Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christopher7 said:
No. Simply looking at the damage and the fact that there was no progressive failure is enough to determine that the building was not in any danger of collapse.

There is a large hole and the corner column is missing but there was no collapse. It is self evident that the moment frames redistributed the weight.
Click to expand...

Argument from ignorance and delusion. There was NO possible way for ANYONE to "look at the damage" and determine that the building was not in danger of collapse. The phenomena known as structural creep is a well known condition. To claim that because the building did not immediately collapse means there was no danger of collapse is made of for complete ignorance of building structures. Even wood structures suffer from creep. This has been explained to you more than once, your desire to ignore it in order to keep your cynical delusions and fantasies alive does not make the facts change.
 
DGM said:
About what? Do you know what happens when steel gets hot? How about when you rapidly cool one area? A lot of collapses occur as the building cools. I don't suppose you know why this might happen?
Click to expand...

Structural creep is the bigger issue. For example, there was a mall near me that suffered a partial structural collapse 30+ years after it was constructed. There was no additional loading (like snow or rain or added weight of construction) There was simply a defect in the glue lam beams that took 30+ years to fail. C&'s claims that because the WTC 7 did not collapse immediately
means that there was no danger of further collapse is made out of unbelieveable ignorance. :jaw-dropp
 
Animal said:
Structural creep is the bigger issue. For example, there was a mall near me that suffered a partial structural collapse 30+ years after it was constructed. - a defect in the glue lam beams
Click to expand...
A glue lam is made of wood.

ETA: It is really stupid to be talking about structural creep and use a wood beam as an example.

Delft had a reinforced concrete columns so it cannot be compared to WTC 7. It's perfectly clear that you guys know nothing about structures. You all just go to the denial play book and repeat what a dozen others have already posted.
 
Last edited:
to determine that the building was not in any danger of collapse.
Click to expand...

I guess I still need to school you:

wtc7-debris.jpg



I guess it WAS in danger of collapsing.
 
Who set it? When? Please present your FACTS and EVIDENCE. Of course, you also need to answer the simple question of : Why do you cherry pick and make up lies?
Click to expand...

Easy.
Mohamed Atta. He flew the plane into WTC 1 which subsequently collapsed, portions of which struck 7 WTC, causing damage and fires that went unchecked for 7 hours.
Contrary to what Christopher here wants to think, fires that rage unchecked don't put themselves out when they get to the 8th or 9th floor. Fires aren't that polite. They don't say to themselves "hey, nobody's here so what's the point"?!?

They keep burning, and - get this - get worse!
 
Animal said:
Argument from ignorance and delusion.
Click to expand...
Speak for yourself.

There was NO possible way for ANYONE to "look at the damage" and determine that the building was not in danger of collapse.
Click to expand...
Wrong. It was self evident to anyone who understands structure. The proof in in the result - the there was NO additional collapse around the debris damage.
 
Wrong. It was self evident to anyone who understands structure. The proof in in the result - the there was NO additional collapse around the debris damage.
Click to expand...

The engineer on site said it was in danger of collapse. Don't go in. It's creaking, buckling, stretching, writhing, bending, bowing, grunting, groaning, and making all manner of noise consistent with a place you don't want to be.


b7_2.jpg


Looks like he may have been right!
 
NoahFence said:
The engineer on site said it was in danger of collapse. Don't go in. It's creaking, buckling, stretching, writhing, bending, bowing, grunting, groaning, and making all manner of noise consistent with a place you don't want to be.


[qimg]http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/b7_2.jpg[/qimg]

Looks like he may have been right!
Click to expand...
I think Chris's point is, if they raced in at 1 PM they could have saved it. That way it could be demolished later (because it was totaled)

:confused:
 
Christopher7 said:
[FONT=&quot]
If you refuse to consider arson then you are in denial.

[/FONT]
Click to expand...

So you think it was arson? Which, errrr, caused weakening and expansion of steel members, which brought down the building? Or what?

Or it was a naturally-caused fire which, errr, caused weakening and expansion of steel members, which brought down the building?

We always thought you believed in thousands of explosive charges bringing down the building? Not mere arson? Surely arson would put at risk all the explosive CD devices you have proposed in the past?

Please be clear Christopher7, or continue to come across as the buffoon your arguments suggest you to be. What the hell do you actually believe? Tell us, then stick to it.
 
NoahFence said:
The engineer on site said it was in danger of collapse.
Click to expand...
He was either simply wrong or intentionally lying.

You are creaking, buckling, stretching, writhing, bending, bowing, grunting, groaning, and making all manner of noise consistent with a person in denial.
 
Christopher7 said:
I have read the entire quote and understand his feelings about the situation.

The barrage of insults from the peanut gallery tries in vain to ignore the simple fact that they had enough firefighters to fight the fires in WTC 7.
Click to expand...
Assuming that was true, they nonetheless chose not to.
 
Christopher7 said:
Thank you for finally admitting that they had enough water and firefighters to fight the fires in WTC 7.

The prolific writers here have filled 10 or 20 pages with denial of and diversion from this simple point.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile, certain other people will claim there was enough water to fight the fires, but not say how much water that was, or how much water would've been enough.

Christopher7 said:
No. Simply looking at the damage and the fact that there was no progressive failure is enough to determine that the building was not in any danger of collapse.

There is a large hole and the corner column is missing but there was no collapse. It is self evident that the moment frames redistributed the weight.
Click to expand...
And yet...the building collapsed.

This leads straight to the question of why the building collapsed, if not from fire, which you will dismiss as "irrelevant" or for the "investigation" which will never happen.

Christopher7 said:
NIST said there wasn't enough water to fight the fires in WTC 7.

That is not true.
Click to expand...
How much was available?

How much was enough?

You can't call a direct request for proof of your claim "irrelevant", or keep ignoring it.

Christopher7 said:
It was not in danger of collapsing from the debris damage, even NIST admitted that. So what's your problem?
Click to expand...
Yes, the fire was mostly responsible for the collapse. Nice straw man.

Christopher7 said:
No

I correctly stated that arson is a possibility that must be considered.

Do you agree?
Click to expand...
Okay! Let's consider who set the fires! Let's make a list of suspects, going just with opportunity, leaving aside means and motive!

1. FDNY

That was a short list, wasn't it?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom