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

[twinstead]

This is denial. It proves you will deny the obvious to avoid admitting that the Official Conspiracy Theory is a farce.

How many times do you have to be told that your opinion is irrelevant? How many times do you have to be told that NONE of the experts you trot out, including Dr Greening, believe that 9-11 was an inside job?

 

[Christopher7]

You see, if the entire population of Bulgaria thought WT7 looked like a CD it still wouldn't prove it was a CD.

The fact that WTC 7 fell straight down [and then a little to one side], landing mostly in it's own footprint is enough for most people. A fire cannot possibly do that to a building.

Some real evidence would be much better.

FFA is real evidence but you deny it. You all systematically deny all evidence and then claim there is none.

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.

This is a false claim made by deniers. You have no idea what the world's engineering and scientific community thinks.

 

[Miragememories]

As soon as you have some substance to support your delusions on 911 post it. How does the thread topic tie in to your delusions?

Dr Greening is teasing you. It is funny.

You wish.

No doubt he joined the Liars Club like everyone else who doesn't support
your dogma.

Too funny.

MM

 

[Christopher7]

The supporting structure in a progressive collapse is buckling and twisting. There is always some resistance so FFA is not possible.

Source?

You are not a serious person. I have posted the answer many times.

[FONT=&quot]"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."[/FONT]

 

[excaza]

The fact that WTC 7 fell straight down [and then a little to one side], landing mostly in it's own footprint is enough for most people. A fire cannot possibly do that to a building.

Why not? Because you say so?

 

[BigAl]

You agree that Dr. Greening questions the NIST theory.

The NIST Theory is that fire was the basic cause of the collapse.

Wrong, the NIST theory is that due to fire, a specific beam failed in a specific way.

 

[Christopher7]

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

About 80% of the people who see the video of WTC 7 going down can see that it is a CD. This is an easy call. Some say they don't know, which is reasonable. But those who say it does not look like a CD just reveal that they are in denial.

 

[uke2se]

This is denial. It proves you will deny the obvious to avoid admitting that the Official Conspiracy Theory is a farce.

Nope, it's simply telling the truth. You ought to try it sometimes.

 

[beachnut]

You wish.

No doubt he joined the Liars Club like everyone else who doesn't support
your dogma.

Too funny.

MM

You have the CD delusion based on ignorance and lies, Greening does not have a CD delusion, he has his own ideas how things happen. You have delusions, Greening disagrees with stuff and you think it supports your failed delusion? That is too funny.

Got any substance yet; 8 years of failure must be hard.

 

[excaza]

About 80% of the people who see the video of WTC 7 going down can see that it is a CD.

Source please.

 

[uke2se]

The fact that WTC 7 fell straight down [and then a little to one side], landing mostly in it's own footprint is enough for most people. A fire cannot possibly do that to a building.

Could, can, did.

FFA is real evidence but you deny it. You all systematically deny all evidence and then claim there is none.

Nobody is denying it. We're simply telling the truth about it, as opposed to what you're doing.

This is a false claim made by deniers. You have no idea what the world's engineering and scientific community thinks.

Yes, we do. Scientists publish papers on open scientific fields. Papers have been published about the 9/11 events by scientists. Other scientists have read it. Nobody has offered any contrary ideas, with a few notable exceptions where the dissent has been about details rather than conclusions. We know from this that the scientific world agrees with what has been published by NIST.

 

[Miragememories]

"Therefore I believe that an alternative collapse initiation and propagation hypothesis is called for -one that more accurately reflects the reality of what happened to WTC 7 on September 11th, 2001."

This was in his conclusion after writing a multi-page report exhaustively outlining how there was insufficient fuel to create the heat energy required to support the best NIST fire-based theory.

Questioning where it initiated and how it propagated isn't the same thing as saying fires didn't do it.

Dr. Greening is in effect saying, that based on the NIST findings, the fires were not sufficient to cause the collapse.

Dr. Greening has proposed no other fire-based theory, or found any evidence, which would support an alternative fire-based cause for the WTC 7 collapse.

He is suggesting that the NIST has to look elsewhere for a cause.

Dr. Greening was not the only expert who found the NIST WTC conclusions to be a desperate 'massaging' of limited fire evidence.

It was the NISTs only hope of avoiding the more obvious conclusion that the WTC 7 suffered a controlled demolition.

MM

 

[uke2se]

About 80% of the people who see the video of WTC 7 going down can see that it is a CD. This is an easy call. Some say they don't know, which is reasonable. But those who say it does not look like a CD just reveal that they are in denial.

Alright, now you're going to have to offer up a source for this particular assertion. This is such a bare faced assumption I am amazed that you could type it with a straight face.

 

[Christopher7]

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

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?

You are ignoring the fact that we cannot see the lower floors, eight of which were removed to create the FFA for 100 feet.

 

[uke2se]

Dr. Greening is in effect saying, that based on the NIST findings, the fires were not sufficient to cause the collapse.

No, that's just your erroneous interpretation of what he wrote. What he actually was saying was that NIST got the collapse scenario somewhat wrong, and that the fire caused the collapse in a slightly different way.

 

[uke2se]

You are ignoring the fact that we cannot see the lower floors, eight of which were removed to create the FFA for 100 feet.

Did you mean to write this in response to a different post? This is absolutely irrelevant to the FACT that the windows of the north side didn't break until the collapse started, which is inconsistent with the delusional CD hypothesis.

 

[Miragememories]

You have the CD delusion based on ignorance and lies, Greening does not have a CD delusion, he has his own ideas how things happen. You have delusions, Greening disagrees with stuff and you think it supports your failed delusion? That is too funny.

Got any substance yet; 8 years of failure must be hard.

Dr. Greening does have his own ideas.

And they certainly aren't in agreement with the NIST.

Unlike your delusions which apparently remain in agreement with the NIST.


MM

 

[uke2se]

Dr. Greening does have his own ideas.

And they certainly aren't in agreement with the NIST.

Unlike your delusions which apparently remain in agreement with the NIST.


MM

And he doesn't support your delusions either. The difference is that Greening does support NIST's conclusion that fire caused the collapse.

 

[Christopher7]

Alright, now you're going to have to offer up a source for this particular assertion. This is such a bare faced assumption I am amazed that you could type it with a straight face.

It is my experience. You can lie and deny all you want, WTC 7 looks like a CD.

 

[uke2se]

It is my experience. You can lie and deny all you want, WTC 7 looks like a CD.

It's "your experience"? That has to be the stupidest answer to a request for evidence that I've seen in a long time. I'm not lying, either. I support my statements. You never do, because you can't.

The religiousness of trutherism rears its ugly head once again.