WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

achimspok said:
...authoritative like FOX. I guess they wanted to kick the A of Jesse Ventura. How silent is a penthouse that fall through the inner structure?
Click to expand...

So you don't believe the part about the collapse being very quiet, which you don't want to believe, despite the fact that the reporter was stating this from direct personal experience; but you believe the part about Silverstein being on the phone to his insurance company, which you do want to believe, despite the fact that the reporter was clearly quoting hearsay evidence because he was on the street watching WTC7 at the time the alleged phone call was made. Does that more or less sum up how objective your assessment of evidence is?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
So you don't believe the part about the collapse being very quiet, which you don't want to believe, despite the fact that the reporter was stating this from direct personal experience; but you believe the part about Silverstein being on the phone to his insurance company, which you do want to believe, despite the fact that the reporter was clearly quoting hearsay evidence because he was on the street watching WTC7 at the time the alleged phone call was made. Does that more or less sum up how objective your assessment of evidence is?

Dave
Click to expand...

Yes, more or less. Let's say, I believe that everything FOX do is part of a (neo)conservative agenda. They would never ever publish any delicate details about some Silverstein phonecall even if they know about it. So we have some hearsay (that nobody mentioned ever before) and it isn't worth a penny. So what's the purpose of that NEWS?
Honestly, that phonecall (if happened at all) then it may be took place earlier that day. It makes no sense that Silverstein asked for permission while allegedly everybody was certain about a collapse in the next few minutes. Even the BBC already reported the collapse. But it opens a complete new possibillity. Now the "pull it" (it the firemen who wasn't there) becomes an alternative interpretation - alternative but innocent because everybody knew that hearsay, right? It's a little miracle that nobody ever mentioned that piece of all-round education.
On the other hand, who ever that reporter might be, he was outside the collapse zone (4-5 blocks away).
There we have all kinds of witness reports. We have the whole range from 'firefighter hears explosions' to 'FOX reporter hears nothing'.
This way the article helps to kick Venturas 455 twice.
It's like saying: "You see, we admit the idea of a controlled demolition but everybody knew it and it was too late to place any equipment in the building. We just wanted to save life and other buildings but..." Then it takes a deep breeze and says "The actual collapse was that silent we immediately knew it wasn't a controlled demolition."

Now, we know everything we need to know (about Jesse Ventura), don't we?
 
Last edited:
So, since you've admitted that you form your conclusions first, then selectively believe or disbelieve any evidence according to whether you think it fits your conclusions, then nothing you say has any credibility whatsoever. Thanks for letting us all know.

Dave
 
Justin39640 said:
Family Guy is part of an evil neo-con plot? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
Click to expand...

Huh. Stewie was rated the 95th greatest villain of all time by Wizard magazine, but little did they know that Sideshow Bob and Monty Burns actually report to Stewie.
 
achimspok said:
No. The wind caused the wake effect and the wind was much "higher" than a 47-story building.
Click to expand...

Don't play dumb. We spent pages arguing with you about how you said the origin of the smoke eminating from the WTC7 was really caused by the smoke and wake effect from the fire in WTC6. Now you're dancing around again.

My question, to clarify your logic: If the smoke from WTC6 could be drawn up the height of WTC7 by wind/wake effect, how can you discount that the smoke from WTC7 itself could also be drawn up by wind/wake effect?

Several posters have shown you images of thick, dark smoke coming from the windows of WTC7...you can't keep handwaving evidence and try to force a square peg in a round hole.


achimspok said:
Partially, since the sources of smoke can be identified. There is neither smoke nor fire from the SE of any SEC floor until 1pm. Any idea what the fire did between 10:28am and 1pm?
Click to expand...

Don't know, because I can't see through walls. But here's the thing, fires are unpredictable as hell. You don't need to be a firefighter to understand that.

achimspok said:
Any idea how it could be big enough to "simulate" a 1000°C upper layer temperature and heat up a quater football field without any sign?
Click to expand...

This is your baby...you tell us. It sounds to me like your trying to say that the smoke coming from WTC7 was actually from a different building, so you're already off to a bad start.
 
achimspok said:
I'm always surprised how so called debunkers develop ridiculous ideas, stating that this would be the proper idea of a truther, laugh about their own "truther" idea... and finally try to get some logic out of it.

Computer files were distributed a long time before then? Before what? Which computer files? Who distribute it?
Click to expand...

You misinterpreted yet another question/comment. Are you really that bad at reading comprehension, or are you doing it on purpose?
 
achimspok said:
I'm always surprised how so called debunkers develop ridiculous ideas, stating that this would be the proper idea of a truther, laugh about their own "truther" idea... and finally try to get some logic out of it.

Computer files were distributed a long time before then? Before what? Which computer files? Who distribute it?
Click to expand...

I don't believe that there were top-secret physical or digital records in the NY offices of the secret service or the CIA that weren't backed up elsewhere. Demolition of a building to destroy files is a stupid idea, worthy of a b-grade movie, not real life. In my place of employment on 9/11/2001, our digital records were backed up daily to storage in another state.

Alles klar, herr Kommisar?

Sabretooth said:
You misinterpreted yet another question/comment. Are you really that bad at reading comprehension, or are you doing it on purpose?
Click to expand...
 
Dave Rogers said:
So, since you've admitted that you form your conclusions first, then selectively believe or disbelieve any evidence according to whether you think it fits your conclusions, then nothing you say has any credibility whatsoever. Thanks for letting us all know.

Dave
Click to expand...

What evidence are you talking about? A FOX article written by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro? Wow, it's time to look a little closer before I take a day off to ROFL.

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: "Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area."

What hit the ground? The building? The roof? Not a single sound?
Any physical explanation for that (other than the speed of sound)?

OK, let's see who says so? An Ex-Global Tabloid and Crime reporter.
Now, the founder of the "Bush Restoration Project" :eye-poppi
who wants to TEACH AMERICA how "America betrayed President Bush" (FOX News) the living symbol of individual freedom.

pic00088.png


Obviously we deal with some sycophant and conspiracy theorist.

pic00090b.png


Hey, some palestinian school boy had prior knowledge that the plane will lose its rudder.

Sure, he don't like Obama and he don't like Jesse Ventura. FOX gave him room for development.

Back in 2001 he was a Crime reporter for Gammit and "close" to Building 7.

"...several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein..."

I guess it was some kind of "Hey Jeff, Larry is on the line if we may pull it."

Now that's your "evidence", Dave! It's some Jack Kelly type of expert I guess.

Btw, you were perfectly right about my conclusion when I first read the article. Now, I checked it and my conclusion was right.
 
carlitos said:
I don't believe that there were top-secret physical or digital records in the NY offices of the secret service or the CIA that weren't backed up elsewhere. Demolition of a building to destroy files is a stupid idea, worthy of a b-grade movie, not real life. In my place of employment on 9/11/2001, our digital records were backed up daily to storage in another state.

Alles klar, herr Kommisar?
Click to expand...

Alles klar.

wtc7sec.jpg
 
Wow. achimspok thinks that Fox news is propaganda, and he just posted an article from the New York Post. Special Pleading much?
 
Personally I have little tolerance for anybody who simply believes everything he sees and hears that supports his position, no questions asked.

achimspok is a poster child for this
 
Last edited:
achimspok said:
And the sun was shining on 9/12.
[qimg]http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1440/smileybangheadonwallyel.gif[/qimg] [qimg]http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/3138/happy0045.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I knew that hitting your head against a brick wall caused some brain damage along the way.

Give it up, the smoke was pouring out of WTC7 & there's nothing you can do to change that fact.
 
Oh vey! Achimspok you make no sense man. You posted this NIST diagram, which color-codes the damage.

Floors 11-13 are either yellow, orange or red. That means the windows were broken. Duh.
You're arguing against your own evidence?:boggled:

pic00084.png
 
no-smoker = no-planer

Obvious delusion is obvious.

This is so reminiscent of Jammonius. Now applied to smoke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom