I found the missing Jolt.

FalseFlag said:
*sigh*

This is unfortunate, and it's an obvious poor choice of words.
Click to expand...

Not as far as Gage is concerned. Those are the kind of words he chooses when he's trying to recruit new suckers because those words make him sound like an authority when he's clearly not.

FalseFlag said:
No, I'm not an expert, and that is just my opinion. They should not have used "classic". Or "controlled". Or "demolition". Or "truth".
Click to expand...

FTFY.
 
FalseFlag said:
How hot does the fire have to be? How long does it have to burn? What happens if the fire moves from one part of the office to the other? Can a fire burn continuously without fuel? How long does a "normal office fire" burn in one given area? Wouldn't that depend on how much fuel was available? Once all the fuel is burned, how can a fire keep burning?

Oh, wait, I'm not an expert, so I don't know how to ask the obvious questions.

/sarcasm
Click to expand...

Depends on the fire, where the fire burns, and the structure. The Bay Bridge came down in under an hour. WTC2 burned for around an hour. The fuel in the WTC would have been extensive: paper, carpet, wall paneling, plastics, furniture, and in WTC1 & 2 - bodies.

The fire continued to burn by jumping floors. This likely happened from embers blowing out of the windows and into upper floors where the windows were gone. Another way fire transits levels is via plumbing and electrical ducts leave space for flame to move as well as provide air to feed the fire. I know that because we just had the fire inspector drop by a few weeks ago and mandated that seal the spaces around our pipes between the floors with fire-proof foam. He said this was a post-911 fire code upgrade.

There's no mystery.
 
FalseFlag said:
I know why. Do you? If you know why, and then applied your knowledge to WTC7, you might actually see the problem.
Click to expand...

LMAO.
You appear to believe that NIST said that "the fires weakened the insulated steel structural members (i.e., the columns, beams or girders) in WTC7."

See, THAT is how foolish you look when you don't have a clue what they really said.
 
Would the Weidlinger Associates report re 7wtc be considered a "new investigation"? If not, why not?
 
FalseFlag said:
You chose to ignore the answer, which was correct and factual. I will not do your "challenge" because you simply ignore facts. I am not wasting my time.
Click to expand...


The following report is another reason why you chose to ignore my challenge.


Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

Another demolition expert who worked at Ground Zero also finds no trouble debunking the claim of explosives. "Our team, working at Ground Zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event," says Brent Blanchard, senior writer for www.implosionworld.com.

"You just can't clean up all the det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days. I just can't see how it happened that way."

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/didexpertsonthescenethinkwtc7resembledac
 
JSanderO said:
Why would a report be different from and investigation? Doesn't a group which reports on X have to investigate x?
Click to expand...
It wouldn't. I didn't suggest that. Sorry if it seems like I did. Of course the report is the result of the investigative efforts by the expert.

Most significantly, both the plaintiffs and the defendants agree that the cause for the building to collapse was fire. They just differ on whether the cause stemmed on negligence or not.

Neither of them makes the case that the building was brought down by CD, even if it favours the defendants because it shows that it wasn't their fault, or if Silverstein's famous "pull it" quote held any water, it would favour the plaintiffs because the defendants would have brought down the building.

Which in turn reminds me, no damage to adjacent structures? The ConEd electric substation was completely destroyed (which in fact is the reason for this lawsuit).
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
What's your point? If they produced more, why didn't they release them? If they actually produced a computer model that matched what was observed, why wouldn't they release that?
Click to expand...


You first. Please answer my question.

What? 3 of 50
Click to expand...

So you do not know if that was the final result in that model, and you may be misrepresenting one of the many hypotheses posited in the earlier phases of the investigation?
 
Last edited:
pgimeno said:
The wording suggests it's the defendants' expert report.
Click to expand...

Yes, it disputes only the plaintiff report assertion that building design contributed greatly to its global collapse.

Both reports, and of course NIST's have fire induced initial failures, and all three include a path to global collapse, none of which are all that different than each other.

More to the point, we have three groups of engineers who did not find any reason to investigate explosive use. Neither did the NYPD, or the FBI it would seem. We also know that the ASCE accepts the "fire/impact" cause of all three structure losses, we have the CTBUH expressly stating that conspiracy theories are all wrong, and the AIA which has now voted twice to not support AE911T in requesting a new investigation.

But still our intrepid paranoids carry on.:rolleyes:
 
skyeagle409 said:
"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11
Click to expand...
Why were they there?
How did they get there?
Where did they come from?
How did they get access to GZ?
If they were not already in Manhattan, how did they get on the island?
Who organized these "teams"?
What companies did they work for?
Where are the individual statements from each and every member of these "teams" verifying your claim?
Who is the spokesperson making the claims you are quoting?
Does he have approval from each and every member of the "demolition team" to make the statements he is making?
Does each and every member of the "demolition team" agree with the spokesperson?

Oh...sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt your fantasy by asking relevant questions.
 
FalseFlag said:
Why were they there?
How did they get there?
Click to expand...

They were working on other projects, which is typical around the year in New York.

Where did they come from?
How did they get access to GZ?
If they were not already in Manhattan, how did they get on the island?
Who organized these "teams"?
What companies did they work for?
Where are the individual statements from each and every member of these "teams" verifying your claim?
Who is the spokesperson making the claims you are quoting?
Does he have approval from each and every member of the "demolition team" to make the statements he is making?
Does each and every member of the "demolition team" agree with the spokesperson?
Click to expand...


Let me add this again because it is evident that you missed this before.


August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives.


Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

Van Romero, vice president, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.


Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.


As I have said before, there is no visual, audio, seismic or hardware evidence that demolition explosives were used and the experts concur.

To sum it up, there is no case for CD at WTC ground zero.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom