Christopher 7 --- C7 & C4

[JimBenArm]

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.

Oh, how silly of me. I forgot that you're a carpenter, and able to diagnose this, as well as critique causes of a building collapse. Yes, if we don't agree with you it must be denial, or stupidity. What else could it be?

You still can't see your own arrogance, can you?

 

[Christopher7]

Funk

Hers's one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I


Here's another.
Please note that they cut off the beginning of the collapse.
That's when the clap of thunder Daryl heard would have occurred.

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


The beginning of the collapse is missing from this video too.

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

 

[Christopher7]

Oh, how silly of me. I forgot that you're a carpenter, and able to diagnose this, as well as critique causes of a building collapse. Yes, if we don't agree with you it must be denial, or stupidity. What else could it be?

Yes, that was truly silly of you.
I did not diagnose this, FEMA did.

If you reject their diagnosis, you are in denial.

WTC 7 IMPLODED.

Seriously dude, it's bloody obvious.

 

[funk de fino]

[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.

Again replace implode with collapse and see where it leaves your evidence

Also from your own quote

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

Why only bold certain parts of that statement?

Did the penthouse collapse before the rest? Who says you get to decide if it is an implosion? Only if it suits your theory? Does Loizeaux think WTC7 was CD?

If it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it was not CD then is it still an implosion?

If you can prove it was a CD then you can call it an implosion. You have it the wrong way round C7.

 

[Christopher7]

Again replace implode with collapse and see where it leaves your evidence

No

Did the penthouse collapse before the rest?

Yes

Who says you get to decide if it is an implosion?

I didn't, FEMA did.

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

Does Loizeaux think WTC7 was CD?

Does Loiseaux think WTC 7 imploded?

If it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it was not CD then is it still an implosion?

Yes, implosion means it fell in on itself.

 

[funk de fino]

Funk

Hers's one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I

Where was this taken C7? Where is WTC7, I cannot see it and I do not know when this happenbed or where. In fact I think this is the one that was elsewhere was it not? Not at the WTC7?

Here's another.
Please note that they cut off the beginning of the collapse.
That's when the clap of thunder Daryl heard would have occurred.

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

Shows nothing and never at any time does any of the people mention implode? This must be evidence it was not CD? The news guy says collapse. The firemen say blow up and I hear no explosions?

The beginning of the collapse is missing from this video too.

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

Strange I see the penthouse move but I see no explosions or hear any in this video. Why is that? Where are the videos like the ones on implosionworld that you so kindly showed me too?

This quote from youtube about a video that clearly shows the penthouse collpase followed by the total collapse is more than 7 seconds really says it all about the company you keep C7

Maybe you should get your eyes checked dork! The collapse sequence begins at 00:12, at the latest 00:13, and is COMPLETE no later than 00:19. That's 6 to 7 seconds you lying piece of filth. But the BLATANT fact that you are a LIAR was already apparent with your PATHETIC claim that this video is "rare video." You lying pig.

keep on wasting your life by all means

 

[JimBenArm]

Yes, that was truly silly of you.
I did not diagnose this, FEMA did.

If you reject their diagnosis, you are in denial.

WTC 7 IMPLODED.

Seriously dude, it's bloody obvious.

Only to people like you, who consider their own expertise in areas outside their own to be greater than it is. Sorry, you are a complete and total layman, with no experience or expertise to make these determinations. This would be analogous to me correcting a surgeon on a videotaped documentary on open-heart surgery because I fileted a salmon once.
The fact you cannot or will not realize this is truly astounding!

 

[Christopher7]

Only to people like you, who consider their own expertise in areas outside their own to be greater than it is. Sorry, you are a complete and total layman, with no experience or expertise to make these determinations. This would be analogous to me correcting a surgeon on a videotaped documentary on open-heart surgery because I fileted a salmon once.
The fact you cannot or will not realize this is truly astounding!

Hello?

I think you and Funk have gone off the deep end.

FEMA made the determination.

 

[funk de fino]

Hello?

I think you and Funk have gone off the deep end.

FEMA made the determination.

hello

Show me how many times NIST use implode compared to collapse

cherrypicker

 

[phunk]

[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.

Actually, no. Using that definition of implosion, any collapse starting in the core of a building is going to be an implosion, regardless of the cause of the collapse. Implosion is a result of CD, but CD is not the only cause of implosion, and therefore you need further evidence to prove CD over the other causes.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Actually, no. Using that definition of implosion, any collapse starting in the core of a building is going to be an implosion, regardless of the cause of the collapse. Implosion is a result of CD, but CD is not the only cause of implosion, and therefore you need further evidence to prove CD over the other causes.

