WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

Tony Szamboti said:
For starters, the NIST report is non-explanatory. Their collapse initiation mechanism is impossible and their model does not replicate the proven freefall period. That is why I want a new investigation. Failure analyses need to replicate the observables.
Click to expand...

Observable: Impact damage and fires initiated collapse of a 47 story, uniquely framed building.

Replicated: Yup.

You're welcome.
 
Justin39640 said:
Observable: Impact damage and fires initiated collapse of a 47 story, uniquely framed building.

Replicated: Yup.

You're welcome.
Click to expand...

The NIST model does not replicate the freefall of the building so it is not a valid model for explaining how the collapse occurred.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
No, you want me to commit to a particular theory and that would be premature. My provable point is that the NIST WTC 7 report contains impossibilities and is therefore non-explanatory and it also does not replicate the observed freefall period. This is why we need to investigate again to determine just what did happen and to replicate the observables this time around. There is no sophistry involved in that.
Click to expand...

It is flat-out insanity to imply that fires were set in WTC 7.

End of story.

Anybody who thinks fires were intentionally set in WTC 7 is INSANE.

How could fires in WTC 7 possibly be connected to the Pentagon in your sadder than sad scenario? Why hasn't the building that was destined to be hit by United 93 taken down or attacked after 9/11? Is there unexploded ordinance sitting somewhere in the Capital Buildling waiting for the next false flag day?

Answer that.
 
NoahFence said:
And yet the engineering community the world over has no problem with it.
Click to expand...

Every engineer I have shown video of WTC 7's collapse to and explained the freefall and that the NIST model does not replicate this freefall has taken the position that it needs to be re-investigated.

The fact that certain organizations haven't taken the initiative to request a re-investigation means nothing.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Every engineer I have shown video of WTC 7 to and explained the freefall and that the NIST model does not replicate this freefall has taken the position that it needs to be re-investigated.

The fact that certain organizations haven't taken the initiative to request a new investigation means nothing.
Click to expand...

"Every" engineer.

What, one? Two?

lol. Yea, right. How did they react to your assertion that fires were intentionally set by the NYFD while hundreds of their brothers and sisters and thousands of civilians were buried under countless tons of concrete and steel? Did they buy that, too?
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
"Every" engineer.

What, one? Two?

lol. Yea, right. How did they react to your assertion that fires were intentionally set by the NYFD while hundreds of their brothers and sisters and thousands of civilians were buried under countless tons of concrete and steel? Did they buy that, too?
Click to expand...

Are you insane? I never said the fires in WTC 7 were intentionally set by the FDNY.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
I never said the fires in WTC 7 were intentionally set by the FDNY. Where did you get that?
Click to expand...

Because rational thinking, common sense thinking, which you SEVERELY lack, clearly dictates they're the only ones capable of pulling that off.

UNLESS

You're saying that the NYFD and NYPD and every other authority figure there turned their heads, allowing this scary ninja group inside a building to set fires? Is that what you're saying?

You need to think logically about the implications of your silly theories.

Who were they set by then? Lemme guess... that's why we need a new investigation.

Uh huh.

Still waiting on your answer about the Capital Building (what we assume was the Flight 93 target)
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
Because rational thinking, common sense thinking, which you SEVERELY lack, clearly dictates they're the only ones capable of pulling that off.

UNLESS

You're saying that the NYFD and NYPD and every other authority figure there turned their heads, allowing this scary ninja group inside a building to set fires? Is that what you're saying?

You need to think logically about the implications of your silly theories.
Click to expand...

The word was put out early on by an anonymous engineer (who the investigation did not identify) that WTC 7 was in danger of collapse. That would have been all that was necessary to keep firefighters away from the building, especially after what went on earlier that morning on Sept. 11, 2001. I certainly do not believe the FDNY was involved in anything nefarious.
 
Miragememories said:
A childish uninformed response?

Yup.

You're welcome.

MM
Click to expand...

Pot, meet kettle?

De nada

Seriously though, Tony whines over "freefall". The model wasn't intended to show how the building exactly fell apart till the last piece settled. It was to show what weaknesses the building had and why those led to a total collapse, which the model does. I hope you people are up to arguing ALL the theories that disagree with the NIST's but conclude fire failed the building. They're all valid theories. NIST could be wrong.

But, they will never be as wrong as the fools who argue moronic CD theories.

J.39640
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The word was put out early on by an anonymous engineer (who the investigation did not identify) that WTC 7 was in danger of collapse. That would have been all that was necessary to keep firefighters away from the building, especially after what went on earlier that morning on Sept. 11, 2001. I certainly do not believe the FDNY was involved in anything nefarious.
Click to expand...

Baloney.

Now connect it to the rest of the day's events. Unless you think it was a massive coincidence that other locations were attacked that day?
 
Lol. "premature". How many decades should it take for someone to develop a hypothesis that better explains the events of the day? Maybe by the year 3001?
 
well, Dieppe happened what 70 years ago and historians are only now learning that it had alot more objectives then were commonly known. Veterans of that attack are only now finding out that it did have a purpose beyond just being an excuse to get a bunch of allied soldiers killed.
Amazing what people can find when things become declassified, released to the public/peers for scrutiny....
 
lexicon008 said:
well, Dieppe happened what 70 years ago and historians are only now learning that it had alot more objectives then were commonly known. Veterans of that attack are only now finding out that it did have a purpose beyond just being an excuse to get a bunch of allied soldiers killed.Amazing what people can find when things become declassified, released to the public/peers for scrutiny....
Click to expand...

Since everything has already been released about 9/11, your point?

Oh and you know **** all about Dippe apparently.
 
Robrob said:
Please feel free to elaborate on what has "not been released?"
Click to expand...


For starters, in response to a request for calculations and analysis substantiating the NIST claim for girder walk-off in their collapse initiation scenario for WTC 7, the NIST director said he was witholding that information claiming it might jeopardize public safety.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom