Christopher 7 --- C7 & C4

[Christopher7]

I'm bumping this old thread because chris thinks that THIS is the only place to critique his theory.

Reading the thread, I thing critique is a very mild word.

A few people here are honest enough to admit that WTC 7 looks like a CD.

WTC 7 imploded and landed mostly in it's own footprint.

That is evidence of CD.

Danny Jowenko and two professors of structural analysis and construction said it was 'absolutely' a CD based on the videos.

That is evidence of a CD

Daryl heard a 'sound like a clap of thunder' and a couple seconds later the bottom floor caved out.

That is evidence of a CD.

You can deny this evidence and then claim there is no evidence if you like.

 

[beachnut]

ignoring critical evidence keeps truthers in the dark

A few people here are honest enough to admit that WTC 7 looks like a CD.

WTC 7 imploded and landed mostly in it's own footprint.

That is evidence of CD.

Danny Jowenko and two professors of structural analysis and construction said it was 'absolutely' a CD based on the videos.

That is evidence of a CD

Daryl heard a 'sound like a clap of thunder' and a couple seconds later the bottom floor caved out.

That is evidence of a CD.

You can deny this evidence and then claim there is no evidence if you like.

You would fall for anything if you think WTC7 is a CD. I have watched CD, and WTC7 is missing some very critical elements. You will continue to waste your time, and you still have not found anything to support your ideas. You ignore all the facts, and have no facts to support your ideas which are already countered by other evidence you refuse to take into account. Your shallow research are the biggest reason you will never get past the standard rant on this issue. Plus, if you have the evidence you need to claim the Pulitzer Prize now; what are you waiting for great research man?

 

[Christopher7]

I have watched CD, and WTC7 is missing some very critical elements.

The owner of a CD company and two professors of structural analysis and construction disagree with you.

You ignore all the facts,

What facts have i ignored?

and have no facts to support your ideas

Fact: WTC 7 imploded

Fact: The exterior walls and most of the interior fell in about 7 seconds.

Fact: The entire collapse took about 15 seconds.

Fact: WTC 7 landed mostly in it's original footprint.

Fact: This is what happens in a professional building implosion.

which are already countered by other evidence you refuse to take into account.

What evidence?

 

[Christopher7]

Funk

Do you understand the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof' ?

evidence: sign or proof

Every high rise building building that has ever imploded, before or since 9/11, was a CD.

WTC 7 imploded.
This is a sign this it could have been a CD.
It is therefore evidence of a CD.

 

[JMarshall]

Wait... What definition of evidence are you using? Law? Scientific? Criminal? They all have slightly different definitions, and as such we all have to agree to adhere to one of them. Since truthers believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy, let's use the law definition... That would mean the evidence must be excluded from consideration based on indication of unreliability, and of social concerns. A sign, therefore would not be reliable, and as such not considered for evidence, while proof, would be considered since it is based on facts pertaining to the "case".

Think of it this way, if I were to shoot someone, and the police pulled my print off of the gun, that would be proof that I had handled that gun. Conversely, if the police found my Expert Rifle badge in my house that would be a sign I have experience with weapons, and as such they could easily come to a conclusion that I did it, but this wouldn't stand up as evidence...

I didn't see WTC7 implode, I saw it fall from structural fatigue. In fact, a lot of people are tagging the implode label on it just because they have seen a couple of controlled demolition implosions. If it looks like an implosion, yes that is a sign of implosion, but it isn't evidence.

 

[LashL]

Funk

Do you understand the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof' ?

evidence: sign or proof

Every high rise building building that has ever imploded, before or since 9/11, was a CD.

WTC 7 imploded.
This is a sign this it could have been a CD.
It is therefore evidence of a CD.

No, this is wrong.

In fact, it is a ridiculous, simplistic, uneducated piece of tripe.

The collapse of 7WTC is not "evidence" of a controlled demolition at all. It is "evidence" that the building collapsed, nothing more.

 

[TerryUK]

No, this is wrong.

In fact, it is a ridiculous, simplistic, uneducated piece of tripe.

The collapse of 7WTC is not "evidence" of a controlled demolition at all. It is "evidence" that the building collapsed, nothing more.

What you state above is completely wrong.

Try defining the word 'evidence' before you talk about "tripe"

 

[LashL]

What you state above is completely wrong.

Try defining the word 'evidence' before you talk about "tripe"

Unlike yourself, and unlike Christopher7, I deal with real evidence in real life on a daily basis. His post is, as I said, simplistic, uneducated tripe.

 

[TerryUK]

Unlike yourself, and unlike Christopher7, I deal with real evidence in real life on a daily basis. His post is, as I said, simplistic, uneducated tripe.

I don't think you know what I deal with on a daily basis, and you clearly don't seem to know what the term 'evidence' means.

Please prove ( or demonstrate ) that his post is tripe, and please give your ideas as to what 'evidence' means.

Edit: A little hint -- facts, information, or observations, do not need to be proof, in order to qualify as evidence.

 

[T.A.M.]

Terry you better have some pretty high credentials to tell a lawyer that they do not know what evidence is.

TAM

 

[LashL]

I don't think you know what I deal with on a daily basis, and you clearly don't seem to know what the term 'evidence' means.

Please prove ( or demonstrate ) that his post is tripe, and please give your ideas as to what 'evidence' means.

Admittedly, I base my opinion that you do not deal with real evidence on a daily basis, or even a regular basis, on the content of your posts. Your posts indicate to me that you know not of what you speak.

If you have any real world legal experience and expertise, all you need in order to satisfy yourself that Christopher7's post #364 is simplistic and uneducated tripe is to read it.

 

[TerryUK]

Admittedly, I base my opinion that you do not deal with real evidence on a daily basis, or even a regular basis, on the content of your posts. Your posts indicate to me that you know not of what you speak.

If you have any real world legal experience and expertise, all you need in order to satisfy yourself that Christopher7's post #364 is simplistic and uneducated tripe is to read it.

That just waffle.

Obviously, you can't back up what you say.

What does 'evidence' mean to you? Explain your position.

I don't think you can.

 

[LashL]

That just waffle.

Obviously, you can't back up what you say.

What does 'evidence' mean to you? Explain your position.

I don't think you can.

You are wrong, as usual.

But I am not easily sidetracked by piffle, and that is all that you have offered so far.

To refresh your memory, since it appears that you are easily sidetracked by your own piffle, Christopher7 made a silly post rife with logical and factual errors, and I said that it was a ridiculous, simplistic, uneducated piece of tripe, because it was.

You then purported to 'defend' his ridiculous, simplistic, uneducated post, without actually saying anything in support of it at all (how silly is that?), and without demonstrating in any manner whatsoever that you comprehended the obvious logical and factual errors in his post.

Leaving aside Christopher7's piffle and your own piffle for the moment, here is the matter at hand from my responding post, which still remains: "The collapse of 7WTC is not evidence of a controlled demolition at all. It is evidence that the building collapsed, nothing more."

Do you have a problem with that? If so, what is your problem with it and why?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Every high rise building building that has ever imploded, before or since 9/11, was a CD.

WTC 7 imploded.
This is a sign this it could have been a CD.
It is therefore evidence of a CD.

Every type of vehicle that was ever built, before or after the Apollo Lunar Module, was incapable of landing on the moon.
The Apollo Lunar Module was a vehicle.
This is a sign that it could have been incapable of landing on the moon.
It is therefore evidence that it did not land on the moon.

Is that how it works?

Of course, you could argue that the Apollo LM was designed to land on the moon, and WTC7 wasn't designed to collapse. So let's try again.

Every nuclear power station that was ever built, before or after Chernobyl, has not exploded.
Chernobyl was a nuclear power station.
This is a sign that it could have been impossible for it to explode.
It is therefore evidence that it did not explode.

Evidence it may be, but its weight is so close to zero that it's not worth considering.

Dave

 

[funk de fino]

Funk

Do you understand the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof' ?

evidence: sign or proof

Every high rise building building that has ever imploded, before or since 9/11, was a CD.

WTC 7 imploded.
This is a sign this it could have been a CD.
It is therefore evidence of a CD.

use the word "collapse" instead, it changes things for you

i know why you won't

 

[JimBenArm]

What's with all the zombie threads coming back to life lately? I thought Halloween was over.
Oh, and Terry? You're wrong. Just sayin'.

 

[Christopher7]

I didn't see WTC7 implode, I saw it fall from structural fatigue. In fact, a lot of people are tagging the implode label on it just because they have seen a couple of controlled demolition implosions. If it looks like an implosion, yes that is a sign of implosion, but it isn't evidence.

You have seen WTC 7 implode, you just refuse to admit it.

FEMA 5-30
If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why the building imploded

FEMA 5-31 Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building imploded

FEMA 5-31 WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the façade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse.

NIST L-33 The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building.

As always you deny any evidence presented and them chant "there is no evidence of CD".

WTC 7 did in fact implode.

FEMA recognized this yet you still try to talk around it.

You can play legal sophistry if you like but you cannot change the FACT that WTC 7 imploded.
i.e. It fell in on itself and landed mostly in it's own footprint.

The speed and manner was consistent with a CD.

This evidence of CD.

You will deny this too because you are simply in denial.

 

[JimBenArm]

You have seen WTC 7 implode, you just refuse to admit it.

FEMA 5-30
If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why the building imploded

FEMA 5-31 Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building imploded

FEMA 5-31 WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the façade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse.

NIST L-33 The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building.

As always you deny any evidence presented and them chant "there is no evidence of CD".

WTC 7 did in fact implode.

FEMA recognized this yet you still try to talk around it.

You can play legal sophistry if you like but you cannot change the FACT that WTC 7 imploded.
i.e. It fell in on itself and landed mostly in it's own footprint.

The speed and manner was consistent with a CD.

This evidence of CD.

You will deny this too because you are simply in denial.

Your arrogance is insulting. You need to apologize for this post immediately. Just because we disagree with you does not mean anyone is in denial. This is demeaning, and a person with integrity would not use such terms.

 

[Christopher7]

use the word "collapse" instead, it changes things for you

i know why you won't

[FONT=&quot]Stacy Loizeaux:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." ..........[/FONT][FONT=&quot] It's actually being pulled in on top of itself.
[/FONT]
Since that time, the term 'implosion' has become synonymous with controlled demolition. [when referring to buildings]

CD is the only known cause of a building implosion.

Building implosion is a fine art and only a few companies can do it.

The odds of a building imploding by chance are very remote.

The implosion of WTC 7 is very strong evidence of CD.

 

[Christopher7]

Your arrogance is insulting. You need to apologize for this post immediately. Just because we disagree with you does not mean anyone is in denial. This is demeaning, and a person with integrity would not use such terms.

Please

"I didn't see WTC7 implode"

That's denial Jim.

To say a building imploding is not evidence of CD when that's the only known cause, is denial.