• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wtc 7

A general warning has been given to all participants in post #177.

ETA: Apparently, I've cross-modded with LibraryLady. The warning to avoid name-calling is for all participants.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81
 
Last edited:
papasmurf said:
I don't have my own theory, ass. That is part of my point, i asked you to tell me to explain what you believed, while ia haven't even elaborated as to my own ideas, yet the only response i got was for me to prove something...

You guys can attack me all you want, but i didn't come on here to start a pissing contest. I came on here to break up your circle jerk of giggling over the truth movement and get you guys to talk some sense. I want to know what has you so guys so convinced that NIST and BBC can really prove that fire brought down wtc 7.
Click to expand...
WE can't attack your posts, you have nothing to attack, you are ignorant on physics, fire, firefighting, the art of observation, logical thinking, and many other fields. You have no idea about WTC since you failed to use the past 6 years to gain knowledge. It takes hours or days to read the material and understand it, but you come and attack others who have done the work and can see clearly WTC7 failed due to damage from the towers and FIRE!

You failed to read posts with fact and testimony. In a few posts you have proven beyond a shadow of doubt what pure ignorance on WTC7 IS.

Do you lack the time to correct your vast ignorance on this topic? Did you miss the Penthouse falling into the WTC7 seconds before the FAÇADE fell? Can you explain how many columns supported the overall structure of WTC7?

Do you know who built WTC7?

If you can't answer the simple questions, why are you even here?

Welcome to the sub forum, too bad you failed to bring facts and evidence to prove your theory, which you do not have! Great!

Welcome, great posts, you revealed all your know about WTC7 concisely and without hesitation.


http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction Start here, this is common knowledge here, too bad you can't debunk the truth. Try to take time to learn why the level of abstraction here is too high for you and I to understand.
I don't ask you to believe, I ask you to think! Stop being a follower, and think for yourself, I do not believe the stuff I read, I research WTC7 and learn how to understand it. Trust no one, they have to earn your trust; you have blindly trusted your ideas, and it appears lots of hearsay on WTC7, and failed to gather the knowledge to make a rational conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Well first off, i don't understand how even if one critical beam did fail somehow, which i believe it would have had to have failed over 3 consecutive floors or something, how that would even explain the collapse as it occurred. We are talking about a very fast and symmetrical collapse that would have required multiple simultaneous failures across the structure.

If one piece did fail, wouldn't you expect the force to be distributed unevenly, and the collapse to progress from the point of initial failure, and for at least part of the building to resist collapse, causing it to slow down or force a non-uniform collapse.

Is there any other case where a failure of a collumn has caused a collapse in this manner to proceed? No there isn't. Can the designers of the building say that if that collumn or collumns failed, that the rest of the structure should have collapsed in that fashion? Doubt it.

Finally, we can all agree that the final outcome of the collapse was very similar to a cd. We had a uniform, straight down collapse into the footprint, with minimal collateral damage to other buildings. Now, wouldn't the fact that only a single collumn needed to be taken out for this to occur be of concern to demolition companies, who spend thousands of dollars and hours planning a demolition that requires a certain amount and configuration of explosives to do the job?

This collapse could revolutionize the demolition industry. Apparently local failure of a single collumn or 2 can result in simultaneous and catastrophic failure of the entire structure!

Is that enough for you to see where i am coming from? Can you please elaborate on how fire caused this collapse now?
 
SDC said:
Papasmurf, you seem to be new here. Please read the rules. Also, name-calling is a poor idea. This site is not populated by 20 year olds.
Click to expand...

I was undeservedly called a fraud, and i countered by calling him an ass. Excuse me for defending myself.
 
papasmurf said:
Well first off, i don't understand how even if one critical beam did fail somehow, which i believe it would have had to have failed over 3 consecutive floors or something, how that would even explain the collapse as it occurred. We are talking about a very fast and symmetrical collapse that would have required multiple simultaneous failures across the structure.

If one piece did fail, wouldn't you expect the force to be distributed unevenly, and the collapse to progress from the point of initial failure, and for at least part of the building to resist collapse, causing it to slow down or force a non-uniform collapse.

Is there any other case where a failure of a collumn has caused a collapse in this manner to proceed? No there isn't. Can the designers of the building say that if that collumn or collumns failed, that the rest of the structure should have collapsed in that fashion? Doubt it.

Finally, we can all agree that the final outcome of the collapse was very similar to a cd. We had a uniform, straight down collapse into the footprint, with minimal collateral damage to other buildings. Now, wouldn't the fact that only a single collumn needed to be taken out for this to occur be of concern to demolition companies, who spend thousands of dollars and hours planning a demolition that requires a certain amount and configuration of explosives to do the job?

This collapse could revolutionize the demolition industry. Apparently local failure of a single collumn or 2 can result in simultaneous and catastrophic failure of the entire structure!

Is that enough for you to see where i am coming from? Can you please elaborate on how fire caused this collapse now?
Click to expand...

Yes I see where you are coming from.

Highligted
 
beachnut said:
WE can't attack your posts, you have nothing to attack, you are ignorant on physics, fire, firefighting, the art of observation, logical thinking, and many other fields. You have no idea about WTC since you failed to use the past 6 years to gain knowledge. It takes hours or days to read the material and understand it, but you come and attack others who have done the work and can see clearly WTC7 failed due to damage from the towers and FIRE!

You failed to read posts with fact and testimony. In a few posts you have proven beyond a shadow of doubt what pure ignorance on WTC7 IS.

Do you lack the time to correct your vast ignorance on this topic? Did you miss the Penthouse falling into the WTC7 seconds before the FAÇADE fell? Can you explain how many columns supported the overall structure of WTC7?

Do you know who built WTC7?

If you can't answer the simple questions, why are you even here?

Welcome to the sub forum, too bad you failed to bring facts and evidence to prove your theory, which you do not have! Great!

Welcome, great posts, you revealed all your know about WTC7 concisely and without hesitation. "

Please spare me the insults, unlike you, i didn't come on here to reaffirm my own abilities or intelligence.

Those are very cheap shots you took and do nothing to prove a point. You have no idea of what i know on physics, nor how much research i have done. I assure you that you are wrong on every accusation you made about me.

Please don't waste your time on personal attacks, i promise you they don't have any effect on me whatsoever.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
We do know what the blue guy due know about english though...Anybody remember our old english major old school?
 
papasmurf, allow me to be the first to congratulate you on your dazzling display of intellect and the calm, reasonable way in which you present your arguments. It's so very refreshing.

A couple of points that may have escaped your attention while you were busy a Super Genius School getting your degrees in I'm Smarter Than All of You:

1) WTC7 did not collapse due to fire alone. WTC7 was struck by falling debris from a 110-story skyscraper. The structural damage caused by this phenomenon and the subsequent fires combined to cause its collapse.

2) The people whom you would describe as not having "a single shred of intelligence" include the following:

The FDNY - including firefighters that were on the scene and witnessed the debris damage, fires, and subsequent collapse with their own eyes.

The overwhelming majority of the worldwide structural engineering community.

Every MSM outlet on the planet.

Every law enforcement agency on the planet.

Every type of official investigative body on the planet.

None of these people have questioned the official version of events. THe FDNY in particular is on record rejecting a controlled demolition hypothesis.

Can you please explain to me why I should believe the baseless rantings of an anonymous Internet poster over all of them?
 
Last edited:
Mr. Smith,
If my argument is from ignorance, you would have to prove it. Providing a link to a wikipedia article is cheap and lazy.

Do you realize how pathetic you people are? Do you not think your own personal convictions are blinding you to the truth? Do you not have your own lack of imagination?

I'm supposed to be able to "imagine" that fire magically caused that collapse, while its unimaginable that someone was able to bring it down with demolition charges?
 
You are not speaking as someone with any knowledge of engineering. You are speaking in the same fashion as someone who thinks video viewing is serious research.

Please try. Make a serious effort and you may be taken seriously.

And with regard to your post#184, I am the parent of a teenager. I recognize the style of response completely: "Nyah nyah he hit me first." It's no more justified now, in this envirnoment, than when it is said by a 6 year old on the playground.
 
papasmurf said:
Mr. Smith,
If my argument is from ignorance, you would have to prove it. Providing a link to a wikipedia article is cheap and lazy.
Click to expand...
The highliged text of your post i quoted proves it, deal with it
Do you realize how pathetic you people are? Do you not think your own personal convictions are blinding you to the truth? Do you not have your own lack of imagination?
Click to expand...
another logical fallacy. http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html
I'm supposed to be able to "imagine" that fire magically caused that collapse, while its unimaginable that someone was able to bring it down with demolition charges?
Click to expand...

Are you studying theater or engineering? Lets see some math kid.
 
OHHHHH MANNNNNNNNNN.....

Mr. Smith,
I asked you for some math, DUDE. FIRST.

Stop the ********. I explained my views and all you can do is plug your ears and cry like a baby.
Edited by prewitt81: 
Content in violation of above moderator warning removed.
answer my concerns about the fire.

You can't. All you can do is attack my argument by putting up links to wikipedia. I feel very sorry for you.


Btw you think some damage to the exterior of the building from debris adds anything to your argument, prove it.

PROVE IT.

papasmurf, this is the second time you have been warned for name-calling. Continuing to ignore moderator warnings will result in suspension.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's see if we can get to 200 posts on this thread without a single post explaining a single rational thought as to how wtc 7 collapsed from fire.
 
papasmurf said:
Mr. Smith,
If my argument is from ignorance, you would have to prove it.
Click to expand...
Explain the relationship between WTC 7 and a Con Ed substation, and how this affected the construction of WTC 7.

I'm supposed to be able to "imagine" that fire magically caused that collapse, while its unimaginable that someone was able to bring it down with demolition charges?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is unimagineable how demo charges cause a kink in the building hours before collapse. Likewise, how the penthouse collapsed into the building before the rest of the building came down. It's unimagineable that the FDNY decided to plant demo charges in a building that was on fire. It's unimagineable that the FDNY was wrong when they described the extent of the fires, and the damage to the building. It's unimagineable that there were explosive charges strong enough to bring down the building but couldn't be heard or recorded by the many video cameras recording the event.

And finally, it's unimagineable that you, who claims to be an engineering student, is basing his opinion on a few seconds of video footage.
 
Last edited:
Papasmurf, this site is for discussion, not for obscenity and abuse. You can find that elsewhere, I expect.

From the level of your comments I find it very hard to believe you actually have any engineering qualifications. The burden is on you to prove that the "official explanation" is incorrect or inadequate. Please proceed to deal with that burden.
 
papasmurf said:
Let's see if we can get to 200 posts on this thread without a single post explaining a single rational thought as to how wtc 7 collapsed from fire.
Click to expand...

Let's see if we can get one post from papasmurf that contains evidence to the contrary. You know...proof and stuff.
 
WildCat said:
Explain the relationship between WTC 7 and a Con Ed substation, and how this affected the construction of WTC 7.


Yes, it is unimagineable how demo charges cause a kink in the building hours before collapse. Likewise, how the penthouse collapsed into the building before the rest of the building came down. It's unimagineable that the FDNY decided to plant demo charges in a building that was on fire. It's unimagineable that the FDNY was wrong when they described the extent of the fires, and the damage to the building. It's unimagineable that there were explosive charges strong enough to bring down the building but couldn't be heard or recorded by the many video cameras recording the event.

And finally, it's unimagineable that you, who claims to be an engineering student, is basing his opinion on a few seconds of video footage.
Click to expand...


Do you honestly believe that anyone believes that the FDNY would be the ones to plant the demolitions?

Give me a break.

Does anyone want to point in the direction of the official theory that you have read.

The part that says " the collapse is highly improbable" is useless to me, sorry.
 
You show no signs of having done any preparation whatsoever. It is easy to find information. Go to the NIST site. Go to the Pop Mechanics volume for easy explanations. Use the search function on this site for prior discussions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom