DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

[DC]

Not really, you're just so darn predictable.

i like your honesty

 

[johnny karate]

no, you will then just claim they heard something else, they was mistaken, they are liars etc

Perhaps you should look up the definition of the word "unequivocally". Ambiguous statements regarding random explosions can be interpreted many different ways.

However, your job is to provide witness testimony that unequivocally describes the very loud and very distinctive detonation charges of a controlled demolition.

And then of course, you need to offer an explanation why they weren't heard by everyone and picked up by every recording device in the vicinity.

not worth the effort.

Your concession is noted. Back to thermite is it then?

 

[DC]

Perhaps you should look up the definition of the word "unequivocally". Ambiguous statements regarding random explosions can be interpreted many different ways.

However, your job is to provide witness testimony that unequivocally describes the very loud and very distinctive detonation charges of a controlled demolition.

And then of course, you need to offer an explanation why they weren't heard by everyone and picked up by every recording device in the vicinity.



Your concession is noted. Back to thermite is it then?

thats not my job

 

[johnny karate]

Good thing, because you'd be fired for total incompetence.

 

[DC]

Good thing, because you'd be fired for total incompetence.

only if i dont work for the goevernment, cause incompetence will not get you fired when you work for the government

 

[lapman]

long after? how long? the collapse didnt take long.

Why are you avoiding the fact that he heard nothing before the start of the collapse?

 

[DC]

Why are you avoiding the fact that he heard nothing before the start of the collapse?

im not sure if your claim is a fact.

 

[lapman]

im not sure if your claim is a fact.

In other words, you refuse to address this fact. You can't point out that he heard anything prior to the collapse. So, as usual, your "feeling" are baseless.

 

[DC]

In other words, you refuse to address this fact. You can't point out that he heard anything prior to the collapse. So, as usual, your "feeling" are baseless.

i refuse to accept your claim as a fact.

 

[lapman]

i refuse to accept your claim as a fact.

And the basis of that refusal is?

 

[DC]

And the basis of that refusal is?

we canot know without asking him.

 

[Garb]

we canot know without asking him.

Then ask him.

 

[Pardalis]

thats not my job

What is your job, really? I don't mean your day job, but your job within your cause?

Obviously you're not an engineer or an expert of anykind, so what can you do to help your movement?

 

[lapman]

we canot know without asking him.

Nice cop-out. He specifically states that he had no idea that anything was going on until people said something on the radio. He even goes to state that he didn't even hear any creaking. Any honest adult of at least modest intelligence would consider that showing that he didn't hear anything from the building prior to the collapse. That is why what I claim is a fact. What is your evidence to the contrary?

 

[applecorped]

i like your honesty

And I like your avatar. To bad you can't be more like him. Keep trying though.

 

[thewholesoul]

“You obviosly haven't heard of the Kader Toy Factory fire . Oh well”

I concluded, based on the fact that prior to and after 911 there IS NO EXAMPLE of a natural collapse resembling a CD, that the truthers have a historically stronger argument based on experience of how buildings “appear” when they collapse. Now in order to refute my conclusion the premise upon which that conclusion was based must be refuted.

Lapman thinks citing the Kadar Toy Factory collapse refutes my premise. He is mistaken for the following reasons

-a four story toy factory is not a steel frame skyscraper
-kadar toy factory did not have steel core columns
-kadar toy factory was presumably not built to the same high standards and city codes of the wtc buildings
-you have no video of the collapse so how on gods green earth can you claim that its collapse resembled a CD? How?
-you have no newspaper articles or journalists specifically commenting that it looked like or reminded them of a CD
-you got nothing but a healthy state of denial and yes of course i have heard of the Kadar Factory i sometimes read debunking sites aswell when i need a good laugh

so because lapman was evidently unable to refute the premise upon which my conclusion was made. My conclusion #1 stands.

Lapman thinks my conclusion is

“False. There are too many other first time in histories that truther ignore”

Obviously his logic is bankrupt if he thinks that this unrelated line of reasoning refutes the above premise. To repeat, provide me one example in history when a natural collapse resembled a CD using either video footage, news articles, scientific journals, anything except your biased opinion. If you cant do that then accept the conclusion and move on.

Besides it is “deniers” that deny too many “first time in histories”. For example, first time in history steel framed skyscraper fell due to fire. This happens three times on the same friggin day and all deniers can say is...◊◊◊◊ happens. the fires still burning after the collapse where the longest ever burning structural fires in history. What do deniers say? Big deal. First time in history steel evaporated from a hydrocarbon fire etc etc. So when you claim that truthers deny too many “first times in history”
you are talking complete nonesense.

Finally you say

“Of course the truthers have never produced a CD where any part of the roof structures collapsed into the building first either. I guess that doesn't count”

Correct it doesnt count.

Have you even contemplated what you think it would count for? Firstly debunkers already concede that 7 resembled a CD. And secondly debunkers already conceded that 7 resembles a CD. Your suggestion that because a relatively small part of the building collapsed independently from the rest of the building that somehow the near global collaspe didnt resemble a CD is pointless when for the third time - debunkers have already conceded that 7 resembles a CD.

So you not only don't know the difference between explosion and explosions as well as what timing is.

What are your reasons in support this fallicious statement?

All sorts of things explode.

.....i see the force runs strong in you young jedi

However, CD have a very distinct sequence that is unique. Nothing like that was ever reported or recorded.

first explosions heard before any towers collapsed - Jennings
secondary explosions heard every 15 to 20 minutes - DeMentri
more explosions heard just before collapse– Bartmer

There seems to be a sequence alright.

If you bothered to read down a little further you will see that i had already anticpated your above point:

“i am not saying that the explosives in CD were detonated in the same manner as in a regular CD. it appears to me that explosives were detonated over a long period of time disguising the fact that it was a controlled demolition”

Wtc 7 CD was NOT a regular CD precisely because it had a unique and distinct sequence from a regular CD.

Again with the "explosion and only mean explosives" fallacy. All sorts of things make the sharp sound that can me interpreted as an explosion.

Name them.

And can these explosions account for the structural damage to the 6th floor and lobby in Jennings and Hesh’s testimony?

Explosions were going off every 15 to 20 minutes...so when you do come up with a “possible” explanation ask yourself will it explode once or will it continually explode over definite periods of time?

Obviously you ignored the testimony of William Connors – to repeat he says he could hear explosion(s) inside the loading dock. So why dont you get a floor plan of 7, locate the loading dock, then find out where the fires and diesel tanks where and then come back to me. Until then this “explosion means explosives” fallacy doesnt wash, and if you think that hand waving this oneliner constitutes you countering my points – your mistaken.

If you really checked, the explosives are set off in a specific sequence to first cut the steel columns and then a second set is used to push the columns the way they want them to go. It would sound very much like this:

If you read my post you will soon recognise that i am not claiming that the wtc 7 demolition was a regular CD. Obviously efforts were made to disguise this fact. Those efforts included explosive detonations over a long period of time and not all at once. moreover thermite may have been employed to cut through the steel beams. Thermite as you should know does not make a distinctive explosive sound like TNT for example so less explosives would be required which again would lessen the noise produced.

No of you twoofers have yet to provide a single video with that sound on it. Period.

Thermite reactions do not sound like TNT detonations
Thermite reactions can cut through steel beams
A sequence of explosions were heard up to and when building 7 collapsed because thermite cutter charges were also employed not many explosions were heard.

Please discontinue with your vain attempts to compare wtc 7 CD with a regular CD because there are more ways than one to remove the vertical load resistence of steel core columns other than TNT.

Now i made the rather modest conclusion that wtc 7 “at times sounded like a CD”

I based this conclusion on the following premise
- explosions were heard before any tower fell and up until the final collapse
- explosions are heard in CD

The logical counter to premise #1 is to deny that explosions were heard. Lap man does not pursue this line of argument. So in a weak sense my conclusion stands.

lapman however does object saying that “explosions do not mean exploives” and i agree but what lapman needs to do is explain what caused these explosions in relation to their location and structural damage and repetativeness. It is my contention that he cant and because he can not there is a strong possiblity that these explosions were in fact explosives therefore wtc 7 did “at times sound like a CD”

Lapman was also right when objected that wtc 7 does not sound like a regular CD. I entirely accept this point. In a regular CD TNT is the choice explosive and thermite is relatively silent in comparison. thermite however can cut through steel core columns thereby eliminating their vertical resistence which in essence is a CD. Because thermite was employed far less explosive devices would have been required. Since far less explosives would have been required there are not many accounts of exploisons. But there are accounts of explosions and lapman cannot explain away them all.

So in conclusion wtc 7 “at times sounded like a CD” stands because lapmans two obejections (i) explosions do not mean explosives and (ii) wtc CD did not sound like a regular CD were countered. However this conclusion is open to revision.

Perhaps a more qualified conclusion would state that “there is a strong possibility that the explosions heard in wtc 7 were in fact preplanted explosives and when these explosions were heard they sounded like CD but not a regular one because the sound had a unique sequence and sound”

You say that conclusion #2

“does not sound like any CD of a steel structure that has ever been done and no CD has ever had the roof structures behave like WTC 7. Strike 2”

-you admit that explosions were heard and that wtc 7 resembles a CD so in a weak sense wtc7 does sound like something that appeared to be a CD
-if those explosions were explosives then it does sound like a CD but not a regular one because less explosives were needed with the introduction of thermite.
-the roof structure part is unrelated
-strike 2? I dont like baseball but lets see who wins the debate champ.

And fireproofing is only meant to last 2 to 4 hours. Do your research.

I was perfectly aware of that fact.

Prior to 9/11, no steel skycraper had ever been hit by large airliners going 480+mph either.

You just cant resist the planes! the planes! but what about the planes!
In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

Prior to 9/11, no steel skyscraper had ever been hit by tons of steel falling from another skyscraper as well.

On post #109 in this thread you will find a great view of the “estimated” extent of the damage caused by the falling debris. i say estimated because there is no video evidence or conclusive photos of the south side damage. In any case only 7 outer cores were damaged and only 3 from 25 core columns were damaged. We cant even say for sure that there vertical resistence was completely removed or not. But assuming that it was only 12% of the core columns were damaged from the falling debris. according to city code the weight distributed should have been tranferred to the other core columns. And i am sure it was.

Furthermore Mark Roberts describes NIST’s position in 28 feb Hardfire program “

we’re not quite sure yet what their final version is going to be but there saying that there not really including the damage to the building as a main cause of collapse”

so lapman my point is that the “tons of steel falling from another skyscraper” is irrelevant. Besides wtc 3, 4, 5, and 6 ALL received greater structural damage from falling debris. they were NOT steel framed buildings aka they were weaker, yet somehow magically they managed to remain standing.

Stop cherry picking your "first time in history" arguments and address them all.

The only thing I am picking apart lapman is your argument.

Listen if wtc 1, 2 and 7 were NOT the first time steel framed skyscrapers in history to exhibit a global collapse due to fire THEN PRODUCE JUST ONE FRICKEN EXAMPLE OR SWALLOW THE MEDICINE LIKE A GOOD LITTLE BOY.

(a) The explosive would not have survived the office fire.

Faced with an elementary choice you sacrafice logic in favour of a seemingly smart answer. So let us return to that question.

Q: what has a higher probability of occurence? (a) a steel frame highrise structure collaping near symetrically due to an office fire and asymetric structural damage or (b) a steel frame highrise structure collapsing near symterically due to an office fire, structural damage, and contolled demolition?

The obvious answer is (b) even if the explosives do not survive.
-Because the exploisves that do survive will still increase the probability of producing a collapse.
-Besides you assume the explosives and thermite incendaries would be rendered inoperable from contact with fire. Arguably such contact could just as easily initiate a premature explosion or thermal reaction. If that happened then the probability of collapse would not be reduced.
-I would assume that the explosives and thermate incendaries were not placed on office desks
-Furthermore the main explosives would have been placed beside or next to the core columns. In the lower sections and to my knowledge the fires were not present at this key location.
-Have you considered the possibility that maybe the actual explosions that were heard were in fact caused by contact with the fire?

False. Truther blatently refuse to take into account everything that happened that day.

Wrong.
The truth is, if you could have answered the above question “honestly” you are forced to conclude that the truthers position of CD has a higher probability in bringing down a steel frame high rise than does an office fire. This is jsut basic common sense and because you refuse to accpet it tell me a lot about your objectivity.

What do i fail to take into account. List it.
You fail to to take into account the testimony of jennings and hesh or anyone that mentions hearing an explosion, the pools of molten metal, evaporated steel, iron sphericules, and thermate residue in the dust etc

Truthers do have a stronger argument from probability. I based this conclusion on (i) FEMA’s addmission that their best hypothesis has a low probability of occurence. (ii) on the fact that no steel frame highrise ever fell from fire prior to 911
(iii) on the fact that CD, understood as preplanting explosives in order to remove the vertical load reistence of steel columns, is a tried and tested technique.

There are rules to debate lapman. And because you failed to even address any of the reasons i based my conclusion. My conclusion stands.

False. The probability is next to nil that the explosives would have survived the fires,

Not true. Re –read my reasons above. Fires do not reduce the probability in any significant way.

let alone be placed without anyone noticing.

Now this is good point. Watch carefully lapman – i concede that this has a low probability of ccurence. See its not hard to be honest. So what that means is we weigh in our minds what is more improbable (a) steel frame skyrise collapsing from an office fire which has never happened before in history or (b) explosives being planted at several key locations around the building without anyone noticing.

For me the answer is (b) because all it requires is a that trust and access be provided to someone with mal intent. For example when you hire a plumber, an electrician, or leave the car with a mechanic, do you watch their every moment? No you dont because you trust them. Secondly all the above have access to the water pipes, telephone, break cables etc. If they had mal intent they could easily poison the water supply, bug the telephone or cut the break cables. So in towers 1, 2, and 7 any professioanl with trust and access is a possible suspect.
peace

 

[applecorped]

All that typing and still you fail. Sigh. Trooothers have created and alternative narrative that they loathe to give up.

 

[applecorped]

Trooooooothers, come out and plaaayyy!

 

[thewholesoul]

Since you wish to debate the historical angle --- Can you provide an example of a steel framed skyscraper that was felled with a non-traditional controlled demolition while never being announced as a demo project AND while the building was on fire???

my historical angle was merely based on the "appearance" of a building collapse.

- no natural collapse in history looked like a CD
- or every building collapse that looked like a CD was a CD

this fact of course doesn't prove that wtc 7 collapse actually was a CD

now to address your statement: do i have any historical example of a skyscraper felled by unconventional CD, in secret, while the building was on fire?

no, i have no example prior to or after 911 of such circumstances. so what?

do you have any example in history of a U.S. destroyer being shot by two friendly missiles, secretly, under the impression the missiles were shot by north vietnamese?

of course you dont because "circumstances" almost always differ. however what your question and my question have in common is that they were both examples of false flag attacks. the first was CD of wtc towers and the second was the Gulf of Tonkin.

so do i have examples of false flag attacks in history prior to 911? yes of course i do there are loads. do they have the same circumstances, no of course the dont. however they do have commonalities that being they were examples of "false falg attacks" or examples of "national governments staging atatcks on themeselves in order to further a political agenda".

in any event your statement has no baring on the fact that historically every building collapse that looked like a CD was a CD. if it does then let me know.

When debunkers look at the collapse of building 7, they are also thinking about the damage done to the building and the fires.

i do take the fire and damage into consideration. by the same token then why did wtc 3 4 5, and 6 not collapse? they after all received GREATER structural damage and had BIGGER fires burning LONGER and did not have STEEL CORE COLUMNS. maybe you should think about that debunker.

They make note that two of the largest buildings in the world also collapsed on that day in the same complex. When debunkers hear hoof beats, they think horses, not zebras.

Again by that logic they should have expected wtc 3,4,5 and 6 to collapse and order a collapse zone around them and feed BBC the news that they are going to collapse.

in other words just because historcially speaking lightening strikes twice doesnt make it any more likely that lightening will strike again. your logic is flawed.

When you hear explosions during a chaotic time like 9/11 and you don't see a demo crew, fuses, blasting caps or any other demo materials, the person thinking logically wouldn't suspect controlled demolition was happening.

i am not following....?

 

[thewholesoul]

No, it will never end until fools like Jones understand that they have no idea what they are talking about and are laughed at by the vast majority of REAL experts from around the world.

two questions.yes or no.

1) do you accept that iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese are characteristic of thermate?

2) do you accept that these chemicals were found in wtc dust samples?

if yes, then what exactly is your problem?