“Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that"

How does this have any relevance to the theory you accept from the NIST?

That the cause of WTC7's collapse began with the failure of column 79 over in the northeast corner?

The "bulge" does not prove or disprove anything.

Since their was no evidence presented confirming a lean, even after the FDNY installed a transit, the obvious conclusion is that the bulge represented localized damage in the southwest corner.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Well we almost had a civilized discussion happening.

Now the members with nothing to say are arriving to blow
smoke.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

If you're talking about the top, don't post diagrams of the bottom.?

Your statement makes absolutely no sense.

MM

 

[excaza]

Well we almost had a civilized discussion happening.

Now the members with nothing to say are arriving to blow
smoke.

MM

Sounds familiar.

 

[BigAl]

“Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that"

How does this have any relevance to the theory you accept from the NIST?

That the cause of WTC7's collapse began with the failure of column 79 over in the northeast corner?

The "bulge" does not prove or disprove anything.

The bulge is a symptom, not a cause. The bulge means the building is doomed and unfought fire was the cause.

The bulge mean that the building is a write-off. Only time would show how. The fire might burn itself out leaving a standing hulk that had to be taken down stick-by-stick or it might be a partial collapse.

Nothing about the collapse surprises any eyewitness or anyone with relevant expertise that is familiar with WTC7's unusual all-steel structure and that the water source was destroyed on 9/11.

 

[beachnut]

Your statement makes absolutely no sense.

MM

You failed to provide evidence for your CD delusion. Your CD delusion absolutely, positively is moronic nonsense.

The video posted yesterday has zero sounds of explosives. Thermite was made up by Jones 4 years after 911 based on nothing. There is no evidence for CD. Makes no sense, absolutely no sense to support a delusion of CD when you have no evidence.

Did the thermite fail in WTC 5 and 6? You understand if explosives were planted in WTC 7 they would cook off in the fires. Thermite would have left clumps of thermite fused to the steel, and would be found.

Wasting time worrying about NIST exposes your CD delusion is backed with zero evidence. Where is your evidence?

Why can't AE911Truth figure out 911?

 

[Resume]

You failed to provide evidence for your CD delusion. Your CD delusion absolutely, positively is moronic nonsense.

The video posted yesterday has zero sounds of explosives. Thermite was made up by Jones 4 years after 911 based on nothing. There is no evidence for CD. Makes no sense, absolutely no sense to support a delusion of CD when you have no evidence.

Did the termite fail in WTC 5 and 6? You understand if explosives were planted in WTC 7 they would cook off in the fires. Thermite would have left clumps of thermite fused to the steel, and would be found.

Wasting time worrying about NIST exposes your CD delusion is backed with zero evidence. Where is your evidence?

Why can't AE911Truth figure out 911?

Was it a NWO termite?

Sorry, had to ask.

 

[Sabretooth]

The "bulge" does not prove or disprove anything.

MM

You're trying to change the context. I'm not talking about NIST at this point.

I said the bulge is an identifier that disproves CD. Buildings do not show signs of internal failure prior to ignition.

 

[Miragememories]

The bulge is a symptom, not a cause. The bulge means the building is doomed and unfought fire was the cause.

It is a symptom of damage and given that the transit never showed leaning, it cannot be considered a global symptom.

The only thing we know about this bulge is that it was visible early on and that it was located in the southwest corner of WTC7. A location sufficiently damaged as to create a bulge.

Claiming that this was a fatal symptom is preposterous.

Or are you presenting a new theory that negates the NIST's column 79 theory Al?

MM

 

[Sabretooth]

The bulge is a symptom, not a cause. The bulge means the building is doomed and unfought fire was the cause.

The bulge mean that the building is a write-off. Only time would show how. The fire might burn itself out leaving a standing hulk that had to be taken down stick-by-stick or it might be a partial collapse.

Nothing about the collapse surprises any eyewitness or anyone with relevant expertise that is familiar with WTC7's unusual all-steel structure and that the water source was destroyed on 9/11.

Right. The building had lost it's structural integrity at that point, regardless if the fires were halted or not. Had it not fallen itself, it would have been brought down anyway...much like Fiterman Hall building was deconstructed after it was heavily damaged by the falling WTC7.

 

[beachnut]

Was it a NWO termite? ...

nano-termites, they eat steel. Did you fail to watch the reality of nano-bot/termites in GI Joe? Ate tanks, your welcome, ate the eye-full tower, and could have destoryed a hole sitty. Or was that a soul kitty? ...

 

[Miragememories]

Right. The building had lost it's structural integrity at that point, regardless if the fires were halted or not. Had it not fallen itself, it would have been brought down anyway...much like Fiterman Hall building was deconstructed after it was heavily damaged by the falling WTC7.

Wrong.

There was no proof presented that showed that the bulge was a global symptom.

MM