10 story hole in WTC 7

[Coritani]

Beachnut said
It only takes a little bit of RDX to bring down a building, plus you use gravity to do the real work of demolition. Gravity does the work.

We are using the very same facts, people. You orthodox thinkers just can't use logic and common sense.

Sure, gravity brought them down. But only in a controlled demolition can a steel bldg fall straight down, straight through the support columns which is the path of most resistance.

Ever see a tree fall straight down into the earth? Everything topples unless its supports are blown away.

You guys are a colossal waste of time. You have a learning disability. You are brainwashed like nobody's business.

BTW it comes back to me now, I think nist actually means "isn't"

That's even better. NIST NIST ist, except for 9/11. Under political control, technical standards go out the window.

So on the 9/11 issue, it can confidently be formulated, that

NIST NIST nist.

Bye, kiddies.

Please explain what NIST got wrong (in their calculations etc). If it's so obvious, this shouldn't be too hard. I'm listening.

 

[beachnut]

Beachnut said
It only takes a little bit of RDX to bring down a building, plus you use gravity to do the real work of demolition. Gravity does the work.

We are using the very same facts, people. You orthodox thinkers just can't use logic and common sense.

Sure, gravity brought them down. But only in a controlled demolition can a steel bldg fall straight down, straight through the support columns which is the path of most resistance.

Ever see a tree fall straight down into the earth? Everything topples unless its supports are blown away.

You guys are a colossal waste of time. You have a learning disability. You are brainwashed like nobody's business.

BTW it comes back to me now, I think nist actually means "isn't"

That's even better. NIST NIST ist, except for 9/11. Under political control, technical standards go out the window.

So on the 9/11 issue, it can confidently be formulated, that

NIST NIST nist.

Bye, kiddies.

Ever see a tree that had a core of 95 percent air? You are the kid. I teach fourth and fifth graders with much more rational abilities to do real research and understand science.

You are just a Alex Jones clone, all talk and no facts.

You do not understand 9/11 and may never understand how anything in the real world works.

Your statements are real funny. The WTC has to topple? How? You have zero abilities to explain and you do not even know how the WTC stood.

No facts and doubt you will ever have any to support your errors in logic and fact.

 

[respublicus]

i am not grist for NIST

 

[respublicus]

get a brain of your own and we can talk

 

[Dog Town]

2. Blunt impact? Flying columns of steel from WTC 1. Where did they come from?

You answered your question, in your own. That is irony, done well. BRAVO!

 

[uk_dave]

Sure, gravity brought them down. But only in a controlled demolition can a steel bldg fall straight down, straight through the support columns which is the path of most resistance.

Ever see a tree fall straight down into the earth? Everything topples unless its supports are blown away.

You guys are a colossal waste of time. You have a learning disability. You are brainwashed like nobody's business.

Right back atcha.

Oh, and BTW, you might want to reconsider using the tree analogy, because...well, quite frankly, it does make you look very, very silly.

 

[Coritani]

get a brain of your own and we can talk

Ok. Let's sum up:

• No facts
• Dodging questions
• Ad Hominem
• Calling skeptics 'brainwashed'

Yep, full blown Twoofer!

 

[Christopher7]

False. It is not an 'escape clause'. WTC 7 has not been proved to be a CD.

It has not been proven that WTC 7 collapsed cue to debris damage/fire.

If you cannot explain how the building was rigged, and you can't, it is evidence against you. Another drop in an ocean of opposing evidence.

That is superb backwards logic.

I don't need to explain how they did it or when they did it.
There is no way i could know that,
It does not qualify as evidence against a CD.


I [and a lot of other people] can see by the results that someone rigged WTC 7 for demolition prior to 9/11.

This is not rocket science.

Building implosions are very distinctive.

The center falls first to bring in the outer walls in, and it falls mostly straight down in near freefall and lands mostly in its own footprint.

The exactness of 'straight down' and in 'it's own footprint' are determined by the safety precautions taken, the skill of the demolition team, and the concern for the surrounding buildings.

Maybe you believe that the failure of 1 key column, the 'initiating event' as proposed in the NIST Report, led to the total collapse of WTC 7.

I'm not buying it.

NIST could only say that it "appears possible"

What makes you so sure?

 

[beachnut]

get a brain of your own and we can talk

I thought you said bye?

Why are you back? Do you have some facts yet?

No one can prove to me that WTC7 did not fall from fire. Not one person can prove it did not fall due to fire. Nobody has any facts to suppport any other thing that made WTC7 fail.

There was debris damage, this debris damage helped feed the fire with air. The fire burned all day and the building actually beat the spec by standing well past the fire rating.

You know if they had some means to fight this fire in WTC7 the building may of stood.

It is a fact fires bring down buildings.

It is a fact fires burned for hours in WTC7.

No one can prove fires did not bring down WTC7.

CTers have no facts to support anything else.

What have I missed? Now I wonder what the final report on WTC7 will say from NIST.

Funny there are not a lot of engineers jumping on this WTC7 truther story? Why are most engineer, almost all, not with the truthers?

Did you see that 17 story hole in that bank building?

How did CTers never gain the ability to research and think for themselves? How did all that smoke get out of WTC7? Was it a big 10 story hole? Why do I feel like a concrete core is just like a lack of a 10 story hole but different?

 

[Myriad]

Yes, pound for pound diesel fuel yields almost ten times the energy of TNT. (Gasoline too. Think about that, next time you fill up your gas tank.)

In other words, the fuel tanks in wtc7 contained more than enough energy to lift every piece of both towers back into place, twice over.

But of course, that energy just disappeared magically during the non-fires and controlled implosion, so it had nothing to do with wtc7's collapse, right?

what did you find checking those persian dictionaries in 2 minutes?
i found that you need an arabic keyboard to go from farsi to english.

Then "nist" (note: a string of non-Arabic symbols) has no meaning in Farsi. So you remain wrong.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Coritani]

It has not been proven that WTC 7 collapsed cue to debris damage/fire.

And? Wait for the NIST report to come out.

That is superb backwards logic.

I don't need to explain how they did it or when they did it.
There is no way i could know that,
It does not qualify as evidence against a CD.

Yes it does, because you haven't proved it's a CD. Because it has not been proved to be a CD, the fact that it would be impossible to wire it with explosives is evidence against the CD hypothesis. What about this is hard to understand?

I [and a lot of other people] can see by the results that someone rigged WTC 7 for demolition prior to 9/11.

This is not rocket science.

Interesting. So you, and the members of the truth movement, see it yet experts in relevant fields don't. Huh.

Building implosions are very distinctive.

The center falls first to bring in the outer walls in, and it falls mostly straight down in near freefall and lands mostly in its own footprint.

Does it involve destroying 2 penthouses 10 seconds before bringing down the rest of the building for no apparent reason? Does it involve placing charges in the top of the southwest corner (where they'd be useless), and then detonating them after detonating the charges to bring the building down? (referring to the 'squibs' you speak of in WTC 7)

The exactness of 'straight down' and in 'it's own footprint' are determined by the safety precautions taken, the skill of the demolition team, and the concern for the surrounding buildings.

Ok.

Maybe you believe that the failure of 1 key column, the 'initiating event' as proposed in the NIST Report, led to the total collapse of WTC 7.

I'm not buying it.

NIST could only say that it "appears possible"

What makes you so sure?

Because there's no evidence it was a CD, and rigging the building with explosives would be impossible.

 

[Dog Town]

Could this explain it?

 

[beachnut]

Could this explain it?
View attachment 5419

Are you trying to tell me the two one acre buildings spread debris over 19 acres and some of the debris damaged that 47 story building known as WTC7.

I have to repeat that yes I believe there could be a 10 story or bigger hole in WTC7 from debris. YES

Is a 10 story hole needed for fire to bring down WTC7? NO, I think fire can destory buildings.

Nice photo.

 

[respublicus]

Because there's no evidence it was a CD, and rigging the building with explosives would be impossible.

Haven't you seen the video or pic of one of the Twin Towers erupting like a volcano, with tons of material being forcefully ejected outwards and UPWARDS?

You say that was not an explosion?!

You're like somebody watching a volcano erupt and saying, it's from all the trees on the mountain that caught fire from the molten lava. Cause your daddy said so, so it has to be true.

I can see clearly with this pair of eyes.
You can only see what you have been told to see.

Good night to you.

 

[Tbone]

Haven't you seen the video or pic of one of the Twin Towers erupting like a volcano, with tons of material being forcefully ejected outwards and UPWARDS?

You say that was not an explosion?!

You're like somebody watching a volcano erupt and saying, it's from all the trees on the mountain that caught fire from the molten lava. Cause your daddy said so, so it has to be true.

I can see clearly with this pair of eyes.
You can only see what you have been told to see.

Good night to you.

You are aware that volcano eruptions are not caused by explosives, right? How can it erupt upward if volcanos don't use explosives?

 

[Coritani]

Haven't you seen the video or pic of one of the Twin Towers erupting like a volcano, with tons of material being forcefully ejected outwards and UPWARDS?

You say that was not an explosion?!

You're like somebody watching a volcano erupt and saying, it's from all the trees on the mountain that caught fire from the molten lava. Cause your daddy said so, so it has to be true.

I can see clearly with this pair of eyes.
You can only see what you have been told to see.

Good night to you.

You still haven't answered my question. Why? In case you missed it:

Please explain what NIST got wrong (in their calculations etc). If it's so obvious, this shouldn't be too hard. I'm listening.

 

[Dog Town]

Haven't you seen the video or pic of one of the Twin Towers erupting like a volcano, with tons of material being forcefully ejected outwards and UPWARDS?

This resembles a CD how?

 

[Christopher7]

Republicus:
Sometimes this guy feels like a nut, sometimes he doesn't

Don't bother getting into a pissing match with him

No one can prove to me that WTC7 did not fall from fire. Not one person can prove it did not fall due to fire.

It's impossible to prove a negative.

On the other hand, no one has proven that WTC 7 did fall due to fire.

Nobody has any facts to suppport any other thing that made WTC7 fail.

WTC 7 displays all the characteristics of a CD.

You cannot rule out the possibility that it was a CD.

It is a fact fires bring down buildings.

There is one case of a partial collapse but it occurred over a period of time.

 

[Dog Town]

... but it occured over a period of time.

What doesn't?

 

[respublicus]

This resembles a CD how?

Come on you must know this stuff.
WTC 7 is the classic implosion demolition, first the nick in the center, walls falling inward.

The Twin Towers were a special case. Possibly because of their great height, it was needed to explode away a lot of the mass?
Anyway, I couldn't find any examples of classic demolition of buildings that tall.
Also of course the explosion sequence started from the top down. Whether for technical reasons or to go with the IHOP theory/scam. (Prof. Eager works for MIT you know, big defence contractor.)

Have any of you Lyers (anti twoofers, right?) seen 9/11 mysteries on google video?

that's the best proof i can think of for CD.

Pwoof to you, of course.