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

I have explained it clearly. You are willfully blind to the fact that FFA means "an object with no supporting structure below" and the fact that the computer model always provides resistance as Dr. Sunder said.
Why do you lie? Sunder was talking about the entire collapse not the 8 floors. Intelligent adults know this. The comment was made before the change and Chandler was not clear about what he meant. You twist it into something it's not and claim a victory you didn't earn. FFA of the entire collapse means that there was no supporting structure of the entire building. This has nothing to do with the 8 floor FFA. You know this, yet still misquote it to support your fantasy. This only shows that you have no interest in the truth. You use this and the death of those that died that day to further your agenda. You have proven yourself to be no better than the government you hate.
 
I am well aware FFA means that there is no viable support for what's above. The question that you appear to be wholly oblivious to is what causes this loss of support to take place. Let me spell it out:

You have cause

and then you have effect

You have given me the effect. But nothing of a cause, nor proof thereof. You seem to support explosives, so I'd like to know; what if anything you have to defend that claim other than it "looked like" or "it fell at FFA."

You have gracefully acknowledged my question, perhaps you can delight me a bit more by addressing the actual point rather than repeating a claim straight up that I asked hours ago for you to offer more substance on.
We agree that FFA means an object with no support, in this case, no support for ~100 feet. This means all the support has been removed on 7 to 8 floors.

Explosives can remove all the support. If you cannot think of another possibility then you must accept that explosives were the cause.

You think of reasons why it can't be explosives but you cannot think of another cause. Your inability to figure out how it was done with explosives does not preclude explosives.
 
We agree that FFA means an object with no support, in this case, no support for ~100 feet. This means all the support has been removed on 7 to 8 floors.

Explosives can remove all the support.

But there were no man-made explosives used at WTC.
 
"Lessons in Basic Logic Pre101"
We agree that FFA means an object with no support, in this case, no support for ~100 feet. This means all the support has been removed on 7 to 8 floors. ...
...probably true to "no support".....

...Explosives can remove all the support....
...yes - explosives are one possible means.
If you cannot think of another possibility then you must accept that explosives were the cause.
...utterly batcrazy crap. Two parts:

First part - It does not depend on the ability of one specific opposing debater to "think of another". The test is that another or others are feasible. There are many possibilities. NIST has described one and that one is all that is needed in the absence of any rebuttal of that one.

Second part - lack of skill in conceptual thinking in engineering structures does not impose any obligation on the person of limited conceptual skills to accept an unproven and undefined hypothesis - viz alleged use of explosives with no explanation as to how it could be achieved AND in face of overwhelming evidence that explosives were not used.

...You think of reasons why it can't be explosives but you cannot think of another cause. Your inability to figure out how it was done with explosives does not preclude explosives.
...your opponent does not have to detail another cause, only rely on those postulated by others. Conversely, and probably by accident, your final statement is logically correct. No limited conceptual skill of your opponent precludes explosives. So you got that bit of a truism right but there is no credit for inventing red herrings whether same be true or false. What does preclude explosives is all the dominant weight of evidence.

BTW other members. Has anyone kept count of how many times C7 has circled to replay his false dichotomy? :rolleyes:
 
Creationists use the same argument. If Evolution is false then their version of their creation myth must be true.
 
Ozeco went over it, but allow me to give you my feedback...

c7 said:
Explosives can remove all the support. If you cannot think of another possibility then you must accept that explosives were the cause.
I can think of another reasonable cause. Enough of the internal structure failed that the remainder didn't have any viable stability left. When these columns began to buckle it was over. But I've seen no viable explanation for how this is not possible, nor any that it didn't happen.

c7 said:
You think of reasons why it can't be explosives but you cannot think of another cause.
Certainly anything is possible. It's possible a tactical nuke was detonated next to the columns to blow them apart. It's possible that meteor hit the columns and severed them. Well we can imagine just about anything we want. As per your bolded part... it's true in your case certainly, but rather than complaining about your inability to think of any other failure mechanism, I'm asking you to explain how you eliminated it from your argument altogether with no basis for doing so.

c7 said:
Your inability to figure out how it was done with explosives does not preclude explosives.
In case you haven't noticed already, this whole thing about explosives not being the culprit has nothing to do with tactical ability to implement it. We can imagine with enough effort that secret ninjas installed explosives in every conceivable crevice, within the shortest measurable time frame. Sure... why not... But all you have offered thus far is "it looks like" and "it fell this way." That's far from enough. There are a few cosmetic resemblances between the collapse of WTC 7 & demolitions, but far too many deviations from demotion's to call it that, and too little evidence beyond your two major talking points for the conclusion of yours to be viable.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for proving again that reading comprehension is a foreign concept to you. Mr Sunder states:
And if you look at the analysis of the video, it shows that the time it takes for the 17-for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video, below which you can't see anything in the video, is about 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows, and the structural analysis shows, or the collapse analysis shows, is that same that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is 5.4 seconds.
In the real world, 17 floors does not equal 8 floors. There is also when the statement was made. It was made when Chandler pointed out the fact that NIST did not do a detailed analysis of the fall time and that was before the final report was published. In the real world, before the final report was published is also before NIST did their own analysis based on Chandlers work and found the 8 floors of FFA. Therefore, in the real world, Mr. Sunder could not have been talking about the 8 floors of FFA. However, in your delusional world, time and space wraps around itself and statements magically apply to whatever you want them to.
 
No. NIST says it took 5.4 sec for the north face to fall 17 floors and that is when the roof line falls below the building in front where the yellow arrow is in Mr. Chandlers video. He made that clear.

The video you posted is using the wrong ending point.

Let's take a look at what you just said. Here is the link to Chandler's video, the same link you posted a few posts before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k

At :51 of this video, Chandler says something about John Gross' explanation on how they determined the time of fall to be 5.4 seconds. Here is a screenshot so you don't get mixed up.
Chandler1.png


At about 1:11 in the video, what does he say was the endpoint of their measurement? I'll put it in large bold letters for you so you don't miss it.

"...disappeared from view between the two buildings seen in the video..."

So, "between the two buildings"...

What the hell could he possibly mean????? Why is Chandler using a point NOT between two buildings?????

So let's see.

NOT BETWEEN TWO BUILDINGS:
WTC7clip3.jpg


BETWEEN TWO BUILDINGS:
WTC7clip2.jpg
 
Explosives can remove all the support. If you cannot think of another possibility then you must accept that explosives were the cause.

I can't even think how explosives can remove all resistance. Could you please expand on this statement to show how explosives can be used to remove all resistance since it doesn't seem to happen as a general rule in controlled demolitions.
 
Christpher7. It seems I owe you an apology. You are correct. I was using the wrong video.

But, then again, so was Mr. Chandler. That's what got me confused. Was this done by him on purpose? Can you tell me why Mr. Chandler used this next video of the collapse of WTC7 to compare NIST's actual wording in their report and how they got their collpase time of 5.4 seconds?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ

Why didn't Mr. Chandler use the same video referenced in the NIST report linked next? The one from camera 3? I mean NIST actually stated the exact videothey used in their damn report?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A&feature=related

I see downward movement of the northwest corner at :01 and then the roof line disappears at :06.

5 secs. I cannot get more granular to get the .4 seconds.

So now that we are on the same page care to discuss the second video, the correct video, and tell me why 5.4 seconds is fraudulent?
 
We agree that FFA means an object with no support, in this case, no support for ~100 feet. This means all the support has been removed on 7 to 8 floors.

Explosives can remove all the support. If you cannot think of another possibility then you must accept that explosives were the cause.

You think of reasons why it can't be explosives but you cannot think of another cause. Your inability to figure out how it was done with explosives does not preclude explosives.

Columns buckling. There, there's another possibility.
 
Last edited:
Since C7 refuses to allow any other possibilities, it's not difficult to see that his circular reasoning works for him just fine - there are no other mechanisms, because there are no other mechanisms - if anyone offers one, he can simply deny it, and return to his intellectual loop.

Self-reinforcing bare-assertion fallacy. And he's being going on like this for WEEKS.

C7's bare assertion is not unlike a religious zealot repeating some idea like 'God loves us all' or 'God spoke to Moses' as if those things were facts and could even be supported with evidence.

FFA = CD is really just like 'God loves us all'. It may comfort those who wish to believe it, but it is not possible to prove it with science. It will always be an article of faith and nothing more.

The fixed beliefs of people are found everywhere - just as many people (esp Republicans) now believe that Barack Obama was not born in America, and will reject ANY evidence offered as proof, no matter how solid it is. It's part of the 'anti-knowledge' trend sweeping thru America as its culture devolves slowly; a hint of dark ages of fear and ignorance which are increasingly being embraced as an alternative to 'official' knowledge and wisdom.

Just as it boggles the mind that fully 41% of Republicans believe Obama was not born in the US, it is equally amazing how many 9/11 Truthers cling to the belief that the WTC attacks were not only orchestrated by their own government, but involved controlled demolition - with no evidence to support these ideas.

I feel sad for America. I really do.
 
Holy Sheblac, I love the internet! Only here could you walk out to a duck pond, see duck tracks in the mud, observe duck droppings between the tracks, spot duck feathers along the trail, watch a video of a duck making the tracks, and still find someone who was absolutely sure the tracks were those of an armor plated Tyrannosaurus Rex bent on avenging the death of Michael Jackson.

Here we have a ten page thread which basically focuses on minutiae involving a relatively unimportant part (what caused WTC7 to fall) of the main event ( the destruction of the Twin Towers), without even the benefit of a shred of evidence that would suggest its collapse was not related to the larger event. Call me naïve, but it occurs to me that having two large building collapse in flames right next to the building in question might have something to do with its subsequent destruction without the help of any other external assistance.

But here’s something to think about: if you’re right, why are you still alive?
I’m not saying you’re wrong, it’s possible that the official story is a cover up. It’s possible that the moon landings are fake and professional wrestling is real. I’m willing to keep an open mind even though you’ve failed to come up with one piece of hard evidence, present a logical alternative theory, give a technical summation of exactly how a CD could be accomplished under the circumstances of the event, or ( for many of you) even find the spell-check button on your own computers, but that doesn’t explain why an allegedly omnipotent, omniscient invisible organization couldn’t (or wouldn’t) just make you go away.

I think even you will agree that if you’re wrong you’re just another deluded moron, and as such no harm to the actual conspirators ( OBL, AL Qaeda, et al),in fact you would be assisting them by keeping the waters muddy. But if you’re right, you ( and your fellow Truthers) are the last great threat to their ( the Government, Bilderburgers, Eskimo Ninjas of Zurich, etc.) insidious plan to accomplish whatever objective they have in mind.
And if you’re right, then the true conspirators are, by definition, a vast, massively financed, all encompassing organization with almost infinite resources, total control of government organizations at most every level, with an army of minions, and the ability to direct the media in whatever manner they choose. So why haven‘t they shut you up??
I mean, if you’re right, they’ve already managed to cover their tracks exceedingly well and they’re obviously ruthless enough to suborn, intimidate, or whack out a few fringe journalists and amateur investigators, so why aren’t you in one of the top secret re-education camps in Kansas, or occupying a shallow grave at Area 51?
 
Here we have a ten page thread which basically focuses on minutiae involving a relatively unimportant part (what caused WTC7 to fall) of the main event ( the destruction of the Twin Towers), without even the benefit of a shred of evidence that would suggest its collapse was not related to the larger event. Call me naïve, but it occurs to me that having two large building collapse in flames right next to the building in question might have something to do with its subsequent destruction without the help of any other external assistance.

Us debunkers often get so involved in the fight that we sometimes forget the plain and simple things. :D

Welcome aboard the crazy-train, Chuck. Keeps your hands inside the vehicle and all times and practice personal hygiene regularly (the truthers won't, so we have to take up the slack).
 

Back
Top Bottom