9-11 Facts Movement

[RedIbis]

Hush-a-boom and energy non-conserving nanothermite, usually.

Dave

Except there are no examples.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Except there are no examples.

Yes. That's the whole point of the appeal to perfection, to narrow down the field of applicable examples to the point where it specifically excludes every possible example but the one under consideration. The approach in this case might be to specify ever finer details of the construction of the building, to the point where, ultimately, an argument was advanced that this was the first time that WTC7 had collapsed due to fire.

Dave

 

[dtugg]

Who says it could never have happened? The fix you find yourself in is that since no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed due to fire, your argument that WTC 7 was fully expected to collapse is specious.

So you think you know more than firefighters who were at the scene. Or do you just think they were in on it?

Mix in the fact that NIST used no physical evidence when modeling the collapse mechanism and you have an argument based on faith.

Tell us again what evidence you base your controlled demolition fantasies upon.

Except there are no examples.

You're correct. There are no examples of silent explosives or superdupernanothermite destroying a building.

 

[twinstead]

Who says it could never have happened? The fix you find yourself in is that since no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed due to fire, your argument that WTC 7 was fully expected to collapse is specious.

Because I tend to believe that the fire department DID expect the building to collapse, I find your denial of their expertise or flat-out suggestion they were incompetent a little arrogant.

Mix in the fact that NIST used no physical evidence when modeling the collapse mechanism and you have an argument based on faith.

Mix in the fact that you have no physical evidence of any other collapse mechanism and YOU have an argument based on faith.

 

[RedIbis]

Yes. That's the whole point of the appeal to perfection, to narrow down the field of applicable examples to the point where it specifically excludes every possible example but the one under consideration. The approach in this case might be to specify ever finer details of the construction of the building, to the point where, ultimately, an argument was advanced that this was the first time that WTC7 had collapsed due to fire.

Dave

Right, because steel framed high rise fires are so very rare.

 

[dtugg]

Right, because steel framed high rise fires are so very rare.

Name one other one that hard large, totally unfought fires.

 

[RedIbis]

So you think you know more than firefighters who were at the scene. Or do you just think they were in on it?



Tell us again what evidence you base your controlled demolition fantasies upon.



You're correct. There are no examples of silent explosives or superdupernanothermite destroying a building.

Ok, just list for me the firefighters who were in the bldg and could see with their own eyes that column 79 had lost its lateral support, causing it to collapse and leading to the collapse of the entire bldg. Otherwise, they were speculating. Some that the fire could be brought under control, some that the bldg was fully involved in fire and would collapse.

 

[twinstead]

Right, because steel framed high rise fires are so very rare.

WAY less rare than screaming fuel-laden jet liners crashing into them or large chunks of collapsing 110 story buildings crashing into them with the resulting fires completely unfaught, I'll give you that.

Your point?

 

[twinstead]

Ok, just list for me the firefighters who were in the bldg and could see with their own eyes that column 79 had lost its lateral support, causing it to collapse and leading to the collapse of the entire bldg. Otherwise, they were speculating. Some that the fire could be brought under control, some that the bldg was fully involved in fire and would collapse.

Expert speculation combined with a transit measurement is one HELL of a lot more than you have going for you, Red. That's why you can't come up with a rational alternative method of collapse.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Who says it could never have happened? The fix you find yourself in is that since no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed due to fire, your argument that WTC 7 was fully expected to collapse is specious.

This is a good example of how truthers reject every basic premise of science. The fundamental importance of physical laws is that known behaviours can be extrapolated to new situations, and that therefore prediction is possible despite the fact that the specific situation under consideration has never before been encountered. Truthers would have us put aside all the centuries of understanding that have led to that predictive ability, and pretend that every new situation must be regarded as utterly unpredictable.

WTC7 was fully expected to collapse, because firefighters on the scene took their experience of the behaviour of steel in fires and extrapolated it on an empirical basis to the situation facing them. The fact that they had never encountered a collapse of a building of that specific size and construction was one they were no doubt aware of, but, being capable of rational analysis, they considered nevertheless that collapse was a likely occurrence. And it's truthers who have the problem with that, and who have to deny it, because it's fundamental to their belief system that the collapse of WTC7 was so unlikely as to be utterly inconceivable. So they have to lie to themselves, not just about the details of the collapse, but about the opinions of the firefighters on the scene, to preserve their illusions.

A sad waste, really.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Right, because steel framed high rise fires are so very rare.

Yes, they are. And, of course, steel framed high rise fires initiated simultaneously on multiple floors are even more so.

Dave

 

[dtugg]

Ok, just list for me the firefighters who were in the bldg and could see with their own eyes that column 79 had lost its lateral support, causing it to collapse and leading to the collapse of the entire bldg. Otherwise, they were speculating. Some that the fire could be brought under control, some that the bldg was fully involved in fire and would collapse.

Do you think you know more than Daniel Nigro who ordered the area around the building evacuated because he thought it would collapse? This is a yes or no question although you will undoubtedly dodge it.

 

[twinstead]

Do you think you know more than Daniel Nigro who ordered the area around the building evacuated because he thought it would collapse? This is a yes or no question although you will undoubtedly dodge it.

I'm trying to figure out just how many choices I would have to answer this if I were Red.

1. Daniel Nigro is incompetent
2. Daniel Nigro is just following orders (from whom?)
3. Daniel Nigro is in on it.


Are there any more?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Yes, they are. And, of course, steel framed high rise fires initiated simultaneously on multiple floors are even more so.

Dave

Rarer when accompanied by a large section of support members being destroyed at the moment of ignition, with the complete crippling of active fire protection

 

[Quad4_72]

It's funny, you're trying to give some credibility to the "First Time in History!" argument while at the same time desperately seeking some precedents.

Wow. Another "This is the first time in history so there is no way it could have happened!" twoofer? Some of the most obnoxious kind. Do you even understand NIST's findings? Do you have any idea what thousands of tons of weight will do to structural support that has been weakened by heat? And no, your argument of "Well show me a building that has collapsed because of fire!" is not valid here. I am asking a specific question about physics in relation to NIST's findings.

 

[twinstead]

Wow. Another "This is the first time in history so there is no way it could have happened!" twoofer? Some of the most obnoxious kind. Do you even understand NIST's findings? Do you have any idea what thousands of tons of weight will do to structural support that has been weakened by heat? And no, your argument of "Well show me a building that has collapsed because of fire!" is not valid here. I am asking a specific question about physics in relation to NIST's findings.

Even worse any rational person knows this, yet still we try to humor him by at least trying to find examples to put his truther mind at ease, even though whether it has ever "happened before" is totally irrelevant.

Then, he has the balls to lecture us about it. LOL

 

[Quad4_72]

Even worse any rational person knows this, yet still we try to humor him by at least trying to find examples to put his truther mind at ease, even though whether it has ever "happened before" is totally irrelevant.

Then, he has the balls to lecture us about it. LOL

And that's why I try and stick to the link in my signature. I have a little free time at the moment out here in the sandbox so I thought I would jump into the fray for a bit.

One thing I am still trying to figure out though is how was the government capable of pulling off the most complex conspiracy in history without a single whistleblower 9 years later but yet chose not to plant WMDs in Iraq, which would be simple compared to 9/11 and give widespread support for the war. The NWO works in mysterious ways...

 

[Grizzly Bear]

If I had to guess, the "First time in history'ers" walk along the same paths as moon hoaxers and flat earthers, Obama presidency hoaxers, and all. It must be difficult to hold onto that analogy if they think the idea that nothing happens for the first time ever shouldn't apply to the extras the theory attaches itself to.

 

[twinstead]

The NWO works in mysterious ways...

Just like God does to creationists when faced with similar dilemmas

 

[ergo]

Do you have any idea what thousands of tons of weight will do to structural support that has been weakened by heat?

Tell us about it. You can use this as a reference.