'What about building 7'?

[T.A.M.]

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

Grasping at straws. Desperation when all other theories have failed is to create a mythical "simultaneous failure of 58 perimeter columns" fantasy.

TAM

 

[Gorgonian]

If you had a car suspended in the air via a single heavy central column with stabilization provided by toothpick thin wooden poles all around the perimeter, how long would it take the toothpicks to snap if that central column were to fail?

 

[cooperman]

If you had a car suspended in the air via a single heavy central column with stabilization provided by toothpick thin wooden poles all around the perimeter, how long would it take the toothpicks to snap if that central column were to fail?

Here we go again.

There were no toothpicks being used as structural members in the wtc. What exactly is your point?

Are you posting in the right thread?

 

[ergo]

Real explosives are deafening. That's not hyperbole either. You can really tell the difference.

And real fires are visible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ&feature=related

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

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

58 perimeter columns, really?

And just how many supports were holding up the entire building over that generator power station??

 

[RedIbis]

I'm still waiting for the nitpicking NIST to stop and the actual presentation of evidence of CD is brought forward, because even if the NIST can be shown to be totally wrong, one isn't allowed to simply insert whatever pet theory one wants in its place.

I would imagine that theorizing CD wouldn't even be possible without some kind of evidence to support it.

I would imagine that theorizing that single column failure causes global collapse wouldn't even be possible without some kind of evidence to support it.

 

[DGM]

I would imagine that theorizing that single column failure causes global collapse wouldn't even be possible without some kind of evidence to support it.

There is but, we all know how much you like this claim so, carry on.

 

[RedIbis]

There is but, we all know how much you like this claim so, carry on.

Computer modeling isn't evidence, so what do you have? You certainly don't have any physical evidence. But then again, why would anyone need that to substantiate a claim?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I would imagine that theorizing that single column failure causes global collapse wouldn't even be possible without some kind of evidence to support it.

If I kicked 1 of your legs from underneath you, what happens to you? A: You'd fall on your arse!

Kind of like a building that doesn't have that many structural supports built into it. Fire weakens the supports, they give way & its on it's way to a global collapse.

 

[jaydeehess]

What is most telling is how you "have nothings" supporting the NIST WTC 7 collapse theory are making a mountain out of something for which you have so little information..a bulge.

The relevent point is that the bulge indicated to the NYFD that there was a danger of collapse. Did they assume that this meant global collapse? NO the bulge was not indicative of a global collapse being imminent

The big story is with the NIST's bogus theory about column 79.

How could it collapse, pulling down the east penthouse and all the floors between 13 and the roof and only break a few windows on the north face?

Gee, I'm not sure. How does a CD get accomplished and have the same few-windows-break thing happen?

How, with all their budget, all their staff, and almost 7 years of investigation, could the NIST fail to see the 8-story free fall and arrogantly announce they had finally solved the collapse of WTC 7 in their final report for public comment?

They really did not fail to see it. Its just not particularily relevent

Not until a high school teacher called them out, did they make the correction and add it to their final report a few months later. Absolutely amazing.

Its still not relevent.

And how about those fires that supposed caused the critical failure of column 79 at floor 13. This in spite of the evidence which argued the fires were moving away from that location some time before collapse. Fires which Dr. Greening calculated were way under-fueled for the task the NIST's computer simulation placed on them.

Intense fire is still seen in the vicinity of col 44 at 4:40 pm on the 12th floor. Fires were also in the vicinity of col 44 on floor 13. Of course we simply cannot see col 79 and the fire there has to be determined by means other than direct observation. Dr. Greening's objections aside the beams in question would still have been heated by the fire and 600C is not out of bounds for an office fire.

Besides that, I and others have already said that we would have liked a treatment of how a cooling stage might have caused the girder to be pulled off its col seat.

The bulge is a big part of what caused the NYFD to determine that the structure was not to be entered and that it was in danger of a collapse and should be isolated with a safety perimeter. Given the unpredictable nature of collapses the PURDENT thing to do is have that perimeter extend outward from ALL sides of the structure.
THAT IS WHY it was done.

The damage to the south face did not directly cause the global collapse. It contributed to the global collapse only in the way it progressed and the speed at which it occured.

Happy now?

 

[RedIbis]

If I kicked 1 of your legs from underneath you, what happens to you? A: You'd fall on your arse!

Kind of like a building that doesn't have that many structural supports built into it. Fire weakens the supports, they give way & its on it's way to a global collapse.

Sooo, now WTC 7 had only two columns and didn't "have that many structural supports built into it."

Except for the fact that you push all things official, you'd be the king of stundies about now.

 

[The Big Dog]

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

Hee hee!

Man, the truther life is freaking easy street! Make stuff up, post it on the interweb, ask mom to bring down another package of twinkies to the basement, make sure your special sock is well hid....

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Sooo, now WTC 7 had only two columns and didn't "have that many structural supports built into it."

Except for the fact that you push all things official, you'd be the king of stundies about now.

Of course it's official, it's a little thing called a FACT! Of course you wouldn't know what a FACT is, do you?

King of Stundies? I'd just leave it up to you no brain Truthers to be the kings!

 

[DGM]

Computer modeling isn't evidence, so what do you have? You certainly don't have any physical evidence. But then again, why would anyone need that to substantiate a claim?

I don't have the piece of foam from "Columbia" but I have no doubts that was the cause.

 

[The Big Dog]

Sooo, now WTC 7 had only two columns and didn't "have that many structural supports built into it."

Except for the fact that you push all things official, you'd be the king of stundies about now.

Hee hee! Oh look, Red is trying to be snarky.

Actually, champ, you'd be the King of stundies for suggesting that people have more than two legs.

It was an analogy, sport, pull yourself together. While we are at it, porkchop, why don't you supply the proof that Larry made out like a bandit, like you claimed in that thread you ran from like a little girl a few months ago?

Just kidding, we know you won't and can't do that. But do snark on, Sally.

 

[alienentity]

Computer modeling isn't evidence, so what do you have? You certainly don't have any physical evidence. But then again, why would anyone need that to substantiate a claim?

Au Contraire. It most certainly is evidence. It is not physical evidence, but there is no physical evidence of explosive CD, so you're in no better a position. (glass house syndrome)

 

[Quad4_72]

This is my first time posting since I have been in Iraq. Its nice to see some new twoofer faces around here spewing the same old debunked nonsense from 4 years ago. And by nice, I mean eyegougingly painful.

 

[BigAl]

Computer modeling isn't evidence, so what do you have? You certainly don't have any physical evidence. But then again, why would anyone need that to substantiate a claim?

On the afternoon of 9/11 the firemen and engineers at GZ didn't need any physical evidence to know that WTC7 was doomed due to unfought fire and probably going to 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.

 

[DGM]

On the afternoon of 9/11 the firemen and engineers at GZ didn't need any physical evidence to know that WTC7 was doomed due to unfought fire and probably going to collapse.

You don't really want to go there with RedIbis, do you? You know where he will go next (at least he has the last three dozen times people have said this).

 

[T.A.M.]

Heh Quad...hope all goes well.

Yah, same stuff, new faces (or possible socks). The latest thing is the "2.25 Seconds of Freefall" that they are parading around as their new holy grail.

Of course the truth, as I am sure you know, is misrepresentation and speculation in the absence of evidence.

Good times...good times.

TAM