'What about building 7'?

[T.A.M.]

Anyone who's still asking for the "significance" of the WTC7 collapse, is, as far as I can tell, an idiot. I'm surprised that threads are still being started on the subject. I would suggest that those who understand why a 47-storey steel-framed structure couldn't collapse suddenly, symmetrically, and within seconds of free fall because of some debris damage and lame, isolated fires stop posting in these threads and let the bee dunkers writhe around on their own on this topic. It would be funny to watch.

Seriously, it's a waste of time.

I have bolded your ignorance for you.

hmmmm, so the vast majority of the world who does not even remember about the WTC7 collapse, and hence does not find it to be of any significant, are idiots???

Seriously, the only people who find it of significance, outside of a building safety perspective, are truthers...lie to yourself that it is not true all you want...doesn't change it.

TAM

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Anyone who's still asking for the "significance" of the WTC7 collapse, is, as far as I can tell, an idiot.

Do you agree, then, with cooperman that the significance of WTC7's collapse is in that it has helped specialists to improve building and fire codes? Or do you believe it holds a different kind of significance?

And if you believe it holds a different kind of significance from the significance that cooperman believes it holds, then perhaps the people asking for the significance of the event aren't really idiots at all, but are merely confused by the variety of potential answers to the question and are desiring individual clarification.

 

[ergo]

(Bee dunkers tend to ignore the fact that for many years, no one could actually explain the collapse of 7, FEMA concluding its own explanation having only a "low probability" of occurring. NIST had to commission the work out, and still now the explanation relies entirely on "the fires!!" without the added drama of planes. It's a story for idiots or for people who don't care.)

 

[DGM]

(Bee dunkers tend to ignore the fact that for many years, no one could actually explain the collapse of 7, FEMA concluding its own explanation having only a "low probability" of occurring. NIST had to commission the work out, and still now the explanation relies entirely on "the fires!!" without the added drama of planes. It's a story for idiots or for people who don't care.)

Good job. You do your "movement" well. Back to Youtube for more training.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

(Bee dunkers tend to ignore the fact that for many years, no one could actually explain the collapse of 7, FEMA concluding its own explanation having only a "low probability" of occurring. NIST had to commission the work out, and still now the explanation relies entirely on "the fires!!" without the added drama of planes. It's a story for idiots or for people who don't care.)

What do you believe is the significance of WTC7's collapse? cooperman gave his answer and you appear to be calling him an idiot for it.

I don't think it's a stretch to take that as a hint that you believe the event holds some other significance. In light of the fact that another truther, cooperman, has given what you must feel is an "incorrect" answer to the question, would you care to tell us what you believe its significance to be?

Since we've got two truthers who would appear to give two different answers, it's not unreasonable to ask that you offer some clarification. It would be a great way to set the record straight.

 

[ergo]

My above posts explain my position clearly, Cl1mh4224rd, and only someone who doesn't understand what he is reading would conclude that I am contradicting cooperman.

Do not change a user's name so as to insult.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[TJM]

I wonder why our truthers are really starting to get cranky, especially where WTC7 is concerned. Is it because the detailed explanations of WTC7's "freefall" have finally began to sink in and they need to lash out due to the discomfort caused by that reality? Or are they coming to terms that Richard Gage really is lining his pockets with the proceeds from buildingwhat?

Whatever.

Truthers need to turn them frowns upside down and go enjoy the day because really, these attitudes are just yucky-icky-poo!

 

[T.A.M.]

My above posts explain my position clearly, climbtoohard, and only someone who doesn't understand what he is reading would conclude that I am contradicting cooperman.

Who is climbtohard? I know you wouldn't be attacking another member here by mocking their user name, so I am wondering who this person climbtohard is?

Having a hard time dealing with no one (but us silly bee dunkers) else paying attention to the truther smoking gun?

TAM

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

My above posts explain my position clearly [...]

It doesn't tell us what you believe the significance of WTC7's collapse to be.

[...] and only someone who doesn't understand what he is reading would conclude that I am contradicting cooperman.

But cooperman believes the significance of WTC7's collapse is in how it was studied to improve building and fire codes. This significance relies on the event occurring just as NIST says it occurred, but you've made it quite clear that this is an idiotic notion.

You are contradicting cooperman.

 

[lapman]

(Bee dunkers tend to ignore the fact that for many years, no one could actually explain the collapse of 7, FEMA concluding its own explanation having only a "low probability" of occurring. NIST had to commission the work out, and still now the explanation relies entirely on "the fires!!" without the added drama of planes. It's a story for idiots or for people who don't care.)

Deniers of reality, such as yourself, ignore the fact that for many years, no twoofer has come up with any evidence to support their explanation of the collapse. Instead, they make up fantasy "explosives" and ignore all evidence that is inconvenient to their fantasy and still now the explanation relies entirely on "the explosives" without the added drama of the extremely loud sound that would have been recorded on 100% of all audio recording devices in the area. It's a story for the delusional and idiots that refuse to accept reality.

 

[cooperman]

It doesn't tell us what you believe the significance of WTC7's collapse to be.




But cooperman believes the significance of WTC7's collapse is in how it was studied to improve building and fire codes. This significance relies on the event occurring just as NIST says it occurred, but you've made it quite clear that this is an idiotic notion.

You are contradicting cooperman.

How is he contradicting me? I have not said that I accept NISTs conclusions.

 

[twinstead]

How is he contradicting me? I have not said that I accept NISTs conclusions.

In the grand scheme of things, is it REALLY important that YOU accept the NIST's conclusions?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

How is he contradicting me? I have not said that I accept NISTs conclusions.

Irrelevant. You've clearly stated that you believe the significance of the event is in what it could teach specialists. This is separate from the actual lessons that may have been learned. Additionally, this significance is only reasonable if fire was ultimately the cause of the collapse. Why else would anyone study the collapse with the goal of improving building and fire codes? ("[J]ust as NIST says it occurred" was perhaps poor phrasing on my part; too specific.)

ergo apparently believes that WTC7 was a full-blown controlled demolition, which means that the significance you've attributed to the event is "idiotic" in his opinion.

 

[T.A.M.]

Post # 5 of this thread, Cooperman's response to this list from Thunder,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6425104

Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
Sure, the folks on the 9-11 Commission with various agencies were more forthcoming and corroporative.

But in general, all of the 9-11 Commissioners believe in all of the main aspects of the "official story":

-19 hijackers associated with Al-Qaeda

-4 hijacked planes.

-3 targets hit (WTC 1, WTC 2, Pentagon).

-1 target missed, plane forced into the ground in PA by hijackers.

-WTC towers fell due to impact damage, fire, weakening steel, and gravity.

-NO explosives were used to take down WTC 1, WTC 2, or WTC 7.

-a hijacked airliner crashed into the Pentagon.

....these are all agreed upon by the 9-11 Commissioners. So should you.

Was...

In the main, I do agree with those things.

TAM

 

[cooperman]

Irrelevant. You've clearly stated that you believe the significance of the event is in what it could teach specialists. This is separate from the actual lessons that may have been learned. Additionally, this significance is only reasonable if fire was ultimately the cause of the collapse. Why else would anyone study the collapse with the goal of improving building and fire codes? ("[J]ust as NIST says it occurred" was perhaps poor phrasing on my part; too specific.)

ergo apparently believes that WTC7 was a full-blown controlled demolition, which means that the significance you've attributed to the event is "idiotic" in his opinion.

But the general public have no idea about conspiracy theories so, in the context of responding to a point about the public not even knowing that wtc7 exists, the significance I cited is the relevant one.

People here really have a problem with context. Well, either that, or they like lying a lot.

 

[Edx]

Anyone who's still asking for the "significance" of the WTC7 collapse, is, as far as I can tell, an idiot. I'm surprised that threads are still being started on the subject. I would suggest that those who understand why a 47-storey steel-framed structure couldn't collapse suddenly, symmetrically, and within seconds of free fall because of some debris damage and lame, isolated fires stop posting in these threads and let the bee dunkers writhe around on their own on this topic. It would be funny to watch.

Seriously, it's a waste of time.

Yea all those stupid incomptenet NYC firefighters!

They just don't know what a large fire looks like!

Total idiots, right?

 

[beachnut]

But the general public have no idea about conspiracy theories so, in the context of responding to a point about the public not even knowing that wtc7 exists, the significance I cited is the relevant one.

People here really have a problem with context. Well, either that, or they like lying a lot.

You are the one who thinks WTC 7 was CD. That is a delusion, a faith based lie which you can't support with evidence; you have to make up lies like One Meridian Plaza fire was not fought; when will you correct your lie?


How can 911 truth be so stupid and use WTC 7 as their smoking gun for CD? They can't prove CD in 1 and 2, so they make up lies about 7. Not even a terrorist target. 7 is a smoking gun for 911 truth's 9 years of failure.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I made the point a page ago, and I think it still stands... WTC 7's collapse holds significance pretty much exclusively in engineering because it highlighted vulnerabilities in certain types of steel frame construction which apparently needed to be emphasized. It was a casual "victim" of an attack on a totally separate building.

Truthers talk about how the building is virtually unknown to the public... why do you THINK!!!!??? Because if you're doing spectacular attack on a symbol of America's economic power you'd be an idiot to attack a building that isn't known nearly as widespread as the towers. I'm sorry, but seriously the WTC that's supposed to be a smoking gun to this conspiracy theory is nothing more than a thud... or our genius perps had a room temperature IQ when they decided to "demolish" these buildings without caring how apparently obvious according to truthers their methods were...

Again, engineering significance differs from motive to attack. The fact that the twin towers not only collapsed, but caused tremendous havoc for the entire WTC complex and adjacent structures across from it is pretty darn major without WTC 7 ever being involved.

 

[carlitos]

1. A lot of the public work in tall buildings.

What math did you use to come to this conclusion? What % of total office space is in buildings that you consider "tall," and then what percent of the labor pool work in those buildings?

Better question for cooperman:

My general explanation for the events of 9/11/01 is ____________________.

The significance of the collapse of the Salomon Brothers building, given the above, is _______________________.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

But the general public have no idea about conspiracy theories so, in the context of responding to a point about the public not even knowing that wtc7 exists, the significance I cited is the relevant one.

How is the significance you cited important to the general public? That some of them work in tall buildings is hardly reason; it's not a requirement, and most of them probably don't care. I don't need to know about the engineering details of my car just to drive it, nor do I care to know.

Anyone interested in WTC7's collapse because of the significance you cite is already well aware of the building.

Again... Why would the general public need to be aware? How does the significance you cite factor into the truthers' attempts to raise awareness of the building's demise?