• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Miragememories said:
Alas I am but one individual and can only cover so many bases.

I have been quite busy in the Molten Steel thread.

In no way am I avoiding this thread, and I do not accept your opinion as fact, regarding my WTC7 collapse image-comparison.

Carry on.

MM
Click to expand...

Glad to see you are back.

Let's step though your comparison one step at a time, one post at a time.

1. Are you willing to admit that the "penthouse" in the CDI demolition is NOT a penthouse?
 
Edx said:
We all are well aware that the only reason you claim that WTC7 looks like a demolition is because WTC7 collapsed downwards.

I can literally find a kind of demolition for every circumstance, where no matter how the building could have collapsed you could compare it to a demolition in the same way. If you say it should fall over like a tree if it wasnt a demolition there's a demolition where that happened too. There's no way you can lose with your simplistic way of looking at everything, but when you can always win with your logic no matter what facts are shown you also have no way to prove you are right either. For example: how should have WTC7 collapsed if it wasnt a demolition? Your only possible answer that isnt immediately ilogically invalid because of this fact is "It is impossible for WTC7 without demolition" and "there is NO WAY it could have collapsed that would not require a demolition". There is no point comparing it to demolition videos if there is no way it could have collapsed that cant be compared in the same simplistic way you are doing to a real demolition.
Click to expand...

Yawn.

I have lost track of all the times you've made claims but have disappeared when asked to support them.

Carry on.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Yawn.

I have lost track of all the times you've made claims but have disappeared when asked to support them.

Carry on.

MM
Click to expand...

O Rly? Then I demand you pick a point and ask me a question then. It seems I keep having to say the same things over and over and you ignore me, then you say the same thing again as if i never said anything.

Now, there are demolitons where the building has fallen over "like a tree". There are failed demolitions where entire building has tipped over intact (truthers like to show this for some reason).

SO THEN IF you're claiming that WTC7 should not have fallen the way it did, THEN HOW SHOULD IT HAVE FALLEN?

Various truthers have said it should have fallen over like a tree/to the side, except if we're using their logic that doesnt work either if we can find a demolition where that also happens. If you want to use your superficial logic, then bring it on!

I have also said that people and experts in what melts in a fire have reported of molten steel in fires and that this is pretty common, do you disagree with that too? I have provided plenty of quotes and links to so many examples I cant even quote them all here. So far truthers have ignored absolutely all of it.

I have also said that people hearing explosions is common and expected in fires and that people use the word explosion and even phrases like "sounding like bombs" to refer to things they already knew weren't bombs before they said it.

Exactly which point would you like to discuss?
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
We all are well aware that the only reason you claim that WTC7 looks like a demolition is because WTC7 collapsed downwards.

I can literally find a kind of demolition for every circumstance, where no matter how the building could have collapsed you could compare it to a demolition in the same way. If you say it should fall over like a tree if it wasnt a demolition there's a demolition where that happened too. There's no way you can lose with your simplistic way of looking at everything, but when you can always win with your logic no matter what facts are shown you also have no way to prove you are right either. For example: how should have WTC7 collapsed if it wasnt a demolition? Your only possible answer that isnt immediately ilogically invalid because of this fact is "It is impossible for WTC7 without demolition" and "there is NO WAY it could have collapsed that would not require a demolition". There is no point comparing it to demolition videos if there is no way it could have collapsed that cant be compared in the same simplistic way you are doing to a real demolition.
Click to expand...

Nope. That's not even close. The reason most people believe it was some type of controlled demolition is the suddenness of the onset, essentially without warning, the swiftness of the fall, the evenness of the descent, the lack of resistance by the undamaged areas of the building, and the completeness of the destruction of the building.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Nope. That's not even close. The reason most people believe it was some type of controlled demolition is the suddenness of the onset, essentially without warning...........
Click to expand...

Conveniently forgetting that the fire fighters had withdrawn several hours previously, largely convinced it was going to collapse.............
 
slowsmile said:
Conveniently forgetting that the fire fighters had withdrawn several hours previously, largely convinced it was going to collapse.............
Click to expand...

It's likely that after the towers they would have believed anything Larry and his accomplices told them.
 
Edx said:
I have also said that people hearing explosions is common and expected in fires and that people use the word explosion and even phrases like "sounding like bombs" to refer to things they already knew weren't bombs before they said it.
Click to expand...

"I was in a car accident once. Another car hit me and my windshield exploded..."

CONSPIRACY!
 
Clayton Moore said:
Nope. That's not even close. The reason most people believe it was some type of controlled demolition is the suddenness of the onset, essentially without warning, the swiftness of the fall, the evenness of the descent, the lack of resistance by the undamaged areas of the building, and the completeness of the destruction of the building.
Click to expand...

...essentially without warning.

:jaw-dropp

Aside from the "foreknowledge" you mean?

I've never seen a group so hell bent on contradicting themselves.
 
Clayton Moore said:
most people believe it was some type of controlled demolition
Click to expand...
Nope
Clayton Moore said:
suddenness of the onset
Click to expand...
After several hours of fire and the collapse of the penthouse several seconds before the exterior
Clayton Moore said:
essentially without warning
Click to expand...
The firefighters and officials believed WTC7 was in danger and pulled their resources
Clayton Moore said:
the swiftness of the fall
Click to expand...
As opposed to what?
Clayton Moore said:
the evenness of the descent
Click to expand...
Take another look at those acceleration graphs
Clayton Moore said:
the lack of resistance by the undamaged areas of the building
Click to expand...
What lack of resistance?
Clayton Moore said:
the completeness of the destruction of the building.
Click to expand...
As opposed to the complete destruction of the building in a fire induced collapse?:confused:
 
Clayton Moore said:
Nope. That's not even close. The reason most people believe it was some type of controlled demolition is the suddenness of the onset, essentially without warning, the swiftness of the fall, the evenness of the descent, the lack of resistance by the undamaged areas of the building, and the completeness of the destruction of the building.
Click to expand...

I asked ...

QUESTION: how should have WTC7 collapsed if it wasnt a demolition?
 
Miragememories said:
But it didn't.
Click to expand...

Really? You mean to tell me that the time between 12noon and 5:20pm, is NOT in fact 3 days? No ******* **** Sherlock.

Do you know what a hypothetical is?

Miragememories said:
What if fire-breathing dragons were real?
Click to expand...

I'd prolly' have to try to train one as a pet. That pesky neighbors dog would be cripsy crittered.

Miragememories said:
But they aren't.

MM
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? Damn. Got my hopes up and everything.

Why don't you just answer the ******* question, instead of being a typical truther for once. Just once. Answer a ******* question. FFS. It's like I am trying to get my son to build a goddamn sculpture......
 
triforcharity said:
Never? What if it burned for 3 days straight?
Click to expand...

The idea of the conspiracy theory is that you can take a cursory look at the building and conclude that because it hadn't happened before in history, before or after, and that it happened three times in one day, it had to be something more commonly video taped or witnessed in the form of demolitions carried out on a routine basis.

And somehow that's construed as science... somehow...

And then when some random guy with the title of "architects/engineer" agrees with it, then there must be more to it on that basis alone... somehow
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom