• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How WTC 7 was pulled down

Or, to put it another way, when I use a firelighter to get my wood stove going I should expect the energy output from the wood to equal the output of the firelighter.

And with several hours of wood being more expensive than a firelighter I should stick to burning firelighters. D'oh! What a fool I've been.

MM - mzelinski's premises were not merely fatally flawed, they were laughably flawed.
 
twinstead said:
And by "real scientists who does not subscribe to any belief system of utter denial and prejudice" you of course mean "anybody who could even be remotely be considered a scientist who tells me what I want to hear whether they're actually qualified or not", right?
Click to expand...

That is the kind of stalemate you duhbunkers are in and wont even recognize. You call your team "the real scientists" and all others are complete frauds.

Bring the model on, cut the crap, bring it on with no hidden data.
 
fallout said:
That is the kind of stalemate you duhbunkers are in and wont even recognize. You call your team "the real scientists" and all others are complete frauds.

Bring the model on, cut the crap, bring it on with no hidden data.
Click to expand...
When is your team of 1300+ engineers going to.............well.........do something?


:o
 
Dave Rogers said:
Sadly, every controlled demolition hypothesis ever proposed for WTC7 has been so utterly ridiculous that it doesn't take any effort whatsoever to demonstrate to anyone prepared to apply a shred of reasoning ability to it that it's utterly indefensible in the light of the available evidence. There's no need to present a detailed model to compete with nonexistent ones; the simple truth is that fire and structural damage from debris are the only conceivable causes of WTC7's collapse.

Dave
Click to expand...

Oh yeah , that is so easy to say. Care to tell me why they are so utterly ridiculous?

And let's go the other way around as well. And let me set this record straight. There is NO VALID MODEL from NIST or anyone that fully explains the collapse due to fire. No it does not exist. You can now stop pretending and working on a full model with no hidden data. Or just cut the crap and admit that you are just giving your opinion about how the NIST fantasy model could occur in the real world. If youre about anything else, we need your fully explained model to be submitted to scrutiny.
 
DGM said:
When is your team of 1300+ engineers going to.............well.........do something?


:o
Click to expand...

Lol my team? If I was in command of that I would do more to bring heaven to earth than they are doing, that is for sure. :) But I'm too far from U.S.

They are doing good, whatever they can do, they are already doing, with patience, with no aggression. They can't force it further to pass through that corrupt congress and the bought-by-lobbying big media.
 
fallout said:
Oh yeah , that is so easy to say. Care to tell me why they are so utterly ridiculous?
Click to expand...

Because they either contradict the audible records of the collapse, require impossible properties from thermite, require impossible actions by the conspirators, or some combination of all the above.

fallout said:
And let's go the other way around as well. And let me set this record straight. There is NO VALID MODEL from NIST or anyone that fully explains the collapse due to fire. No it does not exist.
Click to expand...

Something the truth movement has yet to realise is that how passionately you want to believe something, and how often and how forcefully you state it, has no effect on its truth value. However much you want to pretend that NIST's analysis doesn't exist, it will not cease to exist.

Dave
 
fallout said:
They are doing good, whatever they can do, they are already doing, with patience, with no aggression. They can't force it further to pass through that corrupt congress and the bought-by-lobbying big media.
Click to expand...

You know, they would have the same trouble forcing "it further to pass through that corrupt congress and the bought-by-lobbying big media" if they were totally wrong, too.

Think about it.
 
Heiwa said:
It is today quite simple to conclude how WTC7 was pulled down on 9/11!
Click to expand...


So, how many years of you pretending that "pull" means "demolish" do you think it will take to actually go back in time retroactively change the definition of the word as it was used and understood in 2001?
 
fallout said:
Lol my team? If I was in command of that I would do more to bring heaven to earth than they are doing, that is for sure. :) But I'm too far from U.S.They are doing good, whatever they can do, they are already doing, with patience, with no aggression. They can't force it further to pass through that corrupt congress and the bought-by-lobbying big media.
Click to expand...

So your distance from the U.S is preventing your from publishing a peer reviewed paper or having any influence on AE 911Truth?

I thought you guys were dedicated to the truth, maybe you could ask Gage to buy you a plane ticket so you can "bring heaven to earth". Better yet, I've heard of these amazing new communication tools you can use, sometimes referred to as mobile phones and the Internet.

Is congress and media preventing your heroes from publishing a peer reviewed paper?




Bolding mine. I think this will be my first ever Stundie nomination.
 
Dave Rogers said:
There's no need to present a detailed model to compete with nonexistent ones; the simple truth is that fire and structural damage from debris are the only conceivable causes of WTC7's collapse.
Click to expand...
That's what NIST claims they proved by building a model which comes down consistent with the video evidence, but NIST hasn't even provided a video to demonstrate as much, nor has anyone produced even a simple model to compete side by side with real world examples of controlled demolitions like this:



So, if any sort controlled demolition is so inconceivable as you suggest, why the lack of any model to demonstrate a building comming down anything like WTC 7 otherwise?
 
fallout said:
Oh yeah , that is so easy to say. Care to tell me why they are so utterly ridiculous?

And let's go the other way around as well. And let me set this record straight. There is NO VALID MODEL from NIST or anyone that fully explains the collapse due to fire...
Click to expand...

This is wrong. There is a valiud model, and a very detailed one at that.
Just because you do not know every one of millions of details doesn't mean it isn't there.


However, what is much more obviously missing, is any theory at all, however crude, from the "truther" camp that would suggest how any other method of destruction might have had the effects as observed.

Dave Rogers said:
Because they either contradict the audible records of the collapse, require impossible properties from thermite, require impossible actions by the conspirators, or some combination of all the above.
...
Click to expand...

This.
 
Dave Rogers said:
No, it isn't. It was obvious long before NIST carried out their analysis that some combination of fire and debris impact was the only possible cause of collapse.

Dave
Click to expand...


Sigh. Now I look like an idiot. Why is a thread from 2007 on the front page?
 
Dave Rogers said:
No, it isn't.
Click to expand...
Tell me then, what does NIST claim the point of their model is, and what was the point of them repeatedly claiming the manor in which their model comes down is consistent with the video evidence?

Dave Rogers said:
It was obvious long before NIST carried out their analysis that some combination of fire and debris impact was the only possible cause of collapse.
Click to expand...
So, as it seems you don't believe NIST analysis with their model was even intended to prove this claim, what analysis do you believe proves it?
 
kylebisme said:
So, as it seems you don't believe NIST analysis with their model was even intended to prove this claim, what analysis do you believe proves it?
Click to expand...

The NIST analysis is available for perusal by anybody. It basically IS the commonly-held narrative of the collapse.

You aren't required to agree with it, but the burden of proof is squarely on you (the "truth" movement) to submit an analysis that matches the available evidence better than NIST, because from what I can see no respected scientific or engineering organization has any major issue with it, at least none that conclude fire and damage couldn't have made the building collapse.

Unless of course they are just keeping their mouths shut about mass murder so they won't risk loosing their pensions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom