WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

tfk said:
Has this ever happened to anyone else?

It has never happened for me, but that's not the source of my skepticism.

Clearly it doesn't happen using an axe. But I do not believe that one could do this with a chain saw or hand saw without getting the saw immovable clamped in the cut by the weight of the tree before the cut was finished.
Click to expand...

We had to pull the tree (with a rope) to get it off the saw which couldn't be removed with the weight of the tree sitting on it.

Obviously my technique isn't too good.
 
Liars add explosives sounds to video

LoneRanger said:
Video of possible explosive charges before the fall of WTC 7.

Video of the fall of WTC 7
Click to expand...
Wow, MUST WATCH! Wow, tripe dumbed down so far, it hurts.

One video has audio added. You are fooled by liars. Did you add the audio? 911 truth has to lie to get new recruits? The other video does not have sounds of explosives.

Did you post both video to debunk the one with added sounds?

Sad part, One video has, "pull it" stuff in it. When idiots can't figure out he meant pull the fire support, you know education was not a priority for truthers pushing the nonsense. 911 truth is stupid on parade. Do they realize there is no truth movement?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by LoneRanger
I have cut down a few trees in my life and have had to pull a few of them over becaused they balanced on the stump while completely severed.
Click to expand...



tfk said:
Has this ever happened to anyone else?

It has never happened for me, but that's not the source of my skepticism.

Clearly it doesn't happen using an axe. But I do not believe that one could do this with a chain saw or hand saw without getting the saw immovable clamped in the cut by the weight of the tree before the cut was finished.
Click to expand...

My folks lived in Oregon on property with Douglas-Firs galore. Getting a chain-saw stuck in a tree like that is everyone's nightmare.

It's really nasty when a tree is leaning in a direction you don't want it to fall, but you want or need to remove it. That's when you call in a pro. Often, they'll "pull" the tree by attaching cables to the top and pull it in the direction opposite to its natural fall while they make cuts on the opposite side. Very hazardous. Then, there's "schoolmarm" trees, trees whose trunks have divided in two. Brrr....
 
LoneRanger said:
Interesting point. However, the top of WTC 1 or WTC 2 more or less broke off and fell to the side.
Click to expand...
No they didn't.

Furthermore, the building exploded and fell outside the footprint. A building with the interior girders cut implodes like WTC 7 and pulls the building inward.
Click to expand...
Except that WTC 7's debris also fell outside its footprint.

I have cut down a few trees in my life and have had to pull a few of them over becaused they balanced on the stump while completely severed. I would guess that cutting a girder in a building isn't sufficient and that the cut girder also has to be blown to one side.
Click to expand...
A 40+ story building is somewhat more structurally complicated than a tree.

A team of Navy seals could get the job done fast if they were authorized to do so. My point is that sufficiently trained and experienced people wouldn't require days to bring down WTC 7.
Click to expand...
There is no one who could do it that fast secretly, regardless of authorization. I already told you; the biggest building ever demolished took weeks to rig, with people working 24/7, and that was smaller than WTC7. Military Demo consists of usually using much more explosives than strictly necessary, not stealth. That's what they would have to do to take it down in hours. Just drive a truck full of C4 right past the FDNY into the joint. And planting explosives in a burning building carries the risk of them or their wiring catching fire. It's not something Seal Team 6 can chuck in a belt pouch.
 
A team of Navy seals could get the job done fast if they were authorized to do so. My point is that sufficiently trained and experienced people wouldn't require days to bring down WTC 7.
Click to expand...


000063 said:
There is no one who could do it that fast secretly, regardless of authorization. I already told you; the biggest building ever demolished took weeks to rig, with people working 24/7, and that was smaller than WTC7. Military Demo consists of usually using much more explosives than strictly necessary, not stealth. That's what they would have to do to take it down in hours. Just drive a truck full of C4 right past the FDNY into the joint. And planting explosives in a burning building carries the risk of them or their wiring catching fire. It's not something Seal Team 6 can chuck in a belt pouch.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't use C-4. C-4's high detonation velocity makes it great for shape cutting charges. This would be more like a quarrying operation. I'd use a huge truck loaded with ammonium nitrate / fuel oil. Change the location to 1943 Berlin and a meeting of the top Nazi brass and you've got the gimmick for the script of Inglorious Basterds II. Hey, anyone need a technical consultant? :):rolleyes:
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Part of a discussion is to support your claims.
Click to expand...


I'm getting the impression that LoneRanger's idea of a discussion is to simply throw words around without any regard to accuracy or verifiability.

LoneRanger said:
Obviously my technique isn't too good.
Click to expand...


We're aware. One of the many clues is that you used a tree-cutting anecdote in a discussion about a high-rise building.
 
LoneRanger said:
I have not been making the claim that the towers were brought down by explosives. A large jet slamming into them at over 400mph could have brought them down immediately, I would have thought. Add to that the fact the fire proofing was knocked off the girders and beams, that the sprinkler system was disabled, the fire was spread over several floors and very hot. It's a wonder the towers took as long as they did to fall.
Click to expand...

Yes, with hindsight, that was a fortunate detail on a very unfortunate day - that so many people had a chance to escape. I know I thought after the collapses, and for a couple of days or so that certainly more than 10,000 must have died, and when I heard the lower figure of two or three thousand, I was incredulous and thought that number would surely get corrected up.
 
The Crystal Palace was an inside job!

Oystein said:
Problem is, "they" don't know whether they want to talk apples or oranges.

AE911Truth for example says WTC7 was demolished because it neatly imploded into it's footprint ("Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint"); on the same page they argue that the twin towers were demolished because they exploded and fell all over the place ("Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally ... 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found")

In the case of WTC7, it seems they are arguing for the controlled type of demo that takes at least a fine-tuned collapse sequence, according to them.
Click to expand...

Hmm... The Crystal Palace (reference upthread) was a structure of steel and glass, where sensitive research was being carried out. (Early experiments in television were done there.)

The Official Story is that it collapsed from ordinary fires of its contents. It was not hit by aircraft, or falling debris, or anything else. Nor did any part of it have to support tens of thousands of tons above it. It collapsed completely and landed in its own footprint. We all know that fire can't harm steel...... CONSPIRACY!
 
Interesting. I only knew of Crystal Palace as a soccer team and cheap vodka.

41789_112811332176262_2049290217_n.jpg
 
carlitos said:
Interesting. I only knew of Crystal Palace as a soccer team and cheap vodka.

[qimg]http://profile-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ash3/41789_112811332176262_2049290217_n.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

That's because the Mainstream Media was part of the conspiracy, and refused to discuss the collapse! ;)
 
carlitos said:
Interesting. I only knew of Crystal Palace as a soccer team and cheap vodka.

[qimg]http://profile-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ash3/41789_112811332176262_2049290217_n.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Even more interesting when you find out the energy density of Crystal Palace vodka ;)
 
tfk said:
Has this ever happened to anyone else?

It has never happened for me, but that's not the source of my skepticism.

Clearly it doesn't happen using an axe. But I do not believe that one could do this with a chain saw or hand saw without getting the saw immovable clamped in the cut by the weight of the tree before the cut was finished.
Click to expand...

He must have learned that at the Tony Szamboti School for Lumberjacks. :D
 
Oystein said:
Even more interesting when you find out the energy density of Crystal Palace vodka ;)
Click to expand...

Let's see...Ethanol, 7 kcal/g, as far as mammalian metabolism is concerned; vodka is typically 40% ethanol; OMG! Almost 3 times that of thermodynamically ideal thermite!
 
LoneRanger said:
We had to pull the tree (with a rope) to get it off the saw which couldn't be removed with the weight of the tree sitting on it.

Obviously my technique isn't too good.
Click to expand...

I gotta say I don't believe that this can happen.

The only way that one can cut entirely thru a tree trunk (which is what you originally said) & not have the tree clamp down on the saw is if the centroid of the tree's mass is outside the trunk in the direction that you are cutting.

If this is the case, then the tree starts to topple as you near the end of the cut, the slit opens up & usually you don't even have to (or want to) finish the cut.

Under any other location of the centroid of the tree's mass, the saw gets caught by a clamping action of the tree just as soon as you have cut past the centroid's location. And before you finish the cut.

This is sounding to me way too familiar, LR. I, and most others here, have had to deal with truthers who just made stuff up as they went along in order to try to win some point in an argument.

Please don't do this.

None of those guys got away with it for very long, and they simply killed their own credibility.


tom

PS. I wrote you a rather lengthy reply here. Do you have any response?
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
I gotta say I don't believe that this can happen.

The only way that one can cut entirely thru a tree trunk (which is what you originally said) & not have the tree clamp down on the saw is if the centroid of the tree's mass is outside the trunk in the direction that you are cutting.

If this is the case, then the tree starts to topple as you near the end of the cut, the slit opens up & usually you don't even have to (or want to) finish the cut.

Under any other location of the centroid of the tree's mass, the saw gets caught by a clamping action of the tree just as soon as you have cut past the centroid's location. And before you finish the cut.

This is sounding to me way too familiar, LR. I, and most others here, have had to deal with truthers who just made stuff up as they went along in order to try to win some point in an argument.

Please don't do this.

None of those guys got away with it for very long, and they simply killed their own credibility.


tom

PS. I wrote you a rather lengthy reply here. Do you have any response?
Click to expand...

No thrill like cutting down half of a "schoolmarm" Douglas-Fir with a chainsaw, pulling it out when the crackling sound begins, and hoping the other half of the trunk doesn't topple, too! (From experience)
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
I'm getting the impression that LoneRanger's idea of a discussion is to simply throw words around without any regard to accuracy or verifiability.
Click to expand...

Of course, and that was the point behind my post. I wasn't actually expecting an honest, forthright answer, and what I got confirms what he's doing: He's merely throwing made up things out into the wild.

I've been saying over and over again that Jay Windley had it right: The conspiracy peddler is not out to have a debate. The conspiracy peddler's goal to create the illusion that there's something there to debate. Hence the resort to made up "facts" and refusal to elaborate on claims. It's so transparent it's ridiculous, but it's also what these guys are reduced to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom