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

[DC]

The damage to 7 was on one side of the building. You producing a demolition in which all support is taken away at the same time is simply supporting my argument. I asked for a building collapse and in the absence of one you produced a demolition.

but when you compare the WTC7 "Collapse" to other Building "Collapses" you best take a Controlled Demolition. Dont comapre it to buildings that collapse do to fires. Dont compare apples and bananas.

 

[DGM]

The damage to 7 was on one side of the building. You producing a demolition in which all support is taken away at the same time is simply supporting my argument. I asked for a building collapse and in the absence of one you produced a demolition.

You admitted that you don't know what it should have looked like but continue to argue that it's not right, why? Do you think we care about your uneducated opinion? No ship like the Titanic ever sank after hitting an iceberg before it did, yet it happened.

 

[DC]

You admitted that you don't know what it should have looked like but continue to argue that it's not right, why? Do you think we care about your uneducated opinion? No ship like the Titanic ever sank after hitting an iceberg before it did, yet it happened.

If the Vikings documented theyr ship loses better we maybe would know more iceberg accidents.

 

[applecorped]

If the Vikings documented theyr ship loses better we maybe would know more iceberg accidents.

What is your evidence that WTC7 was a CD?

 

[DC]

What is your evidence that WTC7 was a CD?

Sorry its an ongoing investigation.

 

[DGM]

If the Vikings documented theyr ship loses better we maybe would know more iceberg accidents.

How many 882 foot 46,328 GRT steel ships did the Vikings have?

 

[gumboot]

This thread is a goldmine of goalpost moving...

First we get "into own footprint"
Then "close to own footprint"
Then "as close to own footprint as you can get with a 47 storey building"
Then to finish it off we get a total reversal "buildings that big can't fall into their own footprint"

Thus demonstrating that CTers have just brilliantly debunked one of their central pieces of evidence that WTC7 was destroyed by Controlled Demolition. Genius.

 

[applecorped]

Sorry its an ongoing investigation.

Not good enough. You made a declarative statement. You knew the investigation is ongoing yet you still took a position. Now it is time to support it. What is your evidence that WTC7 was a CD?

 

[chillzero]

If the Vikings documented theyr ship loses better we maybe would know more iceberg accidents.

You completely missed the rather obvious point being made there. There were just as many viking ships that match the build of the Titanic, as other buildings in the world that match the build of WTC7 and were hit by fire and debris.

 

[DC]

ok i missed that point indeed

 

[gumboot]

No I asked for a 47 storey demolition that didn't damage buildings surrounding it.

Liar.

The above is an outright lie.

You can give me another example of a building, apart from 9/11, that collapsed straight down? Go ahead.

What theory?
I have asked for a single example of a building that collapsed straight down. None have been forthcoming. Demolished siloes don't count.

Still no examples of buildings that have collapsed straight down? What's the hold up?

Retract your statement, or be known from this moment forwards as a liar.

 

[DC]

you ppl call other quickly liars, i hope you do that with everyone.

 

[gumboot]

you ppl call other quickly liars, i hope you do that with everyone.

If they lie, yes.

 

[DC]

If they lie, yes.

he asked for a Collapse, not a controlled Demolition afaik.

 

[Travis]

he asked for a Collapse, not a controlled Demolition afaik.

Uh, in a controlled demolition with explosives the building still collapses. Ever known a controlled demolition that accidentally built a building?

 

[Travis]

The damage to 7 was on one side of the building. You producing a demolition in which all support is taken away at the same time is simply supporting my argument. I asked for a building collapse and in the absence of one you produced a demolition.

Either you don't know what the word "collapse" means or you are just stubbornly refusing, via lies, to acknowledge that what you asked for was produced.

 

[A W Smith]

http://www.karnatakafireservices.gov.in/accidentgangaram.htm

 

[theauthor]

Liar.

The above is an outright lie.





Retract your statement, or be known from this moment forwards as a liar.

WELL DONE ON QUOTING THE WRONG POST!

HERES WHAT I SAID:

Do you have any examples of a CD of a 47 storey building in the middle of a city? Do you not think such a demolition would cause some damage?

rETRACT YOUR STATEMENT THAT i AM A LIAR.

 

[theauthor]

Who will take my bet that gumboot wont retract his accusation despite me showing him my quote?

 

[X]

Retract it?

No way, lol.

I am pretty sure that WTC7 was a Controlled Demolition.
Evidence? Watch it "collapsing".

So, you believe that WTC7 was a controlled demolition because, to your eyes, it looked like one.

That is not proof of CD, nor is it a backing of your claim.

As it stands, your claim is still baseless, and has revealed to be an argument from incredulity. Unless you happen to be an expert in controlled demolition and/or civil engineering and/or architecture.