WTC Collapse, It's not adding up (1 Viewer)

[LetsGoBrandon]

In the case of the South Tower, I certainly agree with you that it was a Boeing 767.

The trouble is, if one checks the details, that the airplane that struck the South Tower WAS NOT UA175.

The Devil, you know, is in the details.

And the details are....we all saw an airplane hit each tower. There was no controlled demolition.

 

[gerrycan]

Some CD people believe that part of NIST, but not the part where fire is the most probable cause. Doesn't make my statement wrong. WTC7 was damaged by falling debris. If you noted, I did not place WTC7 in with the WTC1,2. Your post does nothing to show I was wrong in that T72 is trying to compare different fire events and trying to say they are the same. Even NIST stated WTC7 was unique.

The NIST hypothesis for collapse by fire in WTC7 has been thoroughly debunked. If you have another fire based theory that is at least possible, you should share it.

 

[Deuce]

The NIST hypothesis for collapse by fire in WTC7 has been thoroughly debunked. If you have another fire based theory that is at least possible, you should share it.

I'm always amused by people who think it is impossible for fire to bring a building down.

 

[gerrycan]

I'm always amused by people who think it is impossible for fire to bring a building down.

I am always amused by people who have blind faith in NIST and take their tale at face value. Given that WTC7 was unprecedented, and that NIST's hypothesis has been disproved, the onus is on those who believe that fire can do this to a steel frame high rise to state their supposed alternative theory. In the absence of that, all you have is "I Trust NIST"

 

[Deuce]

I am always amused by people who have blind faith in NIST and take their tale at face value. Given that WTC7 was unprecedented, and that NIST's hypothesis has been disproved, the onus is on those who believe that fire can do this to a steel frame high rise to state their supposed alternative theory. In the absence of that, all you have is "I Trust NIST"

No, all you have is "I reject NIST." You claim it has been "disproved," yet cannot offer such proof.

 

[mike2810]

The NIST hypothesis for collapse by fire in WTC7 has been thoroughly debunked. If you have another fire based theory that is at least possible, you should share it.

Funny how you fail to provide sources to your debunked statement. But I will humor you for a bit. I have stated that I doubt anyone can tell exactly in detail how WTC7 collapsed. That is what beam/girder failed first, etc. Seems that the work of Tony Z and others is still in question and not proven. So your debunked statement is only an opinion.

So point me to the CD explanation that explains everything in detail regarding the CD of WTC7. What I see is you saying it couldn't be fire, yet you have done nothing to prove it was CD. Your debate style has been put out and used over and over the last 16 years.

Time to show your cards. Prove the CD.

 

[gerrycan]

Funny how you fail to provide sources to your debunked statement. But I will humor you for a bit. I have stated that I doubt anyone can tell exactly in detail how WTC7 collapsed. That is what beam/girder failed first, etc. Seems that the work of Tony Z and others is still in question and not proven. So your debunked statement is only an opinion.

So point me to the CD explanation that explains everything in detail regarding the CD of WTC7. What I see is you saying it couldn't be fire, yet you have done nothing to prove it was CD. Your debate style has been put out and used over and over the last 16 years.

Time to show your cards. Prove the CD.

You have had this debate with me already Mike, so let's not recycle it. You know that NIST omitted elements and got dimensions wrong in their model.
The fact of the matter is that you cannot prove that fire has the capability of doing this to a building like wtc7. If and when you can, we can then debate whether it was CD or fire. But until then, the only KNOWN AND PROVEN cause of the sudden collapse of a steel framed high rise remains controlled demolition. There is no question that CD has the capability to do the job, and there is no proof that fire is an alternative option.
If you have data that changes that position, you should share it.

ETA here's the debate we had previously http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...trade-center-w-424-1132-1312-a-137-print.html

 

[gerrycan]

No, all you have is "I reject NIST." You claim it has been "disproved," yet cannot offer such proof.

NIST supposed a girder failure at C79-44 to the west. Thoroughly debunked, yet you clearly still believe it.

 

[mike2810]

You have had this debate with me already Mike, so let's not recycle it. You know that NIST omitted elements and got dimensions wrong in their model.
The fact of the matter is that you cannot prove that fire has the capability of doing this to a building like wtc7. If and when you can, we can then debate whether it was CD or fire. But until then, the only KNOWN AND PROVEN cause of the sudden collapse of a steel framed high rise remains controlled demolition. There is no question that CD has the capability to do the job, and there is no proof that fire is an alternative option.
If you have data that changes that position, you should share it.

ETA here's the debate we had previously http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...trade-center-w-424-1132-1312-a-137-print.html

Then you should be able to provide the details to the CD
Which explosives do you believe were used?
C4, thermite, nano thermite, mini neutron bombs, energy beam. These are the most popular "explosives" stated in the many CD explanations.


Actually you are wrong, The building WTC7 was brought down by an earthquake. We know earthquakes can take down buildings. We know earthquakes can result in building fires. It is as good as your CD explanation. There is evidence of the earth shook. :mrgreen:

Here is the challenge. start a new thread and lay out your CD explanation and evidence. Let's discuss that, rather than rehashing what you feel is NIST failures. But for your type, it is always what you believe NIST got wrong. Never about presenting what you have about CD,

Or you can keep dodging, idk.

 

[mike2810]

NIST supposed a girder failure at C79-44 to the west. Thoroughly debunked, yet you clearly still believe it.

debunked by who? provide the link.

Since truthers tend to like vids. Here you go

 

[Deuce]

NIST supposed a girder failure at C79-44 to the west. Thoroughly debunked, yet you clearly still believe it.

Still waiting for that proof.

 

[gerrycan]

Then you should be able to provide the details to the CD
Which explosives do you believe were used?
C4, thermite, nano thermite, mini neutron bombs, energy beam. These are the most popular "explosives" stated in the many CD explanations.

Nobody reasonably disputes that explosive controlled demolition is a known and proven method of bringing down a steel frame. Nobody has proven that fire has the capability of replicating this. You need to prove that fire can do it before you have the fire vs explosive debate. You don't get to have that debate until you have established that fire can do it.

Actually you are wrong, The building WTC7 was brought down by an earthquake. We know earthquakes can take down buildings. We know earthquakes can result in building fires. It is as good as your CD explanation. There is evidence of the earth shook. :mrgreen:

Ok, this is good. You are now starting to propose an alternative to fire that isn't explosives.

Here is the challenge. start a new thread and lay out your CD explanation and evidence. Let's discuss that, rather than rehashing what you feel is NIST failures. But for your type, it is always what you believe NIST got wrong. Never about presenting what you have about CD,

Or you can keep dodging, idk.

How did fire possibly do it? NIST can't help you now.

 

[Deuce]

Nobody reasonably disputes that explosive controlled demolition is a known and proven method of bringing down a steel frame. Nobody has proven that fire has the capability of replicating this. You need to prove that fire can do it before you have the fire vs explosive debate. You don't get to have that debate until you have established that fire can do it.

Can do what? Cause a building to collapse? Of course it can do that.

How did fire possibly do it? NIST can't help you now.

When subject to high temperatures, steel weakens tremendously. Ask a medieval blacksmith for more information.

 

[gerrycan]

Still waiting for that proof.

The C79-44 girder expands into the inside of the west sideplate on C79 in the heating phase in ALL analysis carried out by ARUP, who NIST then cited as a reason for them to revisit their own conclusions. It follows then that the girder cannot fail to the west in the heating phase as claimed by NIST previously. They're not even clinging to it any more, so why are you?

 

[Deuce]

The C79-44 girder expands into the inside of the west sideplate on C79 in the heating phase in ALL analysis carried out by ARUP, who NIST then cited as a reason for them to revisit their own conclusions. It follows then that the girder cannot fail to the west in the heating phase as claimed by NIST previously. They're not even clinging to it any more, so why are you?

Where did I cling to these numbers you made up? Link the post.

 

[gerrycan]

Can do what? Cause a building to collapse? Of course it can do that.


When subject to high temperatures, steel weakens tremendously. Ask a medieval blacksmith for more information.

I don't need to ask a blacksmith, thanks. Even at NIST's supposed temps the steel would still have at least half it's strength in WTC7. Steel also expands in heat. NIST claim >6.25" expansion in a 53ft beam @ 600C. Perhaps you could go ask your blacksmith is that's possible. Nobody else outside NIST thinks so.

 

[gerrycan]

Where did I cling to these numbers you made up? Link the post.

So you don't agree with NIST ? Fair enough. Good on ya.

 

[gerrycan]

debunked by who? provide the link.

Since truthers tend to like vids. Here you go

Yeah gotta love them videos eh. Here's one with the offending girder highlighted for you. This is what you are endorsing. Watch the girder.......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQkylMIuH-g

And here's another explaining exactly where NIST got it wrong.

 

[Thoreau72]

And the details are....we all saw an airplane hit each tower. There was no controlled demolition.

No, the details are that only a select few actually saw the first plane strike the tower, and those nearby citizens who DID see the first plane strike all described it to NYPD as being not an airliner, but something smaller, perhaps commuter or corporate type.

Yes, we all saw the second strike, and from day one many noted that the airplane we saw had some strange things about it on the belly. Analysis of the engine found on the sidewalk shows it to be an engine more commonly installed on the 747, not installed on the 767.

And if one is willing to examine more details (a very big if, it turns out), the details show that the damage observed is not consistent with the official story, collapse caused by office fires burning on 10 of the upper floors. Further, more details provided by Willy Rodriguez and others note that a massive explosion occurred just moments BEFORE the airplane strike.

It is the refusal of many citizens to examine those details, a form of cognitive dissonance, that allows the official story to still be embraced by part of the public.

 

[zyzygy]

No, the details are that only a select few actually saw the first plane strike the tower, and those nearby citizens who DID see the first plane strike all described it to NYPD as being not an airliner, but something smaller, perhaps commuter or corporate type.

Yes, we all saw the second strike, and from day one many noted that the airplane we saw had some strange things about it on the belly. Analysis of the engine found on the sidewalk shows it to be an engine more commonly installed on the 747, not installed on the 767.

And if one is willing to examine more details (a very big if, it turns out), the details show that the damage observed is not consistent with the official story, collapse caused by office fires burning on 10 of the upper floors. Further, more details provided by Willy Rodriguez and others note that a massive explosion occurred just moments BEFORE the airplane strike.

It is the refusal of many citizens to examine those details, a form of cognitive dissonance, that allows the official story to still be embraced by part of the public.

No links, as usual. What analysis?

 

[Quag]

I hope I'm wrong in thinking you are an attorney. I pity any person that would pay good money to retain one with such an apparent case of constipation of the brain and diarrhea of the mouth.

If you are capable of forming a relevant and concise question, I would be happy to answer it. What position, exactly, do you want me to defend?

Translation you have destroyed my uninformed illogical arguments so now I will just us my potty mouth

 

[Quag]

Only for the morbidly naïve is it inherently contradictory. For those familiar with the behavior of humans in high places, it is quite normal. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

You are no more familiar with human behavior than you are with aviation or physics

 

[Quag]

Well, clearly, they must have been planted as part of the conspiracy.




It's probably not worth bothering with. These people get sucked into a conspiracy community and all the self-referential "evidence" is accepted without question, meanwhile, lack of evidence or contradictory evidence is spoken of as just another part of the conspiracy. If there are inconsistencies, it is because the conspiracy so masterfully confused matters. Only those who are not "sheeple" can see through the complete lack of evidence to find positive proof in the lack.

And if they try to get out, the community turns on them much in the manner that Scientologists do. Seriously...try looking up some accounts from people who have successfully left a serious 9/11 truther (or other conspiracy) forum.









AND the only people who can see through this all are the big brave geniuses chattering away on dark web conspiracy forums at 5 in the morning, brave defenders of freedom, prophets against the machine, etc. We're all just a bunch of dummies too stupid to ask whether or not a bunch of terrorists who are on record hating and attacking us actually did 9/11 despite the massive amount of evidence that they did and complete lack of evidence that they did not.

(Conspiracist response: all that evidence was planted and all those prior attacks were "false flags". The lack of tracks indicating a conspiracy is evidence of a conspiracy because of course a conspiracy would cover its tracks....AND THERE ARE NO TRACKS! Clever, you see).

Nailed it

 

[Quag]

No links, as usual. What analysis?

He saw it once in a newspaper or online but forgot exactly where/lost the link etc.
But trust HD, he saw it and it was 100% bonafide!

 

[Quag]

Yeah gotta love them videos eh. Here's one with the offending girder highlighted for you. This is what you are endorsing. Watch the girder.......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQkylMIuH-g

And here's another explaining exactly where NIST got it wrong.

Ok Ill play, lets assume NIST got it wrong why does that mean CD?