Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Christopher7]

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.

Retreat to denierville.

"I can't figure out how they did it, therefore, it did not happen."

ANYONE with 1/2 a clue would know that if the building is creaking and bulging, you don't go in.

Yes, anyone with 1/2 a clue would think that. However, someone with a whole clue would know that the building was not in danger of collapsing from the debris damage.

 

[000063]

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.

And when I considered it, the only suspects were the FDNY.

Unless, of course, someone set the arson devices in place before they knew the debris fires the WTC 1 debris would burn out, or snuck into 7 to plant the tons worth of devices while it was surrounded by the FDNY, the NYPD, and lots of people and cameras.

 

[000063]

Retreat to denierville.

"I can't figure out how they did it, therefore, it did not happen."

"I can't figure out how they did it, yet I'm sure it did happen."

I'm not straw manning. That is, in fact, your argument.

Yes, anyone with 1/2 a clue would think that. However, someone with a whole clue would know that the building was not in danger of collapsing from the debris damage.

Stop strawmanning. NIST said the fire was mostly responsible. The assessment by the engineer was made after the fire had burned for a while.

 

[dafydd]

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

Not for carpenters. Cobbler,stick to thy last.

 

[DGM]

Not for carpenters. Cobbler,stick to thy last.

I'm a carpenter.

 

[Christopher7]

"I can't figure out how they did it, yet I'm sure it did happen."

Most people recognize that WTC 7 imploded in the classic manner of a CD. Only fanatic government loyalists deny it was a CD.

There is indisputable evidence that the fire that supposedly started the collapse had burned out over an hour earlier.

There is indisputable proof that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration.




This is a subject shift to bury the FACT that NIST lied when they said there was no water to fight the fires in WTC 7.

 

[DGM]

Most people recognize that WTC 7 imploded in the classic manner of a CD. Only fanatic government loyalists deny it was a CD.

There is indisputable evidence that the fire that supposedly started the collapse had burned out over an hour earlier.

There is indisputable proof that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration.




This is a subject shift to bury the FACT that NIST lied when they said there was no water to fight the fires in WTC 7.

If NIST lied about the water, how does this effect the fire "burning out" a hour before the collapse.

Chris, you're off the rails.

 

[leftysergeant]

If you rule out arson because of personal incredulity then you are not a serious investigator.

I am trained in arson investigations. I see no sign of arson in WTC 7. It is quite normal for buildings filled with paper the catch fire when there is burning paper wafting about and blowing in through open doors and windows, and there stands WTC 7 with a big chunk of outter wall missing. DUH!

Fires don't stay in one place, dude.

Leave the arson questions to those who have some clue what they are talking about.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris, really. When NIST said "the effects of thermal expansion", the didn't assume contraction also?

One denier after another makes the same argument or asks the same question in a different way.

NIST was crystal clear about what their theory is.

Thermal EXPANSION pushed a girder off its seat and that started the collapse that led to the total collapse of WTC 7.

Their theory does NOT involve thermal contraction or structural creep. That is just a lot of denier babble.

 

[000063]

Most people recognize that WTC 7 imploded in the classic manner of a CD.

No, no, the majority haven't even heard of it.

Only fanatic government loyalists deny it was a CD.

Including the people, like myself, who are not American and do not live in America?

There is indisputable evidence that the fire that supposedly started the collapse had burned out over an hour earlier.

There is indisputable proof that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration.

Straw man. The NIST report said that part of the building fell at FFA speeds for part of it's fall, as best as they could tell.

This is a subject shift to bury the FACT that NIST lied when they said there was no water to fight the fires in WTC 7.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! What happened to there being "enough" water? Finally caught on that you can't make that claim without people asking you to back it up? Why the change from "enough water" to "no water"? And why do you consistently ignore the question of why the FDNY wouldn't fight fires they had enough water for?

It's a rhetorical question; because every sensible answer demolishes any conspiracy theory.

 

[DGM]

One denier after another makes the same argument or asks the same question in a different way.

NIST was crystal clear about what their theory is.

Thermal EXPANSION pushed a girder off its seat and that started the collapse that led to the total collapse of WTC 7.

Their theory does NOT involve thermal contraction or structural creep. That is just a lot of denier babble.

Would you mind quoting the whole statement where they said that? I know you have it (I'm sitting by the pool and it's not on my laptop).

Thanks

 

[000063]

I find it odd that Chris7's posts have had a sharp downturn in answering actual questions*, and a sharp upturn in talking about "denier tactics" in lieu of actual facts.

*I mean, compared to his baseline amount of dodging.

 

[leftysergeant]

Most people recognize that WTC 7 imploded in the classic manner of a CD. Only fanatic government loyalists deny it was a CD.

Only people who have no clue how those things work think that. Peoplke with real brains know that CD is FREAKING LOUD. You need to show me a hush-a-boom before I can even speculate that it was CD.

There is indisputable evidence that the fire that supposedly started the collapse had burned out over an hour earlier.

Then why hasn't anybody shown it?

There is indisputable proof that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration.

Only for a couple seconds long after collapse started. Only an idiot would think that the later phase of CD would go faster as the energy from the initial free-fall drop was exhausted.

This is a subject shift to bury the FACT that NIST lied when they said there was no water to fight the fires in WTC 7.

Get your hands away from your eyes and read wehat thoseof us with some fire fighting experience, some of it in leadership positions, have been trying to tell you.

There was not enough water until 1300, at which time the decision had been made to abandon the building. What water had been there earlier was allocated to buildings where they needed to fight the fires.

You are not a fire fighter, so you can be forgiven for not knowing at the start how water gets delivered to te fire, but refusing to learn indicates that you have problems which most of us cannot treat, so we just have to make sure that no causal visitor here comes in and sees your garbage sitting there unchallenged.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Christopher7 is simply throwing a deck of imagined anomalies on the floor and watching as everyone else scrambles to clean up the mess. There is no greater purpose to his participation on this forum.

 

[George 152]

It's official. You're no carpenter, and if you are, you're BAD at it.

Oh he could well be a carpenter...In dreams one may be whatever they want to be..
He certainly has very little knowledge of materials

 

[000063]

Reminds me of a particularly persistent moon hoax believer on ATS, who was No. 20 in last month's stundies. At various times, he has claimed.

1. There is no real (not faked) evidence for the moon landings.
2. His side doesn't actually need to prove the landings faked.
3. The landings can't be proven either way.
4. "The anomalies" prove the landings were faked.
5. The landings were faked.

I have seen him switch from 3. to 5. within, IIRC, six pages.

Chris7 is doing something similar; he's assuming a CD, grasping onto anything that supports his position, ignoring anything that does not, and claiming the support of uncountable hordes of people, few of whom happen to be on this forum, which means that his beliefs are actually a majority. Only difference is bigger words.

 

[Christopher7]

I am trained in arson investigations. I see no sign of arson in WTC 7.

Those two statement are mutually exclusive.

It is quite normal for buildings filled with paper the catch fire when there is burning paper wafting about and blowing in through open doors and windows, and there stands WTC 7 with a big chunk of outter wall missing. DUH!

That is a possibility but it does not rule out arson.

Leave the arson questions to those who have some clue what they are talking about.

It could have been arson and your refusal to accept that is proof that your claim of expertise is meaningless. You are in denial.

 

[000063]

Those two statement are mutually exclusive.

There were no burning papers flying around once the dust from the collapse settled and the breeze was blowing things away from WTC 7.

Well, it's not like WTC 7, an office building, could possibly have paper in it, could it?

That was sarcasm. There was plenty of paper in the building.

You are grasping at straws and denying that it could have been arson.

He's denying that it was arson.

It could have been arson and your refusal to accept that is proof that your claim of expertise is meaningless. You are in denial.

Here's the thing, Topher; if it could have been arson, then that automatically admits the possibility that it wasn't arson. If there's a "possibility" something is, there is also a "possibility" something isn't.

This "won't even admit the possibility of X" doublespeak is really sophist, Topher. All lefty is doing is collapsing the waveform, so to speak, and telling you that arson is an impossibility, which, ironically, you flail around and deny.

 

[NoahFence]

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.

They didn't start 4 or 5 hours after the debris impacted. They started WHEN the debris impacted, then they....


wait for it.....

got bigger.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Fire and explosives are mutually exclusive. So which one is it C7?