Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org

1246789

Comments

  • #92
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    And you're avoiding the question again.

    Yes, I do think they are usable in this discussion as they make the point that steel structures can fail due to fire. However those examples cannot be used to show that all steel structures always will fail.
    (No one here or the maker of the video is claiming that.)

    Now do you believe those examples can be used?
    If not, why not?
    If so, then why do you use your example as if there's no examples that show the opposite?

    Yes ..In the way that fire can melt steel and NO not in relation to the collapse of wtc 7 ...

    So you have to agree that video is mostly incorrect and is using material totally out of context to the collapse of wtc7

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

    Same as that this can be used to show a fire worse (engulfing the whole building) burning for 20 hours still leave the building standing ... no it cannot be used as comparison to "proof" wtc was foul play

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM&feature=related

    Did i answer that avoided question with this as well ?

    Am i claiming that steel structures are safe from failing because of fire?


  • #93
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    Yes ..In the way that fire can melt steel and NO not in relation to the collapse of wtc 7 ...

    So you have to agree that video is mostly incorrect and is using material totally out of context to the collapse of wtc7

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

    Same as that this can be used to show a fire worse (engulfing the whole building) burning for 20 hours still leave the building standing ... no it cannot be used as comparison to "proof" wtc was foul play

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM&feature=related
    ?
    Great, we're making progress.
    So then since your video does not show that WTC7 could not have collapsed, what exactly is your point with it?
    Why are you using it to back up your insistence that WTC7 could not have fallen "the way it did"?


  • #94
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Great, we're making progress.
    So then since your video does not show that WTC7 could not have collapsed, what exactly is your point with it?
    Why are you using it to back up your insistence that WTC7 could not have fallen "the way it did"?

    Do you agree with me that the video used(overpass etc) is as bad as most of the CT crap?

    I want the building 7 discussion to stay in the building 7 thread if you don't mind


  • #95
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    Do you agree with me that the video used(overpass etc) is as bad as most of the CT crap?
    No I don't agree because you are claiming the video makes an argument it doesn't.
    The video shows those examples to illustrate that steel structures can fail due to fire.
    It does not say at any point that those examples show that all steel structures will inevitably fail due to fire.
    Nor does it use those examples to prove that WTC7 did, only showing that it could have.
    Conspiracy theory videos (and you at one point) all try to claim their examples show the opposite, that all steel frame buildings do not fail due to fire.

    And the fact that it shows the full collapse of the building makes it exponentially better and more honest than any conspiracy theory video.
    weisses wrote: »
    I want the building 7 discussion to stay in the building 7 thread if you don't mind
    Great, lets start with these questions:
    So then since your video does not show that WTC7 could not have collapsed, what exactly is your point with it?
    Why are you using it to back up your insistence that WTC7 could not have fallen "the way it did"?

    Because if you were being consistent with your logic, you just lost your only (very flimsy) basis for disagreeing with the official story.


  • #96
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Nor does it use those examples to prove that WTC7 did, only showing that it could have..

    Th video is called Building 7 explained

    They are Debunking the CT approach ..and yet they include to use your words could have clips to make their point ... that is just as misleading as they way CT videos are made ... the ones you loath and dismiss


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    Th video is called Building 7 explained
    Ah so you're going from the title rather than what they are actually saying in the video at the time, even though your claim doesn't make any sense.

    At no point do they claim that their examples prove that WTC7 collapsed due to fire. At no point do they say that their examples are comparable to all buildings.
    They say quite clearly that their examples show that steel framed constructions can fail due to fire.
    Just as your example shows that they can survive fires.

    But it's clear you're getting desperate and clutching at straws now.
    weisses wrote: »
    They are Debunking the CT approach ..and yet they include to use your words could have clips to make their point ... that is just as misleading as they way CT videos are made ... the ones you loath and dismiss
    Well no, even if we are to ignore the points above and basic logic and assume you are correct, do you really think that's comparable to claiming the building fell in 7 seconds?


  • #98
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    That its quite possible a steel building can survive a 20 hour inferno

    I am using that video as an example to expose/point out two opposites

    1: the total collapse of wtc7 in under 20 seconds due to office fires

    2: the building showed in the video burned for 20 hours (inferno) and didn't collapse or crumble
    Well first you're using your dishonest claim again and leaving out the fact that WTC7 was burning for 7 hours before it collapsed.

    Secondly, that great, who claims that some buildings can't survive fires?
    We've shown you examples that show that its quite possible a steel structure can fail due to fires. (in much less time than 7 hours.)

    So again, what exactly is your point?
    weisses wrote: »
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArnYryJqCwU

    what in this video are lies ...twisting of facts etc ?
    Well after a quick flick through: about 5 minutes in he doesn't seem to understand how materials expand at different rates. And since that is secondary school level science and he seems quite knowledgeable, he's being dishonest on some level.
    8 and a half minutes in he does the typical dishonest truther thing and shows a (cropped) photo of the north side of the building to show the extent of the fires.
    And of course repeats the crap form the other video about missing files.

    So why are you throwing up a random video instead of engaging in points already raised.
    It's kind of tedious.


  • #99
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ah so you're going from the title rather than what they are actually saying in the video at the time, even though your claim doesn't make any sense.

    At no point do they claim that their examples prove that WTC7 collapsed due to fire. At no point do they say that their examples are comparable to all buildings.
    They say quite clearly that their examples show that steel framed constructions can fail due to fire.
    Just as your example shows that they can survive fires.

    But it's clear you're getting desperate and clutching at straws now.


    Well no, even if we are to ignore the points above and basic logic and assume you are correct, do you really think that's comparable to claiming the building fell in 7 seconds?

    No the fire progressed and extinguish through the building for hours and then the building somehow collapsed into itself

    So those points in this video ..As raised before are not a backing up of the evidence on how the building fell?


  • #100
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    No the fire progressed and extinguish through the building for hours and then the building somehow collapsed into itself

    So those points in this video ..As raised before are not a backing up of the evidence on how the building fell?

    Frankly I've no interest in pursuing another line of inquiry considering I can't even get you to stick to this one.
    So I'm not going to address another pointless video.

    So if you want to actually engage in discussion my point and question still stands:
    You can't honestly use your example as a basis to doubt the official story.
    Because either you can't compare buildings of different design, or you can compare them but then have to accept examples of structures that did collapse.

    Right now you are trying to say that buildings are comparable except the ones that you don't want to agree with.


  • #101
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Frankly I've no interest in pursuing another line of inquiry considering I can't even get you to stick to this one.
    So I'm not going to address another pointless video.

    Pointless video ?? Its the one that has the simulation you keep referring to all the time
    King Mob wrote: »
    So if you want to actually engage in discussion my point and question still stands:

    And that is ??
    King Mob wrote: »
    You can't honestly use your example as a basis to doubt the official story.

    Why not ? .. When the other theory is that parts of a building burning for 7 hours due to office fires can collapse on itself in under 20 seconds is the alternative ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Because either you can't compare buildings of different design, or you can compare them but then have to accept examples of structures that did collapse.

    That is something i don't know ... i dont know if that building that burned for 20 hours has the same structural design as wtc7 .. It is showing that a steel framed building can withstand a 20 hour inferno that's all

    King Mob wrote: »
    Right now you are trying to say that buildings are comparable except the ones that you don't want to agree with.

    Can you point out where i make that assumption ?


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    Why not ? .. When the other theory is that parts of a building burning for 7 hours due to office fires can collapse on itself in under 20 seconds is the alternative ?
    And why is that impossible?
    Because a building withstood a fire?

    Your logic is getting wonderfully circular now.
    weisses wrote: »
    That is something i don't know ... i dont know if that building that burned for 20 hours has the same structural design as wtc7

    .. It is showing that a steel framed building can withstand a 20 hour inferno that's all
    That's great, but we also have an example of a steel framed structure that failed after 20 minute of fire.
    It's showing that a structure can fail due to fire.
    So why does your one count but the other does not?

    Now do be clear, so you've no excuse to avoid the question: I'm asking why do you specifically not think that the overpass is as valid of an example as yours.
    weisses wrote: »
    Can you point out where i make that assumption ?
    Because so far the only reason you gave that our example does count is that it is a different construction to WTC7.
    But this also applies to your example, but you're ignoring that point because otherwise you'd have to concede the only tenuous and silly basis for you objects.
    So you are trying to say that buildings are comparable except the ones that you don't want to agree with.
    And unless you can provide a reason why our example doesn't count while yours does, the point stands.


  • #103
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    And why is that impossible?

    Its not impossible
    King Mob wrote: »
    Because a building withstood a fire?

    Raises questions ...proofing nothing
    King Mob wrote: »
    Your logic is getting wonderfully circular now.

    Its not my logic ...wtc 7 collapsed in under 20 seconds after office fires burned on and off for 7 hours considering that had never happened before and doubtfully will ever happen again do you consider that Logical ?

    King Mob wrote: »
    That's great, but we also have an example of a steel framed structure that failed after 20 minute of fire.

    Can you give me a link please ... sounds interesting !
    King Mob wrote: »
    It's showing that a structure can fail due to fire.

    that seems logical to me
    King Mob wrote: »
    So why does your one count but the other does not?

    i said that where ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Now do be clear, so you've no excuse to avoid the question: I'm asking why do you specifically not think that the overpass is as valid of an example as yours.

    1: its not a building

    2: it had a fuel tanker burning under it ... different heat etc

    at least that overpass didn't collapse completely

    But are we ending up here discussing parts of that pointless video you were on about ?

    King Mob wrote: »
    Because so far the only reason you gave that our example does count is that it is a different construction to WTC7.
    But this also applies to your example, but you're ignoring that point because otherwise you'd have to concede the only tenuous and silly basis for you objects.
    So you are trying to say that buildings are comparable except the ones that you don't want to agree with.
    And unless you can provide a reason why our example doesn't count while yours does, the point stands.

    sorry i didn't include a fuel truck crashing into an overpass in my comparison
    But to put you at esae i also left out the titanic


  • #104
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    Its not impossible
    Raises questions ...proofing nothing
    So then what point does you showing a building not collapsing serve exactly?
    How does this show that WTC7 could not have fallen as it did?

    You see how we're going around and around, your logic is circular.
    weisses wrote: »
    Its not my logic ...wtc 7 collapsed in under 20 seconds after office fires burned on and off for 7 hours considering that had never happened before and doubtfully will ever happen again do you consider that Logical ?
    It probably won't happen again because the original WTC7 doesn't exist anymore.
    But as you've agreed several times that something not happening before does not stop it for happening.

    I do like now how you've absorbed what your conspiracy video has told you to believe without question.
    weisses wrote: »
    i said that where ?

    1: its not a building

    2: it had a fuel tanker burning under it ... different heat etc

    at least that overpass didn't collapse completely

    sorry i didn't include a fuel truck crashing into an overpass in my comparison
    But to put you at esae i also left out the titanic

    So it had a different design and different circumstances?
    How does this not apply to your example?


  • #105
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    You see how we're going around and around, your logic is circular.

    No i don't see that please explain
    King Mob wrote: »
    I do like now how you've absorbed what your conspiracy video has told you to believe without question.

    And how do you come to that conclusion? please explain ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    So it had a different design and different circumstances?
    How does this not apply to your example?

    They are both examples.. points of view .. 1 more in context then the other

    But are you or are you not accepting that video with these examples (overpass) in it ...because you either agree with the examples used in the video in that that context or not


  • #106
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Can I ask you a question weisses. Do you see that Gage etc are at least not giving the full picture about the WTC7 collapse? They must know this so they are lying.

    The logic appears to be NIST = Official = Untrustworthy. I can't say if the NIST report is completely accurate but I can tell that Gage etc are wrong.


  • #107
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    meglome wrote: »
    Can I ask you a question weisses. Do you see that Gage etc are at least not giving the full picture about the WTC7 collapse? They must know this so they are lying.

    The logic appears to be NIST = Official = Untrustworthy. I can't say if the NIST report is completely accurate but I can tell that Gage etc are wrong.

    I did watch this one ... I don't like him imo he is kinda misleading in some points to make it sound better what he is trying to say

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKO_TWUpPEE


  • #108
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    weisses wrote: »
    I did watch this one ... I don't like him imo he is kinda misleading in some points to make it sound better what he is trying to say

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKO_TWUpPEE

    Sorry don't have any sound connected to this computer at the mo, what are the mains points he makes?


  • #109
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    No i don't see that please explain
    I ask you: why is it impossible for WTC7 to fall the way it did?
    You respond: because this building stayed standing .
    Which begs the question: Why does this building surviving show it is impossible for Wtc to fall the way it did?
    To which you reply: because otherwise you are left with the official explanation which is impossible.

    Which begs the original question, hence circular logic.
    weisses wrote: »
    They are both examples.. points of view .. 1 more in context then the other
    Why is one more "in context" than the other?

    Why do you think that your example shows it's impossible for WTC7 fall according to the official story, while the other does not show it is possible?
    weisses wrote: »
    But are you or are you not accepting that video with these examples (overpass) in it ...because you either agree with the examples used in the video in that that context or not
    I've already explained what the video was saying with the point and how your were misrepresenting, while applying double standards to your own example.
    I'm not repeating them for you to ignore them again. If you care about this point go back and read what I wrote.


  • #110
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    I ask you: why is it impossible for WTC7 to fall the way it did?
    You respond: because this building stayed standing .
    Which begs the question: Why does this building surviving show it is impossible for Wtc to fall the way it did?
    To which you reply: because otherwise you are left with the official explanation which is impossible.

    No i said its not Impossible Message 103 page 7 and if i am wrong point me to the post that i said that
    King Mob wrote: »
    Which begs the original question, hence circular logic.

    Which states more a case of chasing your own tail

    King Mob wrote: »
    Why is one more "in context" than the other?

    1: steel structured high rise engulfed in flames burning for 20 hours.. still standing

    2:night time video of a burning overpass partially collapsing at one point

    so yes i see one example more in context to the wtc7 discussion then the other, explain to me please why (if) you dont agree with that
    King Mob wrote: »
    Why do you think that your example shows it's impossible for WTC7 fall according to the official story, while the other does not show it is possible?

    Thats a discussion i like to continue in the building 7 thread ( i have another video posted there yesterday that looks interesting to discuss
    King Mob wrote: »
    I've already explained what the video was saying with the point and how your were misrepresenting, while applying double standards to your own example.
    I'm not repeating them for you to ignore them again. If you care about this point go back and read what I wrote.

    No King Mob you are the one dismissing and ridiculing thruthers (ct) nuts videos

    on the other hand when a video is posted that is in favor with your theory but equally flawed as most of the ct video's then you refuse to even acknowledge that ..... that sir is is applying double standards

    And when you read to this topic carefully will you please answer the questions i asked you .. i know its more convenient to ignore them but give it a try

    Blaming people for ignoring posts is not on King Mob considering your history of ignoring posts for whatever reason


  • #111
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    meglome wrote: »
    Sorry don't have any sound connected to this computer at the mo, what are the mains points he makes?


    Could we continue talking about this video when you have sound??

    If you meant another video please post it so i can have a look !


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    No i said its not Impossible Message 103 page 7 and if i am wrong point me to the post that i said that

    Which states more a case of chasing your own tail
    And around we go again:
    Q: So if it's not impossible what's your problem with it?
    A: Because it could not have fallen that way.
    Q: How do you know it could not have fall that way?
    A: Because of this example.
    Q: How does that example show that it could not have fallen that way?
    A: Because then the only other explanation is the official one, which can't happen.

    So again, watch how you go in circles.
    If you don't think it's impossible what exactly is your problem with the official story.
    I've ask you this again and again, and you've never once gave a complete answer. The nearest you got was saying that the fires weren't intense enough, but you dropped that point when I started asking you to back that assertion up.
    weisses wrote: »
    1: steel structured high rise engulfed in flames burning for 20 hours.. still standing

    2:night time video of a burning overpass partially collapsing at one point

    so yes i see one example more in context to the wtc7 discussion then the other, explain to me please why (if) you dont agree with that
    Well both show what can happen to a steel framed structure in a fire. However both feature structures of totally different designs to WTC 7.

    So the only difference I'm seeing is you want one to count but want to ignore the other.
    weisses wrote: »
    No King Mob you are the one dismissing and ridiculing thruthers (ct) nuts videos

    on the other hand when a video is posted that is in favor with your theory but equally flawed as most of the ct video's then you refuse to even acknowledge that ..... that sir is is applying double standards
    Equally flawed? That's hilarious and shows exactly how much you are willing to ignore from the truthers.
    Even if the silly strawman point you're trying to make stood, then can you please point to a skeptic video that leaves out half of the collapse of WTC7 and lies about how long it took to collapse or something equally as dishonest.


  • #113
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    weisses wrote: »
    Could we continue talking about this video when you have sound??

    If you meant another video please post it so i can have a look !

    Right looking at it on my laptop now, looks very like the usual stuff he comes out with.

    Firstly at around 2:50 he mentions molten metal from Thermite... wrong. Thermite is not used in controlled demolition, as I understand it copper and explosives are use with the molten copper doing the cutting. Same kind of thing they use on anti-tank shells. He must know this yet he says it anyway.

    He says at about 3:40 that WTC7 had 'a couple' of fires... wrong, There is ample evidence that there were fires burning out of control all over the building. There are pictures of this and fire-fighter testimony backing them up. He must know this yet he says it anyway. 'Strangely' he doesn't show these pictures, why is that?

    He says the only way for the building to fall like it does is for all the columns to be cut at once... wrong. Every column that fails will put loading on to the other columns near it. All it takes is enough of these to go and lets imagine the structure was weakened by fire. In fact just exactly like the NIST reports says.

    He says it falls in 6.5 second... wrong. The penthouse starts falling before that proving the internal structure was failing.

    This is all Gages usually bull and full of stuff that is just plain wrong.

    Since you like videos so much watch this one http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC_Not_A_Demolition and let me know that you think.


  • #114
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    meglome wrote: »
    Firstly at around 2:50 he mentions molten metal from Thermite... wrong. Thermite is not used in controlled demolition, as I understand it copper and explosives are use with the molten copper doing the cutting. Same kind of thing they use on anti-tank shells. He must know this yet he says it anyway.
    And Wiesses does not "buy" the thermite theory.
    meglome wrote: »
    He says at about 3:40 that WTC7 had 'a couple' of fires... wrong, There is ample evidence that there were fires burning out of control all over the building. There are pictures of this and fire-fighter testimony backing them up. He must know this yet he says it anyway. 'Strangely' he doesn't show these pictures, why is that?
    And Wiesses has already agreed that there were extensive fires in WTC7 which would compromise it's structure.
    meglome wrote: »
    He says the only way for the building to fall like it does is for all the columns to be cut at once... wrong. Every column that fails will put loading on to the other columns near it. All it takes is enough of these to go and lets imagine the structure was weakened by fire. In fact just exactly like the NIST reports says.
    And Wiesses had already argeed that the building could fall the way it did without all the supports failing all at once.
    meglome wrote: »
    He says it falls in 6.5 second... wrong. The penthouse starts falling before that proving the internal structure was failing.
    And Wiesses already argees that Gage is wrong about the time which it fell in, just doesn't want to admit that Gage is lying.
    meglome wrote: »
    This is all Gages usually bull and full of stuff that is just plain wrong.
    And yet Wiesses despite knowing all of the above, still thinks that the video has some merit.


  • #115
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    And around we go again:
    Q: So if it's not impossible what's your problem with it?
    A: Because it could not have fallen that way.
    Q: How do you know it could not have fall that way?
    A: Because of this example.
    Q: How does that example show that it could not have fallen that way?
    A: Because then the only other explanation is the official one, which can't happen.

    Can you give me the exact quote (post nr) on the last two answers please because i don't know what example you mean and for that last answer ... i can't remember to have said that

    King Mob wrote: »
    If you don't think it's impossible what exactly is your problem with the official story.

    Because i believe it to be very unlikely
    King Mob wrote: »
    I've ask you this again and again, and you've never once gave a complete answer. The nearest you got was saying that the fires weren't intense enough, but you dropped that point when I started asking you to back that assertion up.

    Where did i drop that point? please quote me exactly

    King Mob wrote: »
    Well both show what can happen to a steel framed structure in a fire. However both feature structures of totally different designs to WTC 7.

    How do you know for a fact that the overpass was a steel structure?
    King Mob wrote: »
    So the only difference I'm seeing is you want one to count but want to ignore the other.

    No .. More assumptions Please point out me saying we should ignore the overpass
    King Mob wrote: »
    Equally flawed? That's hilarious and shows exactly how much you are willing to ignore from the truthers.

    So just to make this clear .. All The footage shown in that video is in your believe fully accurate and completely justifiable to use in the context regarding the collapse of Building 7 .....yes or no please

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
    King Mob wrote: »
    Even if the silly strawman point you're trying to make stood, then can you please point to a skeptic video that leaves out half of the collapse of WTC7 and lies about how long it took to collapse or something equally as dishonest.

    I already did

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc7.html

    post 47 on page 4


  • #116
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    meglome wrote: »
    Right looking at it on my laptop now, looks very like the usual stuff he comes out with.

    Firstly at around 2:50 he mentions molten metal from Thermite... wrong. Thermite is not used in controlled demolition, as I understand it copper and explosives are use with the molten copper doing the cutting. Same kind of thing they use on anti-tank shells. He must know this yet he says it anyway.

    He says at about 3:40 that WTC7 had 'a couple' of fires... wrong, There is ample evidence that there were fires burning out of control all over the building. There are pictures of this and fire-fighter testimony backing them up. He must know this yet he says it anyway. 'Strangely' he doesn't show these pictures, why is that?

    He says the only way for the building to fall like it does is for all the columns to be cut at once... wrong. Every column that fails will put loading on to the other columns near it. All it takes is enough of these to go and lets imagine the structure was weakened by fire. In fact just exactly like the NIST reports says.

    He says it falls in 6.5 second... wrong. The penthouse starts falling before that proving the internal structure was failing.

    This is all Gages usually bull and full of stuff that is just plain wrong.

    Since you like videos so much watch this one http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC_Not_A_Demolition and let me know that you think.

    Not that i like those videos so much i just wasn't sure we where talking about the same one


  • #117
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    Can you give me the exact quote (post nr) on the last two answers please because i don't know what example you mean and for that last answer ... i can't remember to have said that
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74308340&postcount=83
    I ask:
    Great so please explain why it could not have collapsed in the way it burnt and (this is the important bit) explain how you know the way it burnt.
    You respond:
    that video showing the building engulfed in flames for 20 hours and the next day it still was standing up .... maybe if wtc 7 was burning like that completely engulfed in fire (like a torch) i would believe the theory that burning office fire was the cause for the collapse ...maybe
    weisses wrote: »
    Because i believe it to be very unlikely
    Why is it unlikely? And watch you you going around and around the same circular logic...
    weisses wrote: »
    Where did i drop that point? please quote me exactly
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74307053&postcount=279
    I asked:
    So then how intense were the fires and how intense would they need to be?
    Now if you can't answer these questions in full it shows that you simply can't claim what you are claiming.
    You did not respond to the question. If you think you did please point out were. Or if you'd like to address it now...
    weisses wrote: »
    How do you know for a fact that the overpass was a steel structure?
    Lol grasping at straws now.
    Because I've seen the report on that collapse before which stated that it's steel framed.
    I'm not bothered to look it up because you don't seriously believe it's not true.
    weisses wrote: »
    No .. More assumptions Please point out me saying we should ignore the overpass
    Great, so we have an example of steel structures that both did and did not collapse due to a fire.
    So we can conclude that it is possible that WTC7 could have survived, andthat it could have collapsed, but we can't know for sure which because both examples have totally different designs to WTC7.

    It's almost as if the examples can't actually be used to show it's impossible or unlikely for WTC7 to collapse, just as the other example cannot be used to show the converse...

    And since that's the case, why do you use your example to show what you know it doesn't show.

    Which leads us back to the question: why do you think WTC7 could not fall the way the NIST said it did?
    weisses wrote: »
    So just to make this clear .. All The footage shown in that video is in your believe fully accurate and completely justifiable to use in the context regarding the collapse of Building 7 .....yes or no please

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
    Yes. I've already answered this and explained why.
    You are grasping at straws to find something to dismiss this video while ignoring blatant lies and untruth from the videos you posted.
    weisses wrote: »
    I already did

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc7.html

    post 47 on page 4
    How does that show that the video is dishonest exactly?
    What claim in the video is it disproving?


  • #118
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    weisses wrote: »
    Because i believe it to be very unlikely

    I don't understand this weisses. You can clearly see the alternative narratives about WTC7 can be quite easily shown to be false. So that leaves the official report to be the closest to what actually happened that exists. Yet you refuse to believe it out of hand.


  • #119
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    weisses wrote: »
    Not that i like those videos so much i just wasn't sure we where talking about the same one

    Well I took the time to watch that video, perhaps you'll do the same and watch (at least some of) the video I posted. You can then post your thoughts as to what, if anything, you think is wrong with it.


  • #120
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    meglome wrote: »
    Well I took the time to watch that video, perhaps you'll do the same and watch (at least some of) the video I posted. You can then post your thoughts as to what, if anything, you think is wrong with it.

    Will do .. although i want to stay away from the twin towers

    Somehow that video is not playing smoothly will check later


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    weisses wrote: »
    Will do .. although i want to stay away from the twin towers

    Somehow that video is not playing smoothly will check later

    The video makes general points about how the 'truth' movement is full of liars.


Advertisement