Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christopher7 said:
Speak for yourself.

Wrong. It was self evident to anyone who understands structure.
Click to expand...

A lie, since an onsite engineer said otherwise.

The proof in in the result - the there was NO additional collapse around the debris damage.
Click to expand...

The result is not proof of your statement of self evidence.......your ignornace of logic is as bad as that of structures.

I would take the word of an onsite engineer over a Monday morning quarterbacking carpenter any day of the week.
 
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
The engineer on site said it was in danger of collapse.
Click to expand...

He was either simply wrong or intentionally lying.
Click to expand...

wtc7_debris.jpg



So then, all these images I'm posting, they're NOT WTC 7? Well then, what are they?
 
Christopher7 said:
If you rule out arson because of personal incredulity then you are not a serious investigator.
Click to expand...

If you are going to stick to arson as a possibility, then do so whilst presenting MOTIVE and OPPORTUNITY.

ETA: And the possible culprit.
 
Christopher7 said:
A glue lam is made of wood.
Click to expand...

Really :rolleyes:..........so are you trying to say that only wood creeps and not steel structures? of trying to blow smoke to cover your obvious ignorance.

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

It is stupid for you to try to tap dance around your ignorance of structures.
Structural creep happens regardless of material.


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.
Click to expand...

The only ignorance of building structures is coming from your own posts. No amount of hand waving will change that fact.
 
Christopher7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Let's see.......who to believe.......onsite engineer or Monday morning quarterbacking carpenter boy.........tough choice..............:rolleyes:
 
Christopher7 said:
If you rule out arson because of personal incredulity then you are not a serious investigator.
Click to expand...
So you're arguing that fire could have caused the collapse, or fire couldn't have caused the collapse? If it's the former, are you arguing that the fires set by the debris of WTC 1 had burned out, and that new fires were set by someone, or that the WTC 1 debris-set fires caused the collapse?
 
000063 said:
So you're arguing that fire could have caused the collapse, or fire couldn't have caused the collapse? If it's the former, are you arguing that the fires set by the debris of WTC 1 had burned out, and that new fires were set by someone, or that the WTC 1 debris-set fires caused the collapse?
Click to expand...
Tough to type that without your head exploding isn't it. I was thinking the same thing.
 
NoahFence said:
For what it's worth, he's right about the arson. It was set by Mohamed Atta. Too bad he was vaporized before he could stand trial....
Click to expand...

But for the last ten years, the troofer argument has been that fire has NEVER caused the collapse of a high rise steel structure building.......that it HAD to be CD, that thermite /thermate was the ONLY possible cause........and NOW the cause of collapse is ARSON? :eye-poppi un-frikkin believable!!!!!
 
NoahFence said:
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc7/wtc7_debris.jpg

So then, all these images I'm posting, they're NOT WTC 7? Well then, what are they?
Click to expand...
The result of a CD.

Don't bother with your denial tactic of asking me how they did it. It is not necessary that we know. The result speaks for itself.

NIST admits that the debris damage had little [actually nothing] to do with the collapse initiation which occurred at the other end of the building.

They also have a photo showing that the fire they claim started the collapse had burned out over 1/2 hour earlier. Their hypothesis that the collapse was the result of "thermal expansion" is false. They made no mention of "thermal contraction" or "structural creep".
 
Christopher7 said:
The result of a CD.

Don't bother with your denial tactic of asking me how they did it. It is not necessary that we know. The result speaks for itself.

NIST admits that the debris damage had little [actually nothing] to do with the collapse initiation which occurred at the other end of the building.

They also have a photo showing that the fire they claim started the collapse had burned out over 1/2 hour earlier. Their hypothesis that the collapse was the result of "thermal expansion" is false. They made no mention of "thermal contraction" or "structural creep".
Click to expand...

How "they" did it is central to it being done. If you can't even come up with a plausible scenario how they got that stuff in there, what's the point? You can't will explosives into a building. You HAVE to physically put them there.

Stop talking about the debris damage as if that's the only thing NIST said. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE with 1/2 a clue would know that if the building is creaking and bulging, you don't go in. If you don't go in you don't fight the fire. If you don't fight the fire, maybe something will happen we've never seen before. And guess what?

debris2.jpg


Holy crap. It did.
 
DGM said:
Tough to type that without your head exploding isn't it. I was thinking the same thing.
Click to expand...
I write as a hobby. I can hold three mutually contradictory contradictory ideas in mind before breakfast. Being a debunker has given me a lot of practice.
 
Animal said:
But for the last ten years, the troofer argument has been that fire has NEVER caused the collapse of a high rise steel structure building.......that it HAD to be CD, that thermite /thermate was the ONLY possible cause........and NOW the cause of collapse is ARSON? :eye-poppi un-frikkin believable!!!!!
Click to expand...
You ability to get it wrong is virtually unlimited.

Because it is not known how those fires started 4 or 5 hours after the debris hit WTC 7, I said that arson must be considered. Nothing more.
 
Christopher7 said:
They also have a photo showing that the fire they claim started the collapse had burned out over 1/2 hour earlier. Their hypothesis that the collapse was the result of "thermal expansion" is false. They made no mention of "thermal contraction" or "structural creep".
Click to expand...

Chris, really. When NIST said "the effects of thermal expansion", the didn't assume contraction also? You do know these reports were for engineers?


:boggled:
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
The result of a CD.

Don't bother with your denial tactic of asking me how they did it. It is not necessary that we know. The result speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
Just like that statement, in fact.

"I don't know how it was a CD, but I know one when I see it."

Asking for you for evidence of a claim is not a "denier tactic". It's how one conducts a debate. If you cannot prove it, or at least prove it's more viable than the alternative, it's not a valid conclusion.

NIST admits that the debris damage had little [actually nothing] to do with the collapse initiation which occurred at the other end of the building.
Click to expand...
Good thing it's mostly blamed on the fire.

They also have a photo showing that the fire they claim started the collapse had burned out over 1/2 hour earlier. Their hypothesis that the collapse was the result of "thermal expansion" is false. They made no mention of "thermal contraction" or "structural creep".
Click to expand...
I get the odd feeling you're strawmanning again. I'm not sure how, exactly, but I know it when I see it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom