Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7

[Dave Rogers]

And yes, that's not physical evidence. At best (and I'm not even sure your example would qualify) what you describe is demonstrative evidence, not physical evidence.

It is backed by physical evidence, and so an explanation derived from it is backed by physical evidence. And so, in the same sense, the NIST hypothesis for the collapse of WTC7 is backed by physical evidence, in the form of measurements of the thermal properties of steel. And this fact, so self-evident as to be obvious to anyone with a scientific or engineering background, and not even considered worth mentioning by NIST because nobody with any relevant knowledge or understanding could possibly be unaware of it, is quite specifically the one you're trying to deny.

RedIbis, your entire position is based on equivocation between "physical evidence" and "physical evidence collected from WTC7". This is clear from the fact that, when asked to choose which of the two you're referring to, you keep changing your mind; you can't get your story straight because you haven't decided what it is.

Dave

 

[leftysergeant]

Think of it this way. The only way the three huge buildings could fail as they did is without explosives. ROTFLMAO

Odd that you worded it this way, but, for a change, you have actually posted a true statement.

Or did you intend a at that point?

But, yes, they could only have fallen in the way they did without explosives.

No ear-splitting noise a mile away, no smal;l objects being drived beyond the debris plume, no barotrauma.

Dude, you lose.

 

[NoahFence]

Straight out of the Grimm's Book of Fairy Tales, like most of what you have to say.

Lets try a more honest description.

WTC1 suffers a fountain-like collapse, and drops a few inconsequential pieces on WTC7, a building roughly half its size.

The technically unexpected collapse of the Twin Towers cost the lives of hundreds of the firefighter's comrades, but they remain on the job, but in a state of bewilderment and shock.

The fear spreads that the collapse of any burning WTC building is now possible, and that WTC7 could very well suffer the same fate.

Their supervisors strongly encourage this fear.

Several floors in WTC7 developed fires which are unfought and migrate for roughly 7 hours.

At 5:20 p.m. a successful controlled demolition of WTC7 occurs.

At 5:21 p.m. the Official Story stooges at JREF begin sharpening their pencils.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"Several floors in WTC7 developed fires which are unfought and migrate for roughly 7 hours.

At 5:20 p.m. a successful controlled demolition of WTC7 occurs."

"In a previous discussion of the alleged CD of WTC7 you claimed that the building was supposed to have fallen during the collapse of WTC1, but that the CD failed for some reason and the actual course of events was 'plan B'."

WRONG.

I made no such claim.

It was merely speculation on my part.

The massive dust clouds from the WTC Twin Tower collapses would have assured the demolition architects that a CD of WTC7 would be well screened.

Given its fantastic size, engineered rate of collapse, and proximity to WTC7, it would not be a hard sell to expect the public to believe WTC7 collapsed under WTC1.

As it turned out, they had nothing to worry about.

With Bush calling anyone questioning his version of 9/11 unpatriotic, and the liberal press too afraid to scrutinize 9/11, the public was left believing everything that was spun, they were told.

MM

 

[twinstead]

It was merely speculation on my part.

MM, EVERYTHING you post is merely speculation on your part.

 

[NoahFence]

With Bush calling anyone questioning his version of 9/11 unpatriotic

citation required.

 

[beachnut]

... With Bush calling anyone questioning his version of 9/11 unpatriotic, and the liberal press too afraid to scrutinize 9/11, the public was left believing everything that was spun, they were told.

MM

Bush is not president anymore, so his big inside job was only in your big imagination where you prefer nonsense over reality. Only you and a few fringe nuts in Gage's failed group believe this nonsense, and them make up an alternate reality based on biased political claptrap.

1600 nuts can't figure out 911 so they made a video of woo, which has the old melted steel nonsense, thermite, and other delusions failed people cling to.

A 14:56 video stundie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nWRVqPYs-E

Gage has to keep WTC 7 fraud going, it is his $+300k business. Gage depends on the ignorance of his cult members so he can cry for new investigations since his followers are too challenged to find the hundreds of completed studies and investigations. Gage survives today due to the ignorance of those who donate and sign up for his delusions.


New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7
What a great title for nuts who spread lies and sign up for fraud.

Gage can't solve WTC7 with the "massive" help of 1600+ failures, all those experts, no papers, no action, nothing after 10 years, nothing for eternity. The title to the thread is perfect for 911 truth tradition of failure, where the truth is a lie, and evidence is from the empty set.

 

[Miragememories]

"With Bush calling anyone questioning his version of 9/11 unpatriotic, and the liberal press too afraid to scrutinize 9/11, the public was left believing everything that was spun, they were told."

citation required.

"You are either with us, or with the terrorists."

MM

 

[GlennB]

WRONG.

I made no such claim.

It was merely speculation on my part.

Well, you did you use the word "probably" back then, but no matter.

Point is - dropping WTC7 just after WTC1 fell is a non-starter of a plan. There was no damage WTC1 could possibly do - at that range - that would bring down WTC7 there and then. #7's inexplicable fall would attract a world of attention and every engineer (or even reasonably educated person) in the world would be demanding an answer. And of course the whole business would be on countless cameras.

Meanwhile, with no guarantee of debris strike and fires, a planned CD for later also has fatal flaws. There might well be no fires and no reason for the building to fall, leaving WTC7 intact, rigged for CD, and open to the world with <whatever was in there that required CD to destroy> still in there in one piece.

Planning a CD of WTC7 could never have made sense because it could always have turned out that there would be no opportunity to implement that plan.

No, if there was stuff in WTC7 that really had to be disposed of then there were much simpler, safer and less potentially incriminating ways to achieve it.

 

[Miragememories]

"WRONG.

I made no such claim.

It was merely speculation on my part.

"Point is - dropping WTC7 just after WTC1 fell is a non-starter of a plan. There was no damage WTC1 could possibly do - at that range - that would bring down WTC7 there and then. #7's inexplicable fall would attract a world of attention and every engineer (or even reasonably educated person) in the world would be demanding an answer. And of course the whole business would be on countless cameras.

Meanwhile, with no guarantee of debris strike and fires, a planned CD for later also has fatal flaws. There might well be no fires and no reason for the building to fall, leaving WTC7 intact, rigged for CD, and open to the world with <whatever was in there that required CD to destroy> still in there in one piece.

Planning a CD of WTC7 could never have made sense because it could always have turned out that there would be no opportunity to implement that plan."

Horse pucky.

With the shock 'n awe from 9/11 creating such a major dumbing down of general public, lay persons and professionals alike, WTC7 collapsing under WTC1 would have been an easier sell than the NIST hypothesizing 7 years later that office furnishings fires caused it.

Most of the time you Official Story apologists are screaming about all the major damage WTC1 supposedly inflicted on WTC7, and how amazing it was that it hadn't collapsed much sooner.

Obviously you'll believe whatever lie suits your purpose Glenn. I'm not going to waste my time trying to reason with your fantasies.

MM

 

[GlennB]

Horse pucky.

With the shock 'n awe from 9/11 creating such a major dumbing down of general public, lay persons and professionals alike, WTC7 collapsing under WTC1 would have been an easier sell than the NIST hypothesizing 7 years later that office furnishings fires caused it.

Most of the time you Official Story apologists are screaming about all the major damage WTC1 supposedly inflicted on WTC7, and how amazing it was that it hadn't collapsed much sooner.

Obviously you'll believe whatever lie suits your purpose Glenn. I'm not going to waste my time trying to reason with your fantasies.

MM

What damage could the collapse of WTC1 have caused to WTC7 that might bring about #7's immediate collapse?

 

[leftysergeant]

Horse pucky.

With the shock 'n awe from 9/11 creating such a major dumbing down of general public, lay persons and professionals alike, WTC7 collapsing under WTC1 would have been an easier sell than the NIST hypothesizing 7 years later that office furnishings fires caused it.

For crying out loud! Role-play this thing in your head. You are planning the events of 9/11 to maximize the shock. You want to make sure that nobody has time or inclination to draw up whacky theories as to what happened.

Why do you wait so long between collapses? It would make sense even to someone as dim as little Dickie that the seismic effect and flying debris from the first collapse would speed up the second and that the debris from the second would do serious damage to WTC 7. A cascading effect would even have made sense to an idiot like Killtown. It would also have aggravated the body count.

You keep emphasizing stuff that makes your theories look moronic.

Most of the time you Official Story apologists are screaming about all the major damage WTC1 supposedly inflicted on WTC7, and how amazing it was that it hadn't collapsed much sooner.

No.

 

[Clayton Moore]

What damage could the collapse of WTC1 have caused to WTC7 that might bring about #7's immediate collapse?

It's the timing that would have fomented the perception that WTC1 fell on WTC7 and caused its destruction.

 

[Clayton Moore]

It's the timing that would have fomented the perception that WTC1 fell on WTC7 and caused its destruction.

It's mind blowing what the media has convinced the public of, in print and by omission, concerning 9/11.

 

[beachnut]

It's the timing that would have fomented the perception that WTC1 fell on WTC7 and caused its destruction.

It's mind blowing what the media has convinced the public of, in print and by omission, concerning 9/11.

911 truth followers armed with no evidence, falling for claptrap videos based on delusions plagiarized from 911 truth nuts by Gage, so Gage can ask for more donations.

911, too complex for a fringe few who prefer to make up lies, or believe lies, called 911 truth. 19 murderers taking four planes and crashing them is to complex for 911 truth to grasp. They make up themite did it, they make up remote control planes, they fall for lies about WTC 7 and fail to comprehend fire destroys the strength of steel.

We have Gage's 1600 dupes who fail to do anything but sign up for the fraud of Gage. Action packed signers of woo, failures to take action on what 911 truth followers think is reality, but only delusions in their minds, failure to take action to understand they are wrong, failed, unable to take one point made in the idiotic video and make it real.

911 truth followers are left replying to their own posts filled with nonsense, void of evidence. 11 September 2001, 19 terrorists killed people, 911 truth can't figure out 911 and this thread presents an idiot video exposing how much ignorance is found in the claims of Gage's failed members on 911 issues.

10 years later, not a single 911 truth follower, leader, expert, or cheerleader presents evidence to prove their points, they have to blame their ignorance on 911 issues on the media, instead of themselves. A failed movement, which offers typing practice to those who know 911 truth is filled with lies.

A video based on nonsense, which a few people who lack knowledge will believe because they are too lazy to look up the facts, and use logic to see Gage is a fraud.


Why can't 911 truth prove the points made in this video? That is correct, the video is fantasy, delusions to fool those too lazy to think for themselves. 911 truth is stuck with fantasy

 

[twinstead]

It's mind blowing what the media has convinced the public of, in print and by omission, concerning 9/11.

It's even more mind blowing when you realize that they've managed to fool just so many experts from around the world, and the insurance companies too.

brilliant

 

[Oystein]

Now that 10 years have gone by, and you have solved, maybe with the help of AE911T on the youtubez, the mystery of Building 7, maybe you are now prepared to add something to my Roll Call: What do you think happened on 9/11, and why? and "state as consisely as possible your working hypothesis of what happened on 9/11, who did it, how they did it, and why they did it. You may indicate which parts of your hypothesis you consider hard fact, and which you only guess or are unsure about."

This post was addressed at Miragememories. In the meantime, Miragememories HAS posted in Roll Call: What do you think happened on 9/11, and why?, but has not offered one bit of what he believes happened on 9/11 - not to the twin towers, not to WTC7.

I conclude that Miragememories has no clue what happened and disagrees with AE911T's implied claim that the "mystery of building 7" has been solved by these architects and engineers.

Miragememories, is that assessment correct?

 

[sylvan8798]

It's mind blowing what the media has convinced the public of, in print and by omission, concerning 9/11.

It's mind blowing how little the "truth movement" has achieved in 10 years time. Can we look forward to anything of import in the NEXT 10 years? I ain't got all day, if ya know what I mean....

 

[GlennB]

It's the timing that would have fomented the perception that WTC1 fell on WTC7 and caused its destruction.

But it would be totally clear from scores of videos that WTC1 had not fallen on WTC7. Just as happened in reality, where WTC7 was damaged but well short of "destruction".

This was always going to be the case and the supposed perps were always going to have to deal with that fact. Finding WTC7 on the deck after the dust wave had settled would be a terminal fault with this "plan".

Given that a plausible mainstream theory for collapse (some debris damage plus unfought fires) led to major investigations, do you seriously suppose that merely saying "Ah well, WTC1 knocked it down. These things happen" was going to suffice? Of course not. So, what would the non-fire investigation look into? Seismic waves?

Meanwhile the "damage+unfought fires" approach to explaining away the CD still requires WTC7 to be hit and fires to be started. These were not givens, far from it. In fact one extreme sequence in the WTC1 collapse sent one large piece of debris carving a gouge in the front of #7.

Do you get it? Whatever was in that building that so badly needed destroying could have been lost by much less risky methods. A corrupted mainframe disk with no backup. A localised fire, ready to be fought. Paper records shifted to a storage facility which then burns down. Anything but the CD of a $1B skyscraper.

 

[Clayton Moore]

But it would be totally clear from scores of videos that WTC1 had not fallen on WTC7. Just as happened in reality, where WTC7 was damaged but well short of "destruction".

This was always going to be the case and the supposed perps were always going to have to deal with that fact. Finding WTC7 on the deck after the dust wave had settled would be a terminal fault with this "plan".

Given that a plausible mainstream theory for collapse (some debris damage plus unfought fires) led to major investigations, do you seriously suppose that merely saying "Ah well, WTC1 knocked it down. These things happen" was going to suffice? Of course not. So, what would the non-fire investigation look into? Seismic waves?

Meanwhile the "damage+unfought fires" approach to explaining away the CD still requires WTC7 to be hit and fires to be started. These were not givens, far from it. In fact one extreme sequence in the WTC1 collapse sent one large piece of debris carving a gouge in the front of #7.

Do you get it? Whatever was in that building that so badly needed destroying could have been lost by much less risky methods. A corrupted mainframe disk with no backup. A localised fire, ready to be fought. Paper records shifted to a storage facility which then burns down. Anything but the CD of a $1B skyscraper.

Are you joshing Glenn? The media has been showing the controlled demolitions of the three WTC buildings for over decade and telling people the three were "gravity collapses." People will believe whatever asinine idiocy they are presented with.