Oooh, nice one. You caught Chris affirming the consequent. Like no-one's ever done that before where WTC7's concerned.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

Actually, no. Using that definition of implosion, any collapse starting in the core of a building is going to be an implosion, regardless of the cause of the collapse. Implosion is a result of CD, but CD is not the only cause of implosion, and therefore you need further evidence to prove CD over the other causes.

What other cases?

CD is the only known cause of a building implosion.

Building implosion is a fine art.

It cannot happen by chance.

 

[contra]

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

correct? however the chances are greatly increased if its hit be debris weighing tons from over a 1000 feet up?

Its like the chance of my being hit by a car by chance while sitting in my non ground level flat are next to zero. however if I go outside the changes change.

Hydrogen and Oxygen will spontaniously combine at room temperature to make water. Chemically this may take thousands of years, but would happen without heat.
The chances of water being created increase towards 100% (not quite though) if you add a flame.

The situation changing, changes the chance of an event.

Building implosion is a fine art.

Well if its a controlled demolition. you are right. It takes months to prepare, plan what to do, gut the building, wire it up, cut some of the supports to make it less stable. etc etc etc

It takes a long time to do, and is almost an art.

I had more... but I grow weary of this plane of existance... ie its 1.20am

 

[Christopher7]

correct? however the chances are greatly increased if its hit be debris weighing tons from over a 1000 feet up?

Not in this case.
The debris damage was to the south west part of WTC 7.
The implosion began in the east central part.

 

[contra]

So the chances didn't increase at all from the damage?
Nothing?
Zero?
Nada?

I find that hard to believe. I would think what anything that changed the whole way the weight of the building is disributed would change the chances of it falling. Add in the fire and such.... and the chances keep going up.

 

[leftysergeant]

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

So did all the steel elements of the Windsor Tower above the mechanical floor that halted the collapse and that was ENTIRELY due to fires.

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

Or in the case of a steel building involved in a severe fire, e.g., the Windsor Tower.

What evidence?

All of it, actually.

And let's go back to what morons like Gage call "squibs" at the top of WTC 7. They are rectangular and they do not expand as the building starts to subside. They do not shoot out horizontally. They are in the exact same location as debris damage more clearly visible from the other side of the building.

Most of the "evidence" presented by twoofers in re WTC 7 is just plain slovenly research, if it can be called that. the originator of the "squibs" BS is obviously a dim wit.

 

[Christopher7]

So the chances didn't increase at all from the damage?
Nothing?
Zero?
Nada?

I find that hard to believe. I would think what anything that changed the whole way the weight of the building is disributed would change the chances of it falling. Add in the fire and such.... and the chances keep going up.

Nada

[FONT=&quot]NIST L - 36
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. Progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel of the perimeter moment frame which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame,"

[/FONT]The damage to the SW part of WTC 7 had no significant effect on columns 79, 80 and 81.

 

[contra]

Significant and none are very different.

I've lost blood.
I've lost a significant amount of blood.
Very different statements, one implying a lot more than the other.

Significant shows things changed, that when other factors are put in changes everything. If it had a massive effect it would have fallen right away. It had an effect with everything else; so it stood for hours then fell.

 

[TerryUK]

Significant and none are very different.

I've lost blood.
I've lost a significant amount of blood.
Very different statements, one implying a lot more than the other.

Significant shows things changed, that when other factors are put in changes everything. If it had a massive effect it would have fallen right away. It had an effect with everything else; so it stood for hours then fell.

"no significant effect"
That means it had 'no effect that mattered' doesn't it?

 

[JMarshall]

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

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

What is this an intervention? Hi, my names Josh, and I saw WTC7 fall, not implode...

[GROUP]
Hi Josh, we're here to help!
[/GFROUP]

Look, Christopher, I'm not offended, by your callow remarks, but there is something you have to understand, I do have demolition, and explosives experience, and as such I saw WTC7 fall from structural failure, it looked nothing like a CD to me.

Another thing, using your (il)logic:

CDs fall into their foot print, companies are so good they can bring a building down mere feet from other buildings and not harm them.

WTC7 fell mostly into it's footprint, with damage done to the surrounding areas, this is a sign it wasn't a CD!

So therefore, by your logic it is evidence that WTC was not a CD!

You see how that works? It's completely idiotic to think that way

You cannot possibly understand what all goes into an actual CD, so why do you think you can claim it was just from watching some videos?