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

[NoahFence]

Incredulity is not an argument.

MM

MM - wishing something to be so doesn't make it happen. Actual, physical people need to put actual, physical explosives and their components in these buildings. They have to do it while tens of thousands of actual, real people are in these buildings. It. Is. Impossible.

 

[twinstead]

Incredulity is not an argument.

MM

I find this extremely ironic coming from you, mm; the 'truth' movement is one huge argument from incredulity.

 

[ergo]

Anyone that believes any sort of explosives and or other demolition type devices could have been installed in a building occupied 24/7 in lower Manhattan, without having a least one person come forward out of the 10's of thousands that would have had to be involved, is either 1) willfully ignorant, 2)terminally stupid, or 3)both

What are you talking about? Where do you get "10s of thousands" of people? A small crew and a few inside coordinators could do the job. How silly to think it would require hundreds, let alone thousands, or "tens of thousands" of people.

I shudder to think how things get done wherever you work.

 

[NoahFence]

What are you talking about? Where do you get "10s of thousands" of people? A small crew and a few inside coordinators could do the job. How silly to think it would require hundreds, let alone thousands, or "tens of thousands" of people.

I shudder to think how things get done wherever you work.

A ”small crew” took months to rig a building half the size of wtc7 and they didn't have to worry about those pesky thousands of people working in the building. Nevermind the twin towers. What you propose is both impossible and stupid.

 

[TJM]

What are you talking about? Where do you get "10s of thousands" of people? A small crew and a few inside coordinators could do the job. How silly to think it would require hundreds, let alone thousands, or "tens of thousands" of people.

I shudder to think how things get done wherever you work.

Not likely. Small or large, with or without inside help, doesn't matter. They'd be detected.

 

[DGM]

A ”small crew” took months to rig a building half the size of wtc7 and they didn't have to worry about those pesky thousands of people working in the building. Nevermind the twin towers. What you propose is both impossible and stupid.

Not likely. Small or large, with or without inside help, doesn't matter. They'd be detected.

I can't believe you guy's are arguing the set-up. Why would you argue something there was not indication of in the first place?

Demolition charges are obvious when the go off. It wouldn't matter when or how they got there.

(see my sig)

 

[000063]

The Case B NIST fire simulations for WTC 7 were hedged towards causing higher temperatures in structural members,

Prove it.

so it is logical to accept the results if they are still lower.

I'm not sure that follows.

Sorry if some like you don't accept the colloquial term of robustness and need actual terms. How about "the Moment of Inertia of the columns and their resistance to bending was too great to allow hot girders or beams to move them very much"?

Much better.

The girders and beams would have buckled before pushing and bending the columns very much. I showed that on this thread in response to tfk's unsupported assertion that column 79 was pushed eastward by the girder between it and column 76 at the 13th floor.

So...you think the columns would continue to support the building without horizontal support? Think carefully now.

In case you didn't know, the fires were not on every floor in WTC 7

No one has asserted such, IIRC.

and columns have a large heat transfer path through themselves to those other floors.

That's...not actually helping your case. If the parts of the column the heat would be transferred through are also heated, then the heat cannot be transferred through them. The heat from the fire on the 10th floor cannot magically pass through the heat from the fire on the 11th floor to get to the cool 12th. The heat from 11 would have to go to 12 before the heat from 10 could move upward. Not to mention that if the columns can transfer heat along themselves, they can also transfer it into the horizontal structural members in the same area as the fire.

The NIST theory for collapse initiation of WTC 7 has been shown to be impossible, and your comments make you seem like another hand waver with an Irreducible Delusion who simply doesn't want to accept it.

You still haven't provided evidence of these "heat paths", despite my specific request.

I've asked several Truthers to explain why whatever CD charges would be in WTC 7. Either they knew it would be hit by debris from WTC 1 (which is only possible if they aimed it, which is physically impossible to do with precision that the carefully placed charges would not be disrupted) in order to give them an excuse, or the bad guys went through a lot of time and effort installing charges in the building just in case something happened to give them an excuse, and these explosives just happened to combine with the actual damage and fire in such a manner as to fool the overhwhelming majority of specialists who've studied the collapse. Both are impossible.

 

[000063]

Apparently you missed the point. Why would they need to?

For a snowball to have a chance in Hell, it needs to be able to survive in Hell.

 

[carlitos]

I am done here

 

[NoahFence]

I can't believe you guy's are arguing the set-up. Why would you argue something there was not indication of in the first place?

Demolition charges are obvious when the go off. It wouldn't matter when or how they got there.

(see my sig)

...just another in a long line of things truthers believe that was impossible in real life.

 

[000063]

...
There are a number of ways to design demolition devices to survive office fire temperatures.

What are those ways?
Because I want to demolish an office building, which will already be on fire, using explosives that arent affected by the heat of the fire.
Any ideas?
Thanks.

Your question is clearly not credible.
...

The amazing Tony Szamboti, everyone!

However, I will say to others, who might have a hard time imagining how it could be done, to think about how incendiaries and ceramics could be used.

Appeal to magic, got it.

 

[000063]

I think the folks badgering you here understand about as much as I do in terms of tfk's "analysis". They wouldn't know if he had answered you or not, or vice versa.

Ergo, isn't it odd how you never think Truthers are the people having trouble understanding things? And if you don't understand the analysis, how can you tell whether someone else does?

 

[000063]

* cough *

Ergo, don't you like to use the emote yourselves?

Tony says he used the same assumptions as NIST did. What's the problem?

You seem to assume a)he interpreted the assumptions correctly, and b)his logic is correct. Either one of those not being true would put his conclusion in doubt. Guess what's been shown throughout this thread?

 

[000063]

Incredulity is not an argument.

MM

A response which is itself nothing more then incredulity toward Animal's post.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Your question is clearly not credible.

However, I will say to others, who might have a hard time imagining how it could be done, to think about how incendiaries and ceramics could be used.

I enjoy the liars demanding how impossible it would be to demolish the three skyscrapers with explosives yet the explanation of the "natural" first ever total collapses of steel supported structures is water off a ducks back.

People who defend lies can never be convinced of the truth.

 

[DGM]

I enjoy the liars demanding how impossible it would be to demolish the three skyscrapers with explosives yet the explanation of the "natural" first ever total collapses of steel supported structures is water off a ducks back.

People who defend lies can never be convinced of the truth.

Whoever said it was impossible to demolish these buildings with explosives? (see, you made-up a lie, no one ever said this)

We argue with you because you make-up lies like this.

Stupid people might actually believe you.

 

[000063]

I enjoy the liars demanding how impossible it would be to demolish the three skyscrapers with explosives yet the explanation of the "natural" first ever total collapses of steel supported structures is water off a ducks back.

We have already established that the collapses were not natural. No one here believes that, no one here has used the term in the sense you refer to, and you have been informed time and time again of the fact. Either you are incapable of registering it, or you are lying.

Of course, even the usage of explosives would require several firsts as well, as you have also been informed.

1. First time explosives were planted in an occupied building.
1a. Same, but without detection despite millions of people moving through the buildings in question each week
2. Detonation of explosives without causing barotrauma, even to people inside the buildings
3. Detonation of explosives without blown out windows for blocks around.
4. Detonation of explosives without audio/visual evidence consistent with such.
5. Explosives without being able to knock down walls to weaken structural members.
6. Survival of explosives in two buildings hit by planes, without the plane impact disrupting the explosives or knocking any of them out of the building.
6a. Ability to predict the plane's impact and effects exactly, despite that being dependent on wind speed, turbulence, angle of attack, yaw, and several other entirely random factors it would be impossible to predict.
7. Survival of explosives in areas which had been on fire for an hour or more.
8. Survival of explosives in building which had been on fire for, oh, seven hours.
9. Making the miles of distinctive wiring and casings vanish from all witnesses or visual evidence, despite the thousands of people on site and the fact that the crime scene was the most witnessed and documented in history.

And so on.

People who defend lies can never be convinced of the truth.

Aren't you also a Holocaust denier?

 

[DGM]

Aren't you also a Holocaust denier?

Clayton is a reality denier. I suspect it's a loneliness issue.

 

[beachnut]

Your question is clearly not credible.

However, I will say to others, who might have a hard time imagining how it could be done, to think about how incendiaries and ceramics could be used.

You have the fantasy of CD, can't publish your NIST attack, and will rack up another year of failure. At least you have the lone ranger of Holocaust denial to support your fantasy of CD and your failed attempt to disprove a probable collapse sequence. A Probable collapse sequence? With your probable collapse sequence, CD, already proved to be fantasy.

When is the letter going to be published? Update? Bet the replies will read much like Heiwa's failed attack on engineering.

 

[Animal]

Not likely. Small or large, with or without inside help, doesn't matter. They'd be detected.

Pour ergo, cannot tell the difference between "being involved" and "doing the physical labor" No wonder troofers are so ignorant.