Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

Tony Szamboti said:
As I have explained in detail on this thread, the chances of the North Tower causing fires on ten floors in WTC 7 that weren't observed for nearly two hours after the North Tower fell are essentially non-existent.
Click to expand...

Here's what you "explained":

No fires were observed in WTC7 until nearly 2 hours after WTC1's collapse.

Any fires would have been observed almost immediately after they started.

Therefore, there were no fires in WTC7 until nearly 2 hours after WTC1's collapse.

Therefore, the collapse could not have started the fires.

The only other way that fires could have started is by arson.

Therefore, the fires in WTC7 were arson.

I know you don't like to spell out your logic, but is that about right?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
As I have explained in detail on this thread, the chances of the North Tower causing fires on ten floors in WTC 7 that weren't observed for nearly two hours after the North Tower fell are essentially non-existent. It is obvious that you are not impartial and just trying to keep the door for criminality closed.
Click to expand...

As I and others have explained in detail, you have done nothing to show, illustrate or demonstrate that NIST was wrong in its estimation that potential ignition sources entered WTC7 through the entrances created by debris impact was "highly likely".
What you have done is proclaim it unlikely and make up a millisecond long covering of gypsum dust and arson spooks.
 
000063 said:
Appeal to Ignorance. Again.



I've heard something very similar, and wonder how the proverb-writer expected people to learn if they didn't ask questions.



Well, it's not like he keeps harping on helicopters, specifically, not noticing.

Oh, wait.



I asked Tony this earlier. He didn't answer, IIRC. Weird. Then again Truthers always tend to be a bit shaky on logistics.



:sdl:



And as others, myself included, have pointed out, your claims about likelihood are based on nothing more than your own incredulity.

Also, several people have pointed out that reports were made well before two hours. You've simply moved the goalposts to certain types of reports, and ignored the existence of others, as you are doing right now.



Assuming that's true, since you didn't bother to provide a source; people have bought up independent sources of power, such as generators.



Most rational people don't give two craps about WTC 7, because they don't know it even exists.
Click to expand...

The charges in WTC 7 would have to have been set before 911 as there would not have been time to do that on the same day. It would only have been the arsonists creating the cover that would have had something to do on the day of the event.

I am surprised you even asked this question in one way as it is somewhat basic. But then given the irrational attitude of some on here to try to undermine any attempt at a rational explanation of what happened I guess I am not too surprised.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Here's what you "explained":

No fires were observed in WTC7 until nearly 2 hours after WTC1's collapse.

Any fires would have been observed almost immediately after they started.

Therefore, there were no fires in WTC7 until nearly 2 hours after WTC1's collapse.

Therefore, the collapse could not have started the fires.

The only other way that fires could have started is by arson.

Therefore, the fires in WTC7 were arson.

I know you don't like to spell out your logic, but is that about right?
Click to expand...

There are a lot of things supporting the premise of arson being the reason behind the fires in WTC 7.

You forgot to bring up the very limited chances for something hot actually coming from WTC 1 and starting fires on ten floors of WTC 7 while at the same time starting none in the adjacent Verizon and Post Office buildings.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
There are a lot of things supporting the premise of arson being the reason behind the fires in WTC 7.

You forgot to explain the limited chances for something hot actually coming from WTC 1 and starting fires on ten floors of WTC 7 while at the same time starting none in the adjacent Verizon and Post Office buildings.
Click to expand...
Why 10 floors? Does fire not spread in your world (the NIST never said it didn't)? Focus reality, Tony.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Why 10 floors? Does fire not spread in your world? Focus reality, Tony.
Click to expand...

I really do hate responding to you since you seem to ask the same question or something similar or silly over and over and I don't think you are serious.

The investigation said ten floors had fires in WTC 7. They were 7,8,9,11,12,13,19,22,29, and 30.

The building was designed to prevent vertical spread and it seems to have worked as there was no fire on floor 10 and it had fire on three floors on either side of it.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
There are a lot of things supporting the premise of arson being the reason behind the fires in WTC 7.
Click to expand...
There is nothing beyond your imagination supporting the idea of arson spooks in WTC 7.
You forgot to bring up the limited chances for something hot actually coming from WTC 1 and starting fires on ten floors of WTC 7 while at the same time starting none in the adjacent Verizon and Post Office buildings.
Click to expand...

Non has forgotten. Those have all been addressed. Why do you ignore the obvious fact that WTC7 took more debris damage than the buildings next to it? Inconvenient ?
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
There are a lot of things supporting the premise of arson being the reason behind the fires in WTC 7.
You forgot to bring up the limited chances for something hot actually coming from WTC 1 and starting fires on ten floors of WTC 7 while at the same time starting none in the adjacent Verizon and Post Office buildings.
Click to expand...
Wow, you actually have something, like confessions, photos, incriminating documents, accredited lab results confirming accelerants? Come on, out with it! You certainly haven't shown the fire couldn't have spread from the WTC1 or been caused by debris that struck WTC 7.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The building was designed to prevent vertical spread and it seems to have worked as there was no fire on floor 10 and it had fire on three floors on either side of it.
Click to expand...

Was that before or after it was raped by the collapse of the North Tower?


Are you claiming first responder reports wrong?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The charges in WTC 7 would have to have been set before 911 as there would not have been time to do that on the same day. It would only have been the arsonists creating the cover that would have had something to do on the day of the event.

I am surprised you even asked this question in one way as it is somewhat basic. But then given the irrational attitude of some on here to try to undermine any attempt at a rational explanation of what happened I guess I am not too surprised.
Click to expand...

What type of charges, what type of explosives?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
You forgot to bring up the very limited chances for something hot actually coming from WTC 1 and starting fires on ten floors of WTC 7 while at the same time starting none in the adjacent Verizon and Post Office buildings.
Click to expand...

... but, yet, starting fires in CARS around WTC7?

So, with that premise added, is that your reasoning?
 
And we're back to treating the buildings as if they were performing in an undamaged state.... take 10100000000000
 
Ziggi said:
You really can´t tell the difference between the person citing a quote (me) and the institution being quoted (NIST). That explains a lot. Bye.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

With respect to your theory which you can't express or defend with evidence; how do 19 murderers in four planes fit?

Will there ever be evidence for the CD fantasy? I can answer that. No.

911 truth fails to bash NIST, as 911 truth fails to present the CD case, no evidence, no engineering for how CD was accomplished in a building not a target of 19 murderers who did 911 with no assistance - cutting throats and flying airplanes is a do it yourself issue, unlike your inside job fantasy CD with countless people you can't name doing murder in some far out fantasy.

We have 19 who did the murder of thousands, and we have the idiotic fantasy CD of WTC 7 - which no one can explain given 13 years. How does bashing NIST support the delusional CD claims?
 
WilliamSeger said:
BTW, that may have been a Freudian slip, but didn't you mean to say the "inference of arson" rather than the premise? :D
Click to expand...
My bet is Freudian. It is a clear indication of a faith based position. Start with the conclusion you desire then select evidence which supports that pre-determined conclusion.

Which naturally is why many members here are wasting time attempting reasoned rational objective responses.

Rationality does not compute to a person operating in faith based mode.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom