WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

Oystein said:
...I haven't watched them and have no intention to.
Click to expand...
It is a long time since I even watched the start of a truther video....for years I had not got past the "first lie" or "first propaganda trick". Usually in the first thirty seconds. :o

EDIT: More fool me. I looked at the first 75 seconds of the first referenced video.

Time to first lie 32 seconds.

Multiple lies and other dishonest tricks follow in rapid succession up to ~65 seconds.

The next ten seconds was me being slow to click the "close window" button.... :(

Overall comment - yet another Gish Gallop.
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
It is a long time since I even watched the start of a truther video....for years I had not got past the "first lie" or "first propaganda trick". Usually in the first thirty seconds. :o

EDIT: More fool me. I looked at the first 75 seconds of the first referenced video.

Time to first lie 32 seconds.

Multiple lies and other dishonest tricks follow in rapid succession up to ~65 seconds.

The next ten seconds was me being slow to click the "close window" button.... :(

Overall comment - yet another Gish Gallop.
Click to expand...

It is very telling that you freely express your kneejerk opinion without actually identifying what it is you are specifically opining about.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
It is very telling that you freely express your kneejerk opinion without actually identifying what it is you are specifically opining about.

MM
Click to expand...

At 32 secs:

" .... led to the total symmetrical collapse of ..."
 
DGM said:
So explain this new earth shattering evidence he's uncovered.
Click to expand...

Well in the very first video he takes the NIST to task about the 'here today, gone tomorrow' shear studs.

Since the whole NIST WTC7 collapse hypothesis is dependent on those shear studs never existing, the fact that they did exist is extremely important.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Well in the very first video he takes the NIST to task about the 'here today, gone tomorrow' shear studs.

Since the whole NIST WTC7 collapse hypothesis is dependent on those shear studs never existing, the fact that they did exist is extremely important.

MM
Click to expand...
Ah.....If I remember he backs this up with plan views he doesn't actually understand. I've seen it. Not impressed.

BTW: The "Whole collapse hypothesis" is not dependent on this. ;)
 
DGM said:
Ah.....If I remember he backs this up with plan views he doesn't actually understand. I've seen it. Not impressed.

BTW: The "Whole collapse hypothesis" is not dependent on this. ;)
Click to expand...

Show how he does not understand the "plan views"?

I couldn't care less about whether you are impressed but I do care about your unsupported claims.

Shear studs would have made the floors in WTC7 too stable to support the NIST extreme steel expansion scenario.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Show how he does not understand the "plan views"?

I couldn't care less about whether you are impressed but I do care about your unsupported claims.

Shear studs would have made the floors in WTC7 too stable to support the NIST extreme steel expansion scenario.

MM
Click to expand...
It's in this thread. The plans he thinks are for the floor in question are actually part of a tenant remodel from a later date. The plan views do not support his "theory". If I remember he fails to show the actually title box that proves this.

You're wrong about the studs. We've been through this many times.
 
Miragememories said:
Show how he does not understand the "plan views"?

I couldn't care less about whether you are impressed but I do care about your unsupported claims.

Shear studs would have made the floors in WTC7 too stable to support the NIST extreme steel expansion scenario.

MM
Click to expand...

Therefore CD?
 
Shear stud refresher

The shear studs were a major topic earlier in the thread. Do I have this right:

The studs appear on some drawings and not others. Some of the drawings used by truthers are for the wrong floors. Others do not reflect the plans as built. There is good evidence that studs were actually not there when built.

Would the presence of shear studs have made a difference even for the specific initiating event proposed in the NIST report? Not that this is a big deal, since (if I understand correctly) unfought fires on several floors simultaneously provide several opportunities for catastrophic failure.

And we can rule out CD pretty conclusively anyway: no plausible way to rig the building, no evidence of demolition found during cleanup, no whistleblowers, no sounds of explosives, no flashes, no devices that would have survived the fires.
 
Last edited:
BenjaminTR said:
The shear studs were a major topic earlier in the thread. Do I have this right:

The studs appear on some drawings and not others. Some of the drawings used by truthers are for the wrong floors. Others do not reflect the plans as built. There is good evidence that studs were actually not there when built.

Would the presence of shear studs have made a difference even for the specific initiating event proposed in the NIST report? Not that this is a big deal, since (if I understand correctly) unfought fires on several floors simultaneously provide several opportunities for catastrophic failure.

And we can rule out CD pretty conclusively anyway: no plausible way to rig the building, no evidence of demolition found during cleanup, no whistleblowers, no sounds of explosives, no flashes, no devices that would have survived the fires.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you take the time to watch the videos, they make it quite clear that even without shear studs, the NIST hypothesis remains implausible.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Actually, if you take the time to watch the videos, they make it quite clear that even without shear studs, the NIST hypothesis remains implausible.

MM
Click to expand...
Are you falling back on your claim that the NIST hypothesis depends on them not being there?

What exactly is the compelling evidence that leads you to make this statement?
 
Miragememories said:
Actually, if you take the time to watch the videos, they make it quite clear that even without shear studs, the NIST hypothesis remains implausible.

MM
Click to expand...
11 years, and youtube is dumbed down by failed videos fooling a fringe few.

Offer a youtube video, because it says so? Faith based nonsense. Where is the study to show it is implausible. Math, physics, engineering, show the work. Got any evidence past a nonsensical set of videos which fooled you by "saying so". Don't be skeptical about nonsense found on youtube, or offer any plausible theory, just say it ain't so. Saying a probable collapse sequence is implausible is nonsense when no substance is presented except the words of a failed set of video produced by a paranoid conspiracy theorists too lazy to produce a paper proving the failed claim. Failed claim, remains failed claim.

Learn what probable means. Don't offer an independent probable collapse sequence, that would take engineering and knowledge which is not allowed , not practiced in 911 truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom