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

Christopher7 said:
Many absolute qualifiers. No building can fall any significant distance at FFA without all the supporting structure being removed with explosives.

No, steel provides some resistance as it is failing and there are many columns so failing columns cannot result in FFA.
Click to expand...

So what happens when the building falls 12' and floors impact other floors, beams and girders strike other horizontal members, and columns hit floor pans? Bearing in mind that each of your cut floors is only the width of a shaped-charge cut from its mates above and below ....

These collisions would need, in your book, to constitute zero resistance. It clearly is not, so you're heading down the road towards requiring total internal pulverisation of all horizontal components too, in order to make your theory self-consistent.
 
GlennB said:
Along the way I think we mentioned that most of these would be external columns, placing hundreds of high explosive flashes and booms only inches from the outside world and creating an audio-visual experience never to be forgotten by those who witnessed it. Whoops ... nobody did.
Click to expand...
There was no requirement for WTC7 to be successfully imploded by applying controlled demolition technology to the exterior (perimeter) columns.

As I said in my earlier post; A successful controlled demolition implosion requires the simultaneous balanced (centered) removal of a sufficient number of core columns so that the remaining intact columns are unable to carry the transferred weight of the building.

Overwhelmed by the even transfer of the total building weight, the exterior columns simultaneously fail, and the building as a whole will display a relatively symmetrical freefall descent."

MM
 
GlennB said:
So what happens when the building falls 12' and floors impact other floors, beams and girders strike other horizontal members, and columns hit floor pans? Bearing in mind that each of your cut floors is only the width of a shaped-charge cut from its mates above and below ....

These collisions would need, in your book, to constitute zero resistance. It clearly is not, so you're heading down the road towards requiring total internal pulverisation of all horizontal components too, in order to make your theory self-consistent.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the NIST!

The fundamental point here is that even the NIST is in agreement that for 2.25 seconds, WTC7, as a whole, dropped at freefall speed, through 8 stories of zero structural resistance.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Tell that to the NIST!

The fundamental point here is that even the NIST is in agreement that for 2.25 seconds, WTC7, as a whole, dropped at freefall speed, through 8 stories of zero structural resistance.

MM
Click to expand...

Cool. Please present evidence of CD. It's been 9 years, surely there's something by now.
 
So, over the weekend, I did a little science experiment. Maybe it shows validity to the WTC7 FFA, maybe it doesn’t…but it was fun to do none-the-less.

Materials:

- 3 standard bricks, like you see in a walkway.
- 8 plastic drinking straws (the fatter ones, like you get at BK) each cut in half to make a total of 16.
- A handful of wood matches.
- Some masking tape.
- Some type of putty, like playdoh.

First prepare your straws. On half of them, tape a match to them so that the head in near the top of one side.

Brick #1 goes down first. I used a little clay to set 8 straws in a pattern of 4x2. Each of these 8 straws are the ones that had a match taped to them with the match head pointing down. Throw a bunch of the matches in a pile in the middle and then, carefully, place Brick #2 on your straw columns.

Repeat this process (minus the pile of matches) and, even more-so carefully, place Brick #3 on this concoction.

Now the fun part … light the pile of matches.

My findings: As soon as those interior straw columns began to melt, the entire structure fell. Once the first floor collapsed, the top brick crushed the straws on the second floor with little effort and/or resistance.

Is this real life? No, I’m not pretending it is. But it does show that it only takes for a weakened foundation to bring down a whole building without batting an eyelash. And it does give a basic insight to how WTC7 fell so easily after burning uncontrollably for 7 hours.

I’m trying to find a way to make this project a little more realistic in its materials, but I've got some math to do. I’ll also probably film it next time so I can share what it looks like.

... the life of a science nerd with nothing better to do on a Saturday afternoon … :o
 
Christopher7 said:
It is a general statement of physics that applies to falling objects. The "no structural components below it" obviously refers to the upper part of WTC 7 which fell as a single unit because he goes on to say there was structural resistance in this case.
Click to expand...

It's NOT a general statement as he is referring to the TOTAL collapse time of the viewable video from the point where the roof line begins it's descent until it is out of view. He is saying that in order for the collapse to be considered free fall, the roof line would have to have disappeared from view in 3.9 seconds which it did not. It took 40% longer than 3.9 seconds.

Christopher7 said:
That was when he was saying that WTC 7 did not fall at FFA - before he had to admit that WTC 7 actually did fall at FFA.
Click to expand...

It didn't fall at free fall. If it did, the roof line would have disappeared from view in 3.9 seconds.

I guess you're saying that because WTC7's roof line fell at FFA for 2 seconds, the whole collapse is considered free fall?
 
Miragememories said:
There was no requirement for WTC7 to be successfully imploded by applying controlled demolition technology to the exterior (perimeter) columns
Click to expand...

On a purely theoretical level, I agree. At the time I was debating C7's theory of zero resistance in which he states that the exterior columns would also need cutting across 8 floors to achieve zero resistance. Sheesh. I said this only a few hours ago. Try to keep up.
 
Christopher7 said:
No one has ever been in a similar situation but reporting that a 50 story building went down at 10:45 is very specific and it is not a the kind of mistake anyone would make.

MM laid it out quite well but you will deny this just like you deny everything else that pokes holes in the Official Conspiracy Theory.
Click to expand...

My bold.

If no one could possibly make this kind of mistake, why is the 'cover story' necessary? A 50 story building collapse is, by your line of reasoning, going to be reported upon correctly, because it is not the kind of mistake anyone would make. The conspirators would also know this, would they not? Why have the 'cover story' planted and leave this loose end to address an aspect of the conspiracy that you claim no one could possibly make a mistake on?
 
jaydeehess said:
the FF was referring to 50 storeys of a structure that did collapse
OR
passing on information as a first hand account when it was actually information given to him
OR
passing on information as a first hand account knowing full well that it was not true.

Pick MM, come on, pick one
Click to expand...

When last I posted I gave MM these three choices.
I am open to others but come on MM, let's discuss them.

the first choice would have the FF relaying correct information about what he saw leaving us with the option that Dodds mis-interpreted what the FF said. This means there was no cover story from a FF.

the second choice has the FF relaying misinformation about a collapse he would not have witnessed. However he is passing it off as first hand knowledge which means the FF is lieing, but you said, IIRC, that the FF did not lie. Thus this senario is out.

the third choice has the FF knowingly passing on information he knows to be untrue about a collapse. Again, you said the FF ddi not actually lie so again this senario is out.

This leaves us with a FF's statement being misinterpreted by Dodds.

Unless you care to come up with other senarios which might be internally consistent with others you have made and with observed events.

????
 
Christopher7 said:
No one has ever been in a similar situation but reporting that a 50 story building went down at 10:45 is very specific and it is not a the kind of mistake anyone would make.

MM laid it out quite well but you will deny this just like you deny everything else that pokes holes in the Official Conspiracy Theory.
Click to expand...

There was also a report stating Flight 93 was shot down. That's very specific and not the kind of mistake anyone would make. By your logic, Flight 93 was shot down.
 
GStan said:
My bold.

If no one could possibly make this kind of mistake, why is the 'cover story' necessary? A 50 story building collapse is, by your line of reasoning, going to be reported upon correctly, because it is not the kind of mistake anyone would make. The conspirators would also know this, would they not? Why have the 'cover story' planted and leave this loose end to address an aspect of the conspiracy that you claim no one could possibly make a mistake on?
Click to expand...

The senario that MM, and I suppose, Chris as well, are pushing is that for some ridiculous reason it was deemed a good idea to 'plant' a 'cover story' about a 3rd collapse of a structure reminiscent of WTC 7 within 15 minutes of the collapse of WTC 1.

The ridiculousness of such a senario is a definitive indicator of the type of illogic being used by those who do not believe iin the commonly accepted history of the events of Sept 11/01.

The supposed conspirators would know to expect that there would be eyes in the sky on that day and most certainly dozens of cameras all trained on the general vicinity of the WTC. They could not be sure that the dust cloud would completely obscure WTC 7. They could not be completely confident that the supposed demolition of WTC 7 would occur as planned. They would know that within a few minutes of the 'planting' of this story the dust would settle and either WTC 7 would be down or it would not be.
IF it were down the most obvious reason for it to be so would be that WTC 1 and 2 had collapsed and taken #7 with them, WITH OR WITHOUT an offhand remark from a FF 'plant'.

They further assert that several minutes later another 'cover story' was sent to the BBC about WTC 7 having collapsed. This resulted in the BBC reporting it as so despite WTC 7 being quite visible in the background when the reporter is saying this. So in this case the conspirators did not bother to check that WTC 7 was or was not still standing.

In addition despite the dozens, dare I say hundreds, of instances every year in which a news agency gets 'facts' completely balled up they refuse to countenance the idea that during one of the most horrific events of the last 50 years that some reporters got things wrong.

Give it up Chris, let MM continue with this utterly ridiculous line. I thought you were beyond that.
 
Now that it is being claimed that the demolition was heard have the claims of Thermite/Thermate been dropped by the in thread promoters?
 
excaza said:
Originally Posted by Christopher7
No one has ever been in a similar situation but reporting that a 50 story building went down at 10:45 is very specific and it is not a the kind of mistake anyone would make.
Click to expand...
There was also a report stating Flight 93 was shot down. That's very specific and not the kind of mistake anyone would make. By your logic, Flight 93 was shot down.
Click to expand...

When a kidnapped child was found in Alberta two news agnecies reported widely differing accounts of his being found. They had different retail outlets, one a gas station, one a conveinience store, and were reporting that the child was found in two different towns dozens of kilometers apart.
Perhaps this was the work of a conspiracy of pedophiles who want to condition the public to both senarios, 'just in case'.

OTOH, I watched an NTSB "TECHNICAL" breifing of reporters concerning the crash of a jetliner into Queens, NY shortly after 9/11. The reporters asked SEVERAL TIMES, for the breifer to define what a 'g' was and what 'acelleration' meant. I would have thought that a news agency would send reporters with a basic knowledge of math and physics to a "TECHNICAL BREIFING" but apparently that is not the case.

This morning I watched as CBC Newsworld announced that the Manila Police had surrounded a bus that had been comandeered by a deranged gunman and that all the hostages were dead. While I was watching they never again mentioned that all were dead. Now, several hours later, of the 30 or so hostages 7 are reported dead.

Yeah breaking news is ALWAYS reported correctly:rolleyes:
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Now that it is being claimed that the demolition was heard have the claims of Thermite/Thermate been dropped by the in thread promoters?
Click to expand...

Of course not. They will hold that any and all senarios are 'possible' as long as its not one even remotely close to that from the NIST report, even if many of these are mutually exclusive.

BTW in reference to my above post; Newsworld also reported that the Manila police were using AK-47s when on screen it was obvious that they were not and that it was actually the gunman who had an AK-47
ETA: as I watch now CBC Newsworld had said AK-47 was what the gunman had but a reporter in manila reports he fired his M-16.
 
Last edited:
Then the reporting on that plane crash up in Alaska where the former head of NASA was initially reported dead but he didn't actually die.

Maybe that was a conspiracy too.
 
Miragememories said:
A successful controlled demolition implosion requires the simultaneous balanced (centered) removal of a sufficient number of core columns so that the remaining intact columns are unable to carry the transferred weight of the building.

MM
Click to expand...

What did NIST say abut the building if column 79 was removed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom