• 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:
It shouldn't have.

MM
Click to expand...

Ahhh, there's the rub. Shouldn't have, according to what?

Fire causes heat.

Steel expands under heat.

Steel expanding under heat will put stresses on constraining surfaces.

The constraining surfaces impacted by expanding metal will deform if there is no equal and opposite force to balance them.

Sufficient lateral forces on constraining columns will induce them to fail.

Failure of one column carrying a load transfers more load to other columns, falling loads from that column will also impact other columns, and a cascade of damage occurs.

All of this collapsing material goes somewhere... to the bottom of the building, where it has to go somewhere, knocking out the perimeter columns at their base.

The faces of the building, no longer supported, fall down.

Should have failed, then.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
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
Click to expand...

I think that disease is called "cranial-rectal inversion".
 
Clayton Moore said:
It shouldn't have, couldn't have "collapsed" without explosives.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I said is the only answer you can give.

Therefore MM trying to compare it to demolitions is worthless, because no matter how it could have collapsed you would still say it was a demolition.

Thanks for helping my point Clayton.
 
Still waiting MM... you accuse me of ignoring your demands for me to back up claims, so go on, demand away. Which part?

Edx said:
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 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?
Click to expand...
 
000063 said:
And thus, Clay demonstrates his complete inability to even acknowledge the possibility he is wrong.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. It isn't a view. It is reality supported by commonsense and further supported by the many other 9/11 once in a lifetime coincidences.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Absolutely. It isn't a view. It is reality supported by commonsense and further supported by the many other 9/11 once in a lifetime coincidences.
Click to expand...
Being able to admit that there are circumstances under which you might be wrong is what's called "falsifiability". If you don't know what would make you "wrong", then you're always "right". I know what could convince me a conspiracy had occured, and it requires several things that, to the best knowledge of the world, are physically impossible. If the OS requires unlikely but possible events, and the CT requires several impossible things, the OS is more plausible.

And, of course, by your own argument, the entire conspiracy was also unprecedented. No one has pulled off anything to this scale before or since. Which means that both the OS and the conspiracy are impossible.
 
We basically call the rantings of the uneducated who arrogantly believe they can make judgments without doing research, "cow manure." If Clayton had his way, every engineering disaster would be solved through eye balling, and the millions invested in seeing what went wrong are wasteful.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
We basically call the rantings of the uneducated who arrogantly believe they can make judgments without doing research, "cow manure." If Clayton had his way, every engineering disaster would be solved through eye balling, and the millions invested in seeing what went wrong are wasteful.
Click to expand...

Sorry, dealing with absurdity is certainly within my grasp.

You're saying damage to and subsequent failure of one support column completely scuttled a huge 47 story building.

That's absurd.


That along with the other coincidences makes me a genius in comparison to you debunkers.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Sorry, dealing with absurdity is certainly within my grasp.

You're saying damage to and subsequent failure of one support column completely scuttled a huge 47 story building.

That's absurd.


That along with the other coincidences makes me a genius in comparison to you debunkers.
Click to expand...


You entered the "9/11 debate" without bothering to have learned anything about the topics yet you nevertheless have an "opinion" and you as an arguer feel insulted that the opinion isn't being treated with respect. Your appeal to common sense is an opinion, and it's wrong. Science defies conventional wisdom every day, and this happens especially often when the arguer thinks he can garnish everything through common sense alone.

Design and engineering are technical fields, and in practice applying your specific logic is what leads to people practicing incompetently, in a field where mistakes can literally kill people when they can't follow safety protocol...
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
Sorry, dealing with absurdity is certainly within my grasp.

You're saying damage to and subsequent failure of one support column completely scuttled a huge 47 story building.

That's absurd.


That along with the other coincidences makes me a genius in comparison to you debunkers.
Click to expand...
Absurd, is what you call science as you understand NIST's work. You have no support from any engineers, you have delusions of what happen on 911 and you can't define or provide evidence.

You are a genius in your fantasy world of nonsense. You don't require debunking, you never provide evidence to discuss, you don't do math, you never do physics, and you will not be presenting differential equations to support your version of collapse. You will not do substantive work to support your speculation based on your paranoid view of the world.
 
Clayton Moore said:
You're saying damage to and subsequent failure of one support column completely scuttled a huge 47 story building.

That's absurd.
Click to expand...
So, maybe all the columns that a building needs are the four at the corners and the rest are just thrown in for ***** and giggles.
 
This thread provides me with constant amusement. The disconnect from reality, and facts, that some seem to suffer from keeps delivering some great entertainment. :)

Luckily, these people are a minority, and the odds of their delusions actually meaning anything remain around zero. :p
 
Clayton Moore said:
Sorry, dealing with absurdity is certainly within my grasp.

You're saying damage to and subsequent failure of one support column completely scuttled a huge 47 story building.

That's absurd.


That along with the other coincidences makes me a genius in comparison to you debunkers.
Click to expand...

The absurdity is your belief that one failure of a column in a building cannot cause total collapse of the structure
 
Drs_Res said:
Notice how Miragememories has avoided this thread since the video he posted as a comparison to WTC7 was shown to, in no way, resemble the collapse of WTC7.
Click to expand...

I can give people a break for being only one person... He's on a web forum where the overwhelming majority of posters are against his position and that inevitably leads to long pauses whether it's actual avoidance or not. It's somewhat of a lose-lose situation there, where he responds to a number of people but doesn't pgysically have to time to get to everything immediately... The real issue in my opinion is the quality of research which is abysmal. I made my point to Clayton, but it applies to the majority WTC Demolition proponents... you can't argue these topics strictly with common sense yet that's exactly what they attempt to do. No wall-o-text will work if the research behind it blows
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom