Christopher 7 --- C7 & C4

[Gravy]

Who said anything about royalties? The owners of the images gave them to NIST to be used in its investigation, not to you.

Clear enough?

Now, for the second time:

Please explain, as clearly as you can, how you think the splice plate was blowtorched, and if you think that was part of the conspirators' demolition work.

 

[LashL]

You are playing word games.
WTC 7 fell in 7 seconds. Most people understand what that means.
If you have a problem with that statement, then you have a problem.

It is you that has the problem, Chris. WTC7 did not fall in 7 seconds. You know that and yet you continue to repeat what you know to be a lie.

You cannot artificially separate one portion of the collapse (the final ~7 seconds of it) from the entirety of it (you know, the collapse from start to finish) and then claim that "WTC7 fell in 7 seconds" unless you are deliberately grossly dishonest with yourself - and others.

 

[Christopher7]

On digital cameras white balancing is important to obtain natural colours.

Thank you for the info.

It all comes down to:

Do you think these splices broke off or do you think they have been cut by a heat source.
I consider this evidence of a cutting charge of some kind.
You may disagree but you cannot dismiss this evidence out of hand IMO.

 

[Christopher7]

It is you that has the problem, Chris. WTC7 did not fall in 7 seconds. You know that and yet you continue to repeat what you know to be a lie.

You cannot artificially separate one portion of the collapse (the final ~7 seconds of it) from the entirety of it (you know, the collapse from start to finish) and then claim that "WTC7 fell in 7 seconds" unless you are deliberately grossly dishonest with yourself - and others.

On the contrary sir, i can do whatever i bloody well want.
It's a mater of how you define the word building

 

[Gravy]

Thank you for the info.

It all comes down to:

Do you think these splices broke off or do you think they have been cut by a heat source.
I consider this evidence of a cutting charge of some kind.
You may disagree but you cannot dismiss this evidence out of hand IMO.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/5668/wtc7debris111td0.jpg

More cowardice?

Chris, I know your memory is very short, but a few hours back I reminded you that I showed you why you are wrong. If you have an issue with the analysis in my WTC 7 paper, out with it.

 

[Gravy]

On the contrary sir, i can do whatever i bloody well want.
It's a mater of how you define the word building

You're a Stundie machine, a Stundie stud, a Stundie god.

 

[Christopher7]

Who said anything about royalties? The owners of the images gave them to NIST to be used in its investigation, not to you.

The owners did the right thing, the government did not.

There is no justification for releasing a few of the photographs and withholding the rest.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris, I know your memory is very short, but a few hours back I reminded you that I showed you why you are wrong. If you have an issue with the analysis in my WTC 7 paper, out with it.

What analysis? page # please

 

[Gravy]

The same analysis that I presented to you on this forum months ago, for which you had no answer. Use my paper's index.

 

[LashL]

On the contrary sir, i can do whatever i bloody well want.
It's a mater of how you define the word building

You cannot possibly expect to be taken seriously with a post like that.

 

[Christopher7]

The same analysis that I presented to you on this forum months ago, for which you had no answer. Use my paper's index.

I used your index, saw the pretty pictures and a comment by you.
If you want me to read your analysis, give me the page number

 

[Christopher7]

You cannot possibly expect to be taken seriously with a post like that.

You guys are so in denial you can't even admit that WTC 7 fell at close to freefall speed.

 

[gumboot]

Christoper, I don't see any blue discolouration in the steel of the picture you posted. Care to identify it?

Also what is the source of that image? It's very very wrong. For starters it's fish-eyed, which makes no sense at all (who wanders around with a fish-eye lens on their stills camera?). Secondly, the large white section behind/above the foreground core column looks very suspicious.

What's the dea?

-Gumboot

 

[Mobyseven]

Christoper, I don't see any blue discolouration in the steel of the picture you posted. Care to identify it?

The photo has been overexposed and poorly white-balanced. I think that where (what I assumed) was bright poorly balanced sky bleeds into the top of the beam is the 'blue discolouration'.

Also what is the source of that image? It's very very wrong. For starters it's fish-eyed, which makes no sense at all (who wanders around with a fish-eye lens on their stills camera?). Secondly, the large white section behind/above the foreground core column looks very suspicious.

What's the dea?

-Gumboot

Once again, Gumboot sees the obvious that Mobyseven failed to recognise.

 

[Mobyseven]

Thank you for the info.

It all comes down to:

Do you think these splices broke off or do you think they have been cut by a heat source.
I consider this evidence of a cutting charge of some kind.
You may disagree but you cannot dismiss this evidence out of hand IMO.

What I think in this case is pretty irrelevant. I don't have the required expertise to tell you that, and even people with relevant expertise would (I imagine) have trouble analysing the cause of a break from a photograph.

That is why I open the question to anybody here who DOES have that knowledge - can someone with the relevant expertise tell me what may have caused that?

 

[Christopher7]

[IMG]http://img152.imageshack.u

Christoper, I don't see any blue discolouration in the steel of the picture you posted. Care to identify it?

Also what is the source of that image? It's very very wrong. For starters it's fish-eyed, which makes no sense at all (who wanders around with a fish-eye lens on their stills camera?). Secondly, the large white section behind/above the foreground core column looks very suspicious.

What's the dea?

-Gumboot

Here's the full photo that i have.

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/2063/64795019wk8.jpg

 

[gumboot]

Here's the full photo that i have.

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/2063/64795019wk8.jpg

Ah, thanks. It makes a lot more sense now. The white is the sky and that pale blue is actually some other structure in the background.

Now where's this "blue discolouration"? Surely you don't mean the staining at the top of the severed column?

-Gumboot

ETA. And once again, why on earth was that taken with a fisheye lens?

 

[Christopher7]

What I think in this case is pretty irrelevant. I don't have the required expertise to tell you that, and even people with relevant expertise would (I imagine) have trouble analysing the cause of a break from a photograph.

That is why I open the question to anybody here who DOES have that knowledge - can someone with the relevant expertise tell me what may have caused that?

You don't need any expertise to determine if the steel ripped apart or was cut IMO.

You may disagree but you cannot justifiably deny the possibility that they were cut.

 

[Christopher7]

Ah, thanks. It makes a lot more sense now. The white is the sky and that pale blue is actually some other structure in the background.

Now where's this "blue discolouration"? Surely you don't mean the staining at the top of the severed column?

Yes, i do

 

[gumboot]

Yes, i do

Er... okaaaay...

That's not blue-discolouration due to to heating.

Frankly it looks like a water stain to me.

-Gumboot