Split Thread 7WTC - controlled demolition or fire and damage induced collapse?

Christopher7 said:
They both recognized that WTC 7 looked like a CD.

Dan Rather
@ 0:20 "For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before, when a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o


Brian Williams
@ 5:36 "There's number 7 coming down. When you think that the part of the component of news coverage around the country every year is the excitement and the fun people get watching an old building being demolished."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2RzHN2HghU

There is no need for "evidence" that they know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...
So? I saw a sunset once that looked like the "sky was on fire". Guess what? It wasn't.



:rolleyes:
 
Christopher7 said:
The point is:

Most people recognize that WTC 7 was a CD because it is obvious. It looks like a CD.
Click to expand...

No, it does not. You have provided no relevant experts to the table to back up your assertion. You have attempted an appeal to false authority, but as you got called on it, apparently you have dropped it. I explained why I don't think WTC 7 looks like a CD, and since my expertise is at least as good as yours or any of your "expert" opinions, my opinion is as well.
 
Christopher7 said:
The point is:

Most people recognize that WTC 7 was a CD because it is obvious. It looks like a CD.
Click to expand...

You see, if the entire population of Bulgaria thought WT7 looked like a CD it still wouldn't prove it was a CD. You're barking up the wrong tree. Some real evidence would be much better. Perhaps that would go a long way toward changing the mind of the world's engineering and scientific community, because from what I can see they as a general rule disagree with you.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
The point is:

Most people recognize that WTC 7 was a CD because it is obvious. It looks like a CD.
Click to expand...
... even Dan Rather know the meaning of like and as (and he can make a simile without using like or as; still have a simile). You have a delusion WTC 7 was CD and can't use your ears to understand there are no sounds of explosives, or your eyes to see there was no products from thermite which would not work anyway.

Fire, office fire has more energy than TNT, and thermite you image were used in your delusional version of 911. Reality evades you due to your own lack of knowledge and propensity to believe in paranoid conspiracy theories. You are not Inigo Montaya, you have no point on 911; your avatar comes from far better fiction, than your delusional ideas on 911.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
The point is:

Most people recognize that WTC 7 was a CD because it is obvious. It looks like a CD.
Click to expand...

Statistics please!! UhOh, it was just another C7 Drive-By Bare Assertion Fallacy!!

smiley-laughing001.gif
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
They both recognized that WTC 7 looked like a CD.

Dan Rather
@ 0:20 "For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before, when a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o


Brian Williams
@ 5:36 "There's number 7 coming down. When you think that the part of the component of news coverage around the country every year is the excitement and the fun people get watching an old building being demolished."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2RzHN2HghU

There is no need for "evidence" that they know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

WOW!! Who'duh thunk it? A building collapses due to fires and newsmen find it 'reminiscent' of controlled demolition collapses?

NO WAAAY!!! INSIIIIIDE JOOOOOOOB!!!

smiley-laughing024.gif
 
Christopher7 said:
The point is:

Most people recognize that WTC 7 was a CD because it is obvious. It looks like a CD.
Click to expand...

Only to dimbulbs who do not know how to assess blast damage to a building.

NOT ONE WINDOW on the north side of the building broke until the facade was in motion. NOT ONE. This is inconsistant with there having been any kind of explosions inside. Totally NOT a bit like a CD. Do you get where I am going with this?
 
uke2se said:
"...For starters, a controlled demolition starts at the bottom, while the WTC 7 collapses from the top. Secondly, a controlled demolition makes a building collapse in on itself. WTC 7 doesn't do that."
Click to expand...
WRONG!

From the Executive summary, NIST NCSTAR 1-9A;

"The floor framing structure was thermally weakened at Floors 8 to 14, with the most substantial damage occurring in the east region of Floors 12, 13, and 14."

"After the fire-induced ANSYS damage was applied, floor sections surrounding Columns 79 to 81 on Floors 13 and 14 collapsed to the floors below."

"Once Columns 79, 80, and 81 buckled, the column sections above Floor 14 began to descend downward and pulled the floor structures downward with them, thereby creating a vertical progression of floor collapses."

MM
 
twinstead said:
You see, if the entire population of Bulgaria thought WT7 looked like a CD it still wouldn't prove it was a CD. You're barking up the wrong tree. Some real evidence would be much better. Perhaps that would go a long way toward changing the mind of the world's engineering and scientific community, because from what I can see they as a general rule disagree with you.
Click to expand...
Currently, the only plausible explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 is that it was a controlled demolition.

The NIST report does not provide an alternative theory that stands up to scientific scrutiny.

I need only refer you back to an earlier post where I pointed out that Dr. Greening complained to the NIST about how their theory failed his scientific analysis and they made no attempt to counter his argument.

Your concerns about evidence works both ways.

If there is not sufficient evidence to substantiate a theory that fires
lead to the collapse of WTC 7, than something else must have.

That opens the door for logical alternatives, of which controlled demolition would top an extremely short list.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Currently, the only plausible explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 is that it was a controlled demolition.

The NIST report does not provide an alternative theory that stands up to scientific scrutiny.

I need only refer you back to an earlier post where I pointed out that Dr. Greening complained to the NIST about how their theory failed his scientific analysis and they made no attempt to counter his argument.

Your concerns about evidence works both ways.

If there is not sufficient evidence to substantiate a theory that fires
lead to the collapse of WTC 7, than something else must have.

That opens the door for logical alternatives, of which controlled demolition would top an extremely short list.

MM
Click to expand...

Now see, here you go again. When you say stuff like this you only reinforce my point. Your view are not shared by ANYBODY whom I would trust as a reliable, respected, and unbiased source, and that includes any respected law enforcement, engineering, scientific, judicial, or journalistic organization on Earth.

Dude. I'm not an expert in any of this stuff. The opinion of experts is all I have. The world's experts disagree with you. Exactly WHY should I believe you? You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but considering your obvious ideological bias, is your opinion REALLY relevant?

ETA: When you get a chance, can you ask Dr. Greening if he suspects 9-11 was an inside job? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Currently, the only plausible explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 is that it was a controlled demolition.

The NIST report does not provide an alternative theory that stands up to scientific scrutiny.

I need only refer you back to an earlier post where I pointed out that Dr. Greening complained to the NIST about how their theory failed his scientific analysis and they made no attempt to counter his argument.

Your concerns about evidence works both ways.

If there is not sufficient evidence to substantiate a theory that fires
lead to the collapse of WTC 7, than something else must have.

That opens the door for logical alternatives, of which controlled demolition would top an extremely short list.

MM
Click to expand...

And yet, to this day, not a single person has wrong a peer-reviewed article in any journal, showing what NIST got wrong.

Maybe you are working on that paper? How about Tony S? Gage? Anyone?

Yeah, didn't think so.

PS. Where are the enourmous booms and shattered windows if WTC7 was a CD? Thanks!
 
miragememories said:
currently, the only plausible explanation for the collapse of wtc 7 is that it was a controlled demolition.

If there is not sufficient evidence to substantiate a theory that fires
lead to the collapse of wtc 7, than something else must have.
Click to expand...

Provide evidence of a CD please! Don't shoot your mouth off without evidence MM!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom