• 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.

WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44

Status
Not open for further replies.
DGM said:
Got it. Damn over-night work. ...
Click to expand...
thumbup.gif
 
Oystein said:
1. Is there now any alternative theory in existence for which such supporting physical evidence exists? Yes or no?
Click to expand...
There are equally justifiable hypotheses, but without access to any physical evidence, if such exists anymore, no hypothesis can be elevated to a theory.

2. Suppose the TM is being granted its new, independent investigation, with unlimited funds, subpoena power, unlimited access to everything in the world, and, if needed, the right to search any person or property, and the right to torture whomever you need to talk. Project runs as long as needed, you can put every expert to it that you want, from all over the world. Will this new investigation ever be able to produce the kind of physical evidence that you are thinking of now supporting whatever theory emerges? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

False choice fallacy. That's impossible for me to know. With unlimited resources it may or may not be possible to obtain some physical evidence exists which can corroborate an explanation.

You work this angle pretty often. I suppose you think you have some sort of debunker kryptonite which renders your pet theory more viable.
 
@RedI
.... were you refering to the NIST hypothesis, or some opposing one?

Also, did you ever answer the question about what specific samples from #7 you would require in your demand for physical evidence,
AND
how you would propose positive identification of them?
 
You work this angle pretty often. I suppose you think you have some sort of debunker kryptonite which renders your pet theory more viable.
Click to expand...

Our "pet theory" doesn't require physically impossible things, like explosives that can survive an airline impact @ 500mph, a massive explosion and a huge fire for an hour.

Or 7, depending on building.

THAT is the kryponite. Without the explosives surviving, Controlled Demo is out of the question.
 
NoahFence said:
Our "pet theory" doesn't require physically impossible things, like explosives that can survive an airline impact @ 500mph, a massive explosion and a huge fire for an hour.

Or 7, depending on building.

THAT is the kryponite. Without the explosives surviving, Controlled Demo is out of the question.
Click to expand...
I don't really believe that designing a way to allow the explosives to survive the explosions and fires would be all that difficult.

The real problem is controlling the blast wave and sound pressures when the charges were detonated. This is their "kryponite".
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
Correct. The point here is: The NIST report does not adequately consider the sagging and this is yet another reason why their walk-off theory fails to explain the collapse of WTC 7.
Click to expand...

So, you, a carpenter by trade, are going to have the gall to tell the engineers of NIST, FEMA, ASCE, and DOZENS of other highly respected, well qualified, highly educated people, they're wrong?

Are you ******* kidding me? Your arrogance is astounding.

Do you tell doctors how to do their diagnosis too?

Do you tell electricians how to wire a house?

Are you ******* serious?

Holy ****. You just might.
 
DGM said:
Sorry, This makes no sense.

We ask for proof and reason. Wouldn't saying this be no different then what they do?
Click to expand...

The proof is clear, though. I mean, explosives surviving the impact, fire ball and fire?

I don't need to see a sparrow fail to kill a falcon to know its impossible, do I? I'm not talking about explosives being impervious to simple fire, I'm talking about THAT fire. On 9/11.

Coupled with the impossibility of getting them in place.

Nothing would survive that. Not even a massive building
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
I don't really believe that designing a way to allow the explosives to survive the explosions and fires would be all that difficult.

The real problem is controlling the blast wave and sound pressures when the charges were detonated. This is their "kryponite".
Click to expand...

The core would certainly be the key to your design theory. Regardless, we would know it. tfk also describes it perfectly.

Yet much easier to make a grand show by just flying an aircraft laden with fuel, let the fires do their thing and gravity to complete. The terrorist where smart, but I doubt that even they expected what happened.
 
NoahFence said:
The proof is clear, though. I mean, explosives surviving the impact, fire ball and fire?
Click to expand...

How so? Have you ever seen videos or read about "reactive armor"?
NoahFence said:
I don't need to see a sparrow fail to kill a falcon to know its impossible, do I?
Click to expand...
I'm not a big fan of the concept of "impossibility".
NoahFence said:
I'm not talking about explosives being impervious to simple fire, I'm talking about THAT fire. On 9/11.

Coupled with the impossibility of getting them in place.
Click to expand...
I never said it made sense to me. I just claimed it would not be impossible. The "not being noticed" is a hell of a stretch, but not "impossible".
NoahFence said:
Nothing would survive that. Not even a massive building
Click to expand...

That's one hell of a broad stroke you're painting.

I still say the explosives going off is the "kryponite".
 
Jackanory said:
The core would certainly be the key to your design theory. Regardless, we would know it. tfk also describes it perfectly.
Click to expand...

If I was masterminding this attack I would most-certainly use the planes the way they were. I'm just saying claiming it could not be done because the explosives could not survive the crashes and fire is wrong. I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to design a system to survive this and still be functional.

Do I think it would be noticeable? Hell yeah. You don't park a refrigerator size device in an office building and not have it noticed.

Impossible? No way.

Bottom line. When the charges go off, all of lower Manhattan will know the plan.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, I just don't get this "no physical evidence" spiel. Isn't fire physical evidence? If not, isn't it the most prominent observable that one would use in a hypothesis regarding the collapse of 7, since it was not fought for many hours? I'm not scientifically proficient, but I still remember what the scientific method entails.

Also, has there not been scientific studies that our generally accepted by the scientific community that didn't have physical evidence, for example the Challenger investigation?
 
RedIbis said:
There are equally justifiable hypotheses, but without access to any physical evidence, if such exists anymore, no hypothesis can be elevated to a theory.



False choice fallacy. That's impossible for me to know. With unlimited resources it may or may not be possible to obtain some physical evidence exists which can corroborate an explanation.

You work this angle pretty often. I suppose you think you have some sort of debunker kryptonite which renders your pet theory more viable.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll have to ask more bluntly:

Has the physical evidence - the steel of WTC7 - been destroyed or preserved?
 
TexasJack said:
I'm sorry, I just don't get this "no physical evidence" spiel. Isn't fire physical evidence? If not, isn't it the most prominent observable that one would use in a hypothesis regarding the collapse of 7, since it was not fought for many hours? I'm not scientifically proficient, but I still remember what the scientific method entails.

Also, has there not been scientific studies that our generally accepted by the scientific community that didn't have physical evidence, for example the Challenger investigation?
Click to expand...

I tried to make that point earlier to RedIbis, and all I got in response was him saying that NIST claimed it used no physical evidence, even though it had a collapsed building and visual evidence and firefighter testimony. And no physical evidence has been found of explosives, so his burden of proof is not met in any way if he claims CD.
 
DGM said:
If I was masterminding this attack I would most-certainly use the planes the way they were. I'm just saying claiming it could not be done because the explosives could not survive the crashes and fire is wrong. I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to design a system to survive this and still be functional.

Do I think it would be noticeable? Hell yeah. You don't park a refrigerator size device in an office building and not have it noticed.

Impossible? No way.

Bottom line. When the charges go off, all of lower Manhattan will know the plan.
Click to expand...

In the context of the truthers stating that these where CD's etc, then I would have no qualms in using the word 'impossible'. Impossible for many reasons but to even discuss them without the basic evidence of explosives being detonated in situ is a pointless exercise. Not enough bang for their talk.

The processes, systems and basic material requirements for such a demolition of WTC7 could not withstand such fires and structural damage. Unless such a precise senario was factored in of course:rolleyes:

A basic dems set up has at least 4 points of contact. Continuity issues, timing and ultimately a lack of audible evidence are enough for me. I'm out.
 
Jackanory said:
A basic dems set up has at least 4 points of contact. Continuity issues, timing and ultimately a lack of audible evidence are enough for me. I'm out.
Click to expand...

They lost me at motive. CD was a non-starter. I have not to this day seen a "truther" explain why anyone would add the risk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom