TC329: If WTC7 collapsed into its own footprint, please explain this...

[Elizabeth I]

I agree with what Aggle-rithm said, and he said it quite clearly, concisely and cogently.

There is no need for me to say anything else, when your question has already been answered so well.

Now, would you answer mine? Why would anyone go to all this trouble? What conceivable point could it have?

 

[wooooody64]

I have seen hundreds of metal buildings collapsed due to fire.

Name them.

 

[theauthor]

I agree with what Aggle-rithm said, and he said it quite clearly, concisely and cogently.

There is no need for me to say anything else, when your question has already been answered so well.

Now, would you answer mine? Why would anyone go to all this trouble? What conceivable point could it have?

Your question will be answered when/if you explain how my repeated statements that CD was more likely than fire induced collapse gave anyone the impression that I passionately believed in CD without question.

 

[theauthor]

Agglerhythm said:

In order to continue to believe in a theory so riddled with holes that it's virtually transparent, despite having been deluged with explanations showing how your assumptions are deeply flawed, despite having no evidence, no motive, and no plausible mechanism to back up that theory...

What else is left to explain your continued adherence to it but passion and dogmatic loyalty to a preconceived belief? It certainly has nothing to do with logic.

The part in red is the problem. i dont believe in any theory regarding wtc7. As I have stated numerous times, i find CD statistically more likely than fire induced collapse.

You are yet to explain how I atall appear to passionately believe it without question.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Agglerhythm said:



The part in red is the problem. i dont believe in any theory regarding wtc7. As I have stated numerous times, i find CD statistically more likely than fire induced collapse.

You are yet to explain how I atall appear to passionately believe it without question.

Ah!! Very good!!

Statistically, you say?

You realize that the word "statistically" means something, don't you?

Please show the calculations you used to conclude that a controlled demolition was statistically more likely.

I'll give you a hint: Compare the percentage of buildings successfully brought down by explosives on the first try to the percentage of buildings that collapsed after being hit by debris from the collapse of a 110-story building and then burning for 6 hours.

(This would, of course, be an absurd over-simplification, but it's a start.)

 

[pomeroo]

Your question will be answered when/if you explain how my repeated statements that CD was more likely than fire induced collapse gave anyone the impression that I passionately believed in CD without question.

Wildly implausible beliefs tend to be held passionately. The person who spends years hunting for giant anthropoids in the Pacific Northwest is necessarily more passionate than the person who has resigned himself to their nonexistence.

Those who argue that the extensive fires caused WTC 7 to collapse are relying on actual evidence and present a scenario that accords with accepted principles of science and engineering. Those who insist that explosives were involved ignore the total lack of physical evidence and conjure up a scenario that contradicts everything demolition specialists know about their profession.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Your question will be answered when/if you explain how my repeated statements that CD was more likely than fire induced collapse gave anyone the impression that I passionately believed in CD without question.

Your insistence that a particular person answer your question proves, IMHO, that your motivation is not to get to the truth, but to engage in rhetorical games in order to save face.

Are you a troll?

ETA: Admittedly, your motivation could also be a bid for attention. You are the only one who could say for sure. However, it seems pretty clear that you aren't really looking for answers.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Name them.

Oooo, let me, let me!

Okay, the first one I'll name Dotty.

The second one...let's see...Frank!

The third one...Celeste.

I've always wanted to name a building collapse "Celeste!"

This seems a little off-topic. Should I start a new thread?

 

[LashL]

Is 911 hero McPadden lying? Yes or no?

Yes, Kevin McPadden is lying.

Whether he is a "hero" and whether he was even at the WTC site on September 11, 2001 have not actually been established. He has told some utterly implausible stories, some contradictory stories, and some clearly embellished stories, so his word alone will not suffice.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Bump for theauthor.

I've always wondered how truther fit this into its conspiracy-theory. Do you guys think that NWO, or whoever, thought it prudent to actually issue a press-release about the demise of WTC7? Why would they need to do that? Do you think they were afraid people would miss the event otherwise? Don't you think that if NWO, or whoever, actually did implode WTC7 using CD, they'd think that it would be bleeding obvious and that there would be no need to actually announce it?

 

[Belz...]

Smoke from every floor doesnt mean fire from every floor. The south side windows were broken and there was a gash down the side. Fire on a single floor would make smoke throughout the building.

So you admit there was a fire and structural damage ?

So, what's wrong, then ?

 

[aggle-rithm]

So you admit there was a fire and structural damage ?

So, what's wrong, then ?

Besides the fact that, if there is fire on ONE floor, and it is producing enough smoke so that it pours out in equal volume from every floor in the building...

That's gotta be one ferocious fire on that one floor.

 

[Belz...]

if you got video of demolition experts watching wtc7 collapse and saying "this clearly isn't a controlled demolition" i am very interested in seeing it.

looking forward to your reply.

Here it is: since I don't rely solely on videos for information, I'd direct you to NIST. I don't care about your youtube affinity.

Ah, so you contend that fires can't destroy buildings ? Why do we have firefighters, then ?

So you believe firefighters are only employed to prevent collapses?

Perhaps you should try to read that one again.

 

[Belz...]

Yet another person speaking for her. Can't she speak for herself?

I will put the question again: Why did Elizabeth claim that my belief in the demolition of 7 was passionate and without question when I clearly stated several times that I only considered CD more likely than fire induced collapse?

If no answer is forthcoming I will assume she made up a strawman.

Now you're just being silly. How old are you, anyway ?

 

[Belz...]

Agglerhythm said:



The part in red is the problem. i dont believe in any theory regarding wtc7. As I have stated numerous times, i find CD statistically more likely than fire induced collapse.

You are yet to explain how I atall appear to passionately believe it without question.

"Statistically" ? Huh ?

 

[Belz...]

Besides the fact that, if there is fire on ONE floor, and it is producing enough smoke so that it pours out in equal volume from every floor in the building...

That's gotta be one ferocious fire on that one floor.

I think most truthers aren't exactly aware of how large 7 WTC was...

 

[lapman]

Ah!! Very good!!

Statistically, you say?

You realize that the word "statistically" means something, don't you?

Please show the calculations you used to conclude that a controlled demolition was statistically more likely.

I'll give you a hint: Compare the percentage of buildings successfully brought down by explosives on the first try to the percentage of buildings that collapsed after being hit by debris from the collapse of a 110-story building and then burning for 6 hours.

(This would, of course, be an absurd over-simplification, but it's a start.)

Can he add the percentage of buildings demolished by explosives where the explosives made no sound that could be picked up by any audio recording device?

 

[lapman]

I think most truthers aren't exactly aware of how large 7 WTC was...

[truther]
Well, Richard Gage designed one that size since WTC 7 was, like, the size of a high school gym, right?
[/truther]

 

[aggle-rithm]

Can he add the percentage of buildings demolished by explosives where the explosives made no sound that could be picked up by any audio recording device?

I thought I'd let him start with the simpler case. Apparently, he's still researching it.