'What about building 7'?

[srsjuiceman]

Yes, I'm dead serious. That's exactly what they do. Let me find one of those threads...

EDIT: Here is a fun one:

Starting at #479 I believe.

That is kind of shocking. Are people who come here for open debate really that disingenuous sometimes? Real explosives are deafening. That's not hyperbole either. You can really tell the difference.

 

[beachnut]

That isn't what I asked. Why did it require a truther to tell NIST that there was an 2.25 second period of free fall involved in the collapse? WHy didn't they notice this when they had dozens of expert engineers doing computer simulations and studying video?

That is a lie. No truther had to tell NIST about the collapse of the side approaching g. Wrong again. It was in the NIST report, the dolts can't handle it so they made up the lie you posted.

Why do you post lies and are not able to figure them out?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Page 23 and not one of the 'truthers' in the thread will tell my why anyone would cook up such a huge conspiracy to destrou WTC &.

It wasn't a target of the terrorists, it was accidental damage. get over it.

 

[T.A.M.]

If it was irrelevant [drum roll] they would have continued to ignore it!

It became step 2 in their detailed analysis of the global collapse.

But no one here, accept us 9/11 Truthers are interested.

I can see the post burial detail is already starting.

Rather than engage in a genuine honest discussion, the OCT bigots have to
hide any disturbing posts from innocent visitors.

MM

I know you weren't calling me a bigot, right MM?

I am not burying anything, am I?

You are right about one thing though...ONLY the truthers are interested in it.

TAM

 

[GlennB]

The NIST had 7 years to look at the video and do the calculations.

I find it extremely difficult to believe they overlooked the calculation that proved a period of free fall.

A true skeptic would ponder that.

A treasonous sob would not.

Again, you're looking at it from the CT point of view. Why would NIST consider performing such a calculation from the outset? Why would a forensic scientist test blood samples for poison when the victim had his brains blown out with a gun (say) ?

 

[cooperman]

Again, you're looking at it from the CT point of view. Why would NIST consider performing such a calculation from the outset? Why would a forensic scientist test blood samples for poison when the victim had his brains blown out with a gun (say) ?

A forensic scientist wouldn't assume the gun shot wound was the cause of death. That is kind of the point of an autopsy.

Are you claiming that NIST looked for nothing else because they assumed a fire caused collapse from the outset? We know that isn't true because they "investigated" blast events.

 

[tsig]

Try and keep up AE.

All bulges are not created equal.

A bulge may be a global symptom. That is not under dispute.

No evidence was ever presented to support the contention that the observed bulge in the damaged southeast corner of WTC7
was indeed a global symptom.

Supposedly the FDNY had the transit results.

I'm sure they would have provided the NIST with any damning information.

The NIST reported nothing other than the fact that a bulge was reported and a transit used.

MM

A bulge means the buildings structural integrity has been compromised.

 

[Thunder]

A forensic scientist wouldn't assume the gun shot wound was the cause of death. That is kind of the point of an autopsy.

but a forensic scientist would assume that the cause of death was a cleverly planned and conceived suicide, involving a conspiracy between the heart, lungs, and penis?

this is what 9-11 Truth did, starting on 9-12-01.

 

[triforcharity]

This is a brilliant point that I have never seen a debunker address.

If NIST are such an amazing group of respected and experienced scientists, that we should trust to get it right, why did it take a "truther" to point out to them that there was a freefall period in wtc7's collapse?

I don't mean to hijack your question MM, but I wanted to reiterate that point and try and get an answer to it.

Because it is not a significant finding. Nor is it really all that important.

Translation: It ain't ****.

 

[Andy_Ross]

And you display a total ignorance of my background.

Your point, other than to provide total disagreement, regardless of content?

MM

Ifnot fire what caused the collapse?

Why is WTC7 so important that NISt, the Govt and the Firefighters involved would all fabricate a story that it was fire that destroyed the building?

What are they covering up?

 

[Miragememories]

It's not 9/11, it's just you guys. Nice try at attempting shifting to an argument of emotions.

(really sad actually)

Excuse me but 9/11 is a rather emotional topic.

I wasn't aware that I should treat it otherwise?

MM

 

[triforcharity]

If you are so sure, define your idea of a bulge as it related to WTC 7 and show how and why it represented a loss of structural integrity.

It is all too easy to sit on the sidelines and take pot shots but I rarely see
you contribute anything of substance to the discussion.

If your role is strictly that of peanut gallery, than just say so and I won't reply to your stupid comments again?

MM

Bulge:

a : to jut out : swell
b : to bend outward

There you go.

 

[DGM]

Excuse me but 9/11 is a rather emotional topic.

I wasn't aware that I should treat it otherwise?

MM

The problem is nothing about CD (or the rest of your non-theories) has anything to do with 9/11.

So we're just laughing at you.

 

[Miragememories]

Bulge:

a : to jut out : swell
b : to bend outward

There you go.

What?

The peanut gallery require you to provide their responses?

I know what a bulge is.

But no one here knows anything about the WTC7 bulge other than its
rough location and that it supposedly spanned 3 floors.

There was no transit data that showed this visual sighting as having
any significance.

That must have been a short lesson Mr. Teacher.

MM

 

[Edx]

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

Why?

Because if we accept your claims that NIST (and the FDNY firefighters )were wrong and that fire doesn't account for the collapse and your theory is demolition, then please explain it. How does bulging, groaning, leaning and creaking fit with demolition? If you got everyone to accept WTC7 deserved another look and to study your demolition claims, then you would have to deal with this. So stop hand waving and answer the question.

This is like having to remind Creationists that even if evolution was 100% wrong that wouldn't make Creationism right be default.

It seems to me based on what you've written that you're saying that even if it could be shown to your satisfaction the building was leaning and bulging significantly then it still wouldn't matter to you and you would still respond by saying it doesn't disprove demolition.

Therefore I put to you that your theory cannot be falsified. *shock!*

If we explain how unreasonable your idea of demolition is, you can just keep coming up with more and more crazy hypothetical (and frankly impossible) ways to get around it. Such as... lack of explosion sounds. Then you say its super-nano-duper-thermite. Its also just assumed that even though it would require the "explosives" to be fire resistant for over 7 hours and that they would have been able to set up this demolition without anyone noticing or anyone blowing the whistle on finding all the remnants of them in the rubble pile. etc etc

So then getting back to the bulge, if you can make up whatever you like to get around all that (such as doing the above) its really not all surprising to me that your response is that it doesn't disprove demolition. Of course it doesn't, because there will always be some things we don't know about the collapse and events that day there's always room to try and squeeze your conspiracy in there, no matter how difficult and silly it sounds.

So I ask you again.

1. How does a bulge fit with a demolition?

and...

2. How bad a state would the building have to be in for you to reject your demolition theory?

 

[BigAl]

What?

The peanut gallery require you to provide their responses?

I know what a bulge is.

But no one here knows anything about the WTC7 bulge other than its rough location and that it supposedly spanned 3 floors and that FDNY considered the bulge as evidence that WTC7 was doomed and probably going to collapse.

ftfy

 

[Garb]

MM, I don't see how NIST not mentioning the freefall means they denied that freefall existed.

Of course if you don't believe NIST denied there being any freefall then I don't see what the significance is that someone posted a youtube video demonstrating such in regards to NIST's report. It isn't a correction if they aren't proven wrong.

Of course this is all moot if there is a point in NIST's paper where they state that there was no freefall, or their analysis hinged on there being no freefall in any part of the building.

 

[alienentity]

MM, I don't see how NIST not mentioning the freefall means they denied that freefall existed.

Of course if you don't believe NIST denied there being any freefall then I don't see what the significance is that someone posted a youtube video demonstrating such in regards to NIST's report. It isn't a correction if they aren't proven wrong.

Of course this is all moot if there is a point in NIST's paper where they state that there was no freefall, or their analysis hinged on there being no freefall in any part of the building.

Exactly. Whether there was 1s, 2s or 3s of freefall acceleration, it does not change the mechanism for the collapse.
It does not prove CD. NIST correctly showed that it took 5.4s for the 18 stories to fall out of sight.
This itself is a fact, easily verifiable, and still true. David Chandler overreached his data and directly accused NIST of fraud.

David Chandler was wrong about that, but correct about the speed of that part of the collapse. Time to move on.

 

[danrush]

What about building 7' is the most common question truthers pose as 'proof' their delusions are valid.

The "squibs" at the top of the building that fly out as it falls?

They're window blinds.

 

[bardamu]

Concensus....the black "squibs" that conspiratologists say is proof of controlled demollition.

Strawman. Proof of controlled demolition is the near-simultaneous failure of all 58 perimeter columns.