To 9/11 TM: WTC7 being a CD is illogical.

RAZEtheFLAG said:
Never heard of it. What century was it built?
Click to expand...

Why does that matter? Shouldn't a collapse of any steel-framed high-rise be relevant?

If you want to read about it, the book High Rise/Fire & Life Safety by John O'Hagan has a section on the fire and collapse.
 
RAZEtheFLAG said:
Why don't you send that to NIST? Or are others held to a higher standard because they don't share your world view?
Click to expand...

NIST aren't proposing 'controlled demolition', the 'truth' movement is.

Care to explain:

What?
When?
How?
Why?
 
RAZEtheFLAG said:
I don't think I can post links yet. Why don't you source one that did besides on 9/11?
Click to expand...

Because there havent been any other buildings built with the designs involved on 9/11 that have been hit by airplanes or falling skyscrapers and then burnt for hours to compare them with.
Only dishonest/ ignorant people in the troof movement try to make this comparison.:)
 
AZCat said:
Why does that matter? Shouldn't a collapse of any steel-framed high-rise be relevant?

If you want to read about it, the book High Rise/Fire & Life Safety by John O'Hagan has a section on the fire and collapse.
Click to expand...

You claim it compares but you seem to be deliberately evasive about the details. If it doesn't matter when it was built then why don't you tell me? Give me all the details of how it suffered global collapse from fire. Do you have a link I can see or do I need to go to the book store to confirm your claim? Will it be a waste of my time?
 
Dictator Cheney said:
I asked him about WTC7 and he confirmed that in his oppinion WTC7 was brought down by a CD.

i do agree with him about WTC7
Click to expand...


So, he doesn't know what he's talking about on the subject of the Twin Towers. You agree with him with he disagrees with every other structural engineer and you disagree with him when agrees with the other experts.

He has, of course, made no special study of WTC 7. He's just parroting fantasy movement propaganda.
 
Last edited:
RAZEtheFLAG said:
You claim it compares but you seem to be deliberately evasive about the details. If it doesn't matter when it was built then why don't you tell me? Give me all the details of how it suffered global collapse from fire. Do you have a link I can see or do I need to go to the book store to confirm your claim? Will it be a waste of my time?
Click to expand...


Yes, attempting to read a serious book will be a waste of your time.
 
scissorhands said:
Because there havent been any other buildings built with the designs involved on 9/11 that have been hit by airplanes or falling skyscrapers and then burnt for hours to compare them with.
Only dishonest/ ignorant people in the troof movement try to make this comparison.:)
Click to expand...

So you don't even have one? Does that make you angry?
 
RAZEtheFLAG said:
Buildings never burn for more the a couple of hours in your world?
Click to expand...

it is expected that fires can be brought under control within that time frame; at what point were the fires in building seven brought under control ?
It doesn't mean because it goes past the rating on the fire-proofing the building completely collapses. None of the fires on 9/11 were even throughout most of the buildings. And still where are you getting your final version of EXACTLY what happened to WTC-7 from?
Click to expand...
Bolded is an example of a straw man logical fallacy see "5-Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking the simplified version."
Do you even need it or did you already make up your mind? If it's just fire and damage from the falling towers then what's taking NIST so long to put that in a report? Isn't it that simple? So what else can take down a steel structure high-rise according to you without weeks of preparation? Are airplane crashes across the street it?
Click to expand...

This is your evidence of a controlled demolition? Do you not see that yours is an argument from incredulity and that is a logical fallacy?
are you aware that building seven caused no fatalities and that it is a simple property loss? Is the delay of the final report your only absence of evidence proof of a controlled demolition?
 
RAZEtheFLAG said:
You claim it compares but you seem to be deliberately evasive about the details. If it doesn't matter when it was built then why don't you tell me? Give me all the details of how it suffered global collapse from fire. Do you have a link I can see or do I need to go to the book store to confirm your claim? Will it be a waste of my time?
Click to expand...

Go do your own damn research. I'm tired of supporting lazy truthers. I gave you the title of the book, so you can either see if your library has a copy or buy it (like I did). I'm sure there are other descriptions of the building, the fire and the collapse out there but I'm just as sure that YouTube doesn't have video footage (too bad for you).
 
RAZEtheFLAG said:
Will it be a waste of my time?
Click to expand...

The thing is, maybe you will be wasting your time...or maybe you won't. Your problem is that possibly what you're being told here is actually true and all that stuff you've been fed by the 'truther' websites is false. It's your decision.

But be aware, your decision matters not a jot. You're just one person. You can either reject the rational explanation and continue with your belief in the 'truther' dogma (it doesn't matter, you wont change anything...you'll just continue to look silly) or you can be rational and accept that maybe you don't know enough to form your own opinion and you really need to speak with people who are properly trained in these matters to get an accurate perspective..............

....it really just depends upon how willing you are to continue to be wrong.
 
RAZEtheFLAG said:
So you don't even have one? Does that make you angry?
Click to expand...

What?
The fact that there are no other buildings designed similarly and having sustained the same damage to compare with?
No.
Why would that make me angry?:)
Its just a fact.
 
Last edited:
temper temper. Just come up with some comparisons that's all. Tell me how you claim to know without an official version yet. Tell me how it takes weeks to set up explosives to bring down a building completely but on 9-11 it happened three times without weeks of preparation because why? You know that a plane crash across the street is the only thing in the world that can accomplish this because why? Just tell me don't get angry.
 
RAZEtheFLAG said:
temper temper. Just come up with some comparisons that's all. Tell me how you claim to know without an official version yet. Tell me how it takes weeks to set up explosives to bring down a building completely but on 9-11 it happened three times without weeks of preparation because why? You know that a plane crash across the street is the only thing in the world that can accomplish this because why? Just tell me don't get angry.
Click to expand...
This is by far the dumbest post I've read in weeks. Congratulations.
 
pomeroo said:
Yes, attempting to read a serious book will be a waste of your time.
Click to expand...

The sad thing is that it is a really good book. O'Hagan covers high-rise fire fighting strategies, describes a number of examples in-depth, and talks about full-scale fire tests and their conclusions, all of which should be relevant to someone who is interested in the WTC building collapses. It's a bit outdated but still applies. The fire safety guys here might have more recent books they recommend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom