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

MM must come from Dodge City. :p

No answers or technical backing for his own theories. Wow.
 
Miragememories said:
Show me a silent penthouse collapse and then we can talk.

MM
Click to expand...

You've now added a new theory - silent PH collapse. Nobody but you said it.

So instead of answering any questions without a new dodge, you create a new dodge.

I can see where this is going. All the way back to Dodge City! LOL
 
MM refuses to offer how loud the PH collapse might be. The reason for this coy behavior is quite transparent: if he does so, then there can be calculations made regarding whether it might have been clearly picked up on mics or whether it would not.

He doesn't want to be that specific, that would spoil the dissembling game he's playing.
He wants to shift the burden of proof away from truthers and onto skeptics.

But it is truthers who are making the CD claims, so it is their onus to provide the evidence, with physics and engineering.

They are declining to do so. Don't blame them.
 
alienentity said:
Are you positing that the microphones weren't able to for technical reasons?

Or that the sounds were not loud?

You've now asked yourself both questions, and expect me to answer them.
Yet they are your ideas, not mine.

Please have the courtesy to explain your own theories, with full technical details. Now is your chance to show you are not just engaging in empty rhetoric. Don't waste it.
Click to expand...
You have provided no answers but continue with your pointless questions.

I'll help you out since you appear to be struggling.

WTC 7 totally collapsed and the sound recordings were weak at best, considering it was a 47-story building.

Yet you still argue that had there been internal demolitions prior to the collapse, microphones should have recorded the sound.

WTC7 was for the most part, a sealed building (most of its windows were unbroken).

If microphones made a weak recording of the building's complete destruction, why would one expect an audible recording of internal pre-collapse destruction?

This does not require a peer-reviewed technical paper.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
After 7 years of waffling, the NIST came up with a theory that they claimed
put the mystery of the WTC7 collapse to rest.

Dr. Greening blew their theory out of the water with his argument that insufficient heat was available to make the NIST theory float.

What remained was the CD explanation.

Until Dr. Greening, or the NIST come up with a better alternative theory, the CD explanation is the best available.

MM
Click to expand...

Funny stuff. And what "explanation" would that be, thermite, thermate, super-nano thermite, super-duper nano-thermite, or your good old fashioned conventional CD? After you pick one, can you back up your "explanation" with evidence?
 
Miragememories said:
WTC 7 totally collapsed and the sound recordings were weak at best, considering it was a 47-story building.



If microphones made a weak recording of the building's complete destruction, why would one expect an audible recording of internal pre-collapse destruction?

This does not require a peer-reviewed technical paper.

MM
Click to expand...

At last, some kind of parameters offered. I'm relieved.

You have introduced a strange and unverified term, 'pre-collapse destruction'. I'm afraid you're going to have to quantify what that is intended to mean.

I think you're as close as you're going to get to offering a testable idea. But you've actually blended two different things together and haven't distinguished them.
I think the confusion is deliberate, and I'll explain:

1) The internal collapse was not as loud as the following global collapse, so likely was not picked up well by mics nearby. MM has refused to attempt to calculate what the expected volume of this might have been, but has intimated that it would have been very loud, or very soft. He can't seem to decide.
I'll leave him to ponder that issue.

2) The alleged explosions that truthers require were softer than the eventual global collapse, so weren't picked up by the microphones. MM's inferred theory is that the high-explosives wouldn't have blown the windows out, apparently.

MM has a lot of explaining to do with point #2. He needs to provide comprehensive technical explanations for this, with physics and engineering.

He is attempting to excuse this responsibility with a disclaimer which he apparently picked out of thin air 'This does not require a peer-reviewed technical paper.'

So the very person who is so critical about rhetoric, because he doesn't consider it worthy, declines to offer a proper technical explanation for his theories, let alone enunciate his theories so they can be examined.

MM - you're wrong. It does require a peer-reviewed technical paper in order to be a serious idea. Right now it's not serious, it's just a set of vague excuses you're proffering - actually it's not really a theory at all.
 
Microphones pick up anything that is present. They don't have political agendas.

None of the mics picked up very loud collapse sounds from WTC7. Eyewitnesses described the sound of the collapse as a 'whoosh' and 'like a jet engine'.

This is 100% consistent with a non-explosive collapse.
It is 0% consistent with explosive demolition, under any known circumstances. The technical reasons for this have been examined and published by experts in the relevant fields.

So now it appears the truther excuse is that the windows masked the sound of explosions? Oy Vey. that idea was D.O.A. years ago. There's no technical backing for the claim.

Again, lack of evidence should NEVER be presented as evidence. that's just dishonest.
 
TexasJack said:
Funny stuff. And what "explanation" would that be, thermite, thermate, super-nano thermite, super-duper nano-thermite, or your good old fashioned conventional CD? After you pick one, can you back up your "explanation" with evidence?
Click to expand...
Since you can't show any proof that it was a fire-induced collapse, I don't have to provide evidence that it must have been a CD.

Process of elimination.

MM
 
beachnut said:
You promised technical stuff and spew nonsense. I am impressed but this is all you ever did. You have nothing to argue but a delusion of CD based on nothing.
You can't tie the eutectic to your scenario, you can't explain your scenario, you have no evidence, no clue what happen on 911 and blame unknown bad guys. Terrorists did 911; after 8 years given all the evidence and answers you continue to claim CD and can't produce a single technical explanation. It does require a peer-reviewed paper, and you will not be producing it ever to support your CD lie.


This is as close as you get to technical; total nonsense based on a delusion of CD.

How does the topic of the thread work with your scenario? Eutectic stuff?
Click to expand...
It's all about 9/11 as you know.

I can get technical when I know it isn't a waste of time going through the labor.

The subject at hand is WTC7 and Chris has been covering the eutectic reaction replies quite well.

I entered the thread replying to posts that the moderator was permitting even though they technically had no connection with the thread topic.

Now that the going is getting tough, you want to get back on course rather address the fact that after 7 years, NIST failed to prove their case and we are left with the conclusion that WTC 7 was collapsed by CD.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Since you can't show any proof that it was a fire-induced collapse, I don't have to provide evidence that it must have been a CD.

Process of elimination.

MM
Click to expand...

Classic! You're a walking ad for logical fallacies. Welcome to ignore.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Since you can't show any proof that it was a fire-induced collapse, I don't have to provide evidence that it must have been a CD.

Process of elimination.

MM
Click to expand...

But since you've shown no evidence that the sounds and pressures of traditional explosive can be masked; and since you have no plausible way of using thermite to bring down a building, we can safely rule out CD. Process of elimination.
 
Miragememories said:
I have seen no technical refute from you.

For the last three years, your favored anti-911/Truth argument is to accuse those whom you disagree with as being liars.

Ya that's really technical.

At least Ryan Mackay presents a technical argument albeit one referenced to NIST Reports.

MM
Click to expand...

There were many demo team members a few hundred feet from WTC7 building. None of them heard the sounds of a CD.
 
alienentity said:
At last, some kind of parameters offered. I'm relieved.

You have introduced a strange and unverified term, 'pre-collapse destruction'. I'm afraid you're going to have to quantify what that is intended to mean.

I think you're as close as you're going to get to offering a testable idea. But you've actually blended two different things together and haven't distinguished them.
I think the confusion is deliberate, and I'll explain:

1) The internal collapse was not as loud as the following global collapse, so likely was not picked up well by mics nearby. MM has refused to attempt to calculate what the expected volume of this might have been, but has intimated that it would have been very loud, or very soft. He can't seem to decide.
I'll leave him to ponder that issue.

2) The alleged explosions that truthers require were softer than the eventual global collapse, so weren't picked up by the microphones. MM's inferred theory is that the high-explosives wouldn't have blown the windows out, apparently.

MM has a lot of explaining to do with point #2. He needs to provide comprehensive technical explanations for this, with physics and engineering.

He is attempting to excuse this responsibility with a disclaimer which he apparently picked out of thin air 'This does not require a peer-reviewed technical paper.'

So the very person who is so critical about rhetoric, because he doesn't consider it worthy, declines to offer a proper technical explanation for his theories, let alone enunciate his theories so they can be examined.

MM - you're wrong. It does require a peer-reviewed technical paper in order to be a serious idea. Right now it's not serious, it's just a set of vague excuses you're proffering - actually it's not really a theory at all.
Click to expand...
Talk about a lot of hot air.

There is nothing mysterious about "pre-collapse destruction".

Or does your technical mimicry reflect an inability to grasp that a controlled demolition starts with "pre-collapse destruction"?

I don't think so.

You've made great issue about the fact that we have some audio recordings of the WTC7 collapse but supposedly no "pre-collapse destruction" sounds.

I provided you with a likely explanation and you totally ignore it.

What proof do you have that to compromise the core, a type of demolition was required that would have blown out the windows?

Again, I point out that the WTC 7 East Penthouse, a large structure, on the roof, in a position to radiate the sound of its collapse over a large area, totally collapsed unheard.

Internally, over several seconds, the NIST claimed column 79 and its interconnections were failing and bringing down the entire 47-story building.

Not a peep was recorded.

Finally the whole building collapses, and for several seconds at freefall speed.

And we end up with a low-level audio recording.

And you wonder at skepticism regarding the lack of recordings for any internal collapse sound?

MM
 
TheRedWorm said:
But since you've shown no evidence that the sounds and pressures of traditional explosive can be masked; and since you have no plausible way of using thermite to bring down a building, we can safely rule out CD. Process of elimination.
Click to expand...
That is an assumption based on your own lack of knowledge.

MM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom