| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:18 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | MiniMauve wrote: | | I'm still a little confused about what the significance is supposed to be of the E Penthouse collapse prior to the global collapse of WTC7, Ignatz. We had discussed this in another thread and I had come to the conclusion that it was odd, but inconclusive. You hadn't disagreed, at least in that thread. The WTC7 collapse, starting with the kink that occurs fractions of a second before the global collapse, still appears to me to be a classic example of CD, irreguardless of the earlier collapse of the E Penthouse (which I'll take your word that that's what it is). |
(MiniMauve, with the best will in the world it almost never happens than any thread reaches a conclusion satisfactory to all eh? I think that other one got diverted ) |
Ah ok, no problem.
| Ignatz wrote: | The E Penthouse collapse is much more than odd. The E penthouse is gone several seconds before the facade kink and global collapse that I believe chek is referrring to. This is the clearest video I have seen for the E Penthouse:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html (the first of the three)
CD that concentrates at the centre of a building is legitimate technique (to bring the walls inwards) as far as my reading on the subject suggests.
CD that starts several seconds early, high up on one side isn't a legitimate CD technique.. Plus, there's no external sign of explosions on the N side (where the filming takes place on all the videos), which would mean CD starting high up on the S side specifically. That's a very unusual CD indeed. |
I tend to agree with your assumptions, however, the collapse of the E Penthouse to me appears to be an aberration. As I say, it seems to be completely unconnected to the global collapse of WTC7. I could argue that it is evidence of something going on in the core of the building but I find no evidence that that's the case (i.e. reverberations through the rest of the building as you DO see just prior to the global collapse). However, I think you're leaning towards the idea (and correct me if I'm wrong) that it is proof of catastrophic damage to WTC7 from falling debris and/or ongoing fires, and therefore is evidence that the building collapses 'naturally'. I don't see any indication of what caused the penthouse collapse (debris, fires or anything else), and therefore cannot equate it to either of our theories of what did happen. Irreguardless of what happened to the penthouse, the global collapse appears to be caused by CD IMHO because it seems identical to clips I've seen of building collapses caused by CD. Startlingly so.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | MiniMauve wrote: | | I'm still a little confused about what the significance is supposed to be of the E Penthouse collapse prior to the global collapse of WTC7, Ignatz. We had discussed this in another thread and I had come to the conclusion that it was odd, but inconclusive. You hadn't disagreed, at least in that thread. The WTC7 collapse, starting with the kink that occurs fractions of a second before the global collapse, still appears to me to be a classic example of CD, irreguardless of the earlier collapse of the E Penthouse (which I'll take your word that that's what it is). |
(MiniMauve, with the best will in the world it almost never happens than any thread reaches a conclusion satisfactory to all eh? I think that other one got diverted ) |
Ah ok, no problem.
| Ignatz wrote: | The E Penthouse collapse is much more than odd. The E penthouse is gone several seconds before the facade kink and global collapse that I believe chek is referrring to. This is the clearest video I have seen for the E Penthouse:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html (the first of the three)
CD that concentrates at the centre of a building is legitimate technique (to bring the walls inwards) as far as my reading on the subject suggests.
CD that starts several seconds early, high up on one side isn't a legitimate CD technique.. Plus, there's no external sign of explosions on the N side (where the filming takes place on all the videos), which would mean CD starting high up on the S side specifically. That's a very unusual CD indeed. |
I tend to agree with your assumptions, however, the collapse of the E Penthouse to me appears to be an aberration. As I say, it seems to be completely unconnected to the global collapse of WTC7. I could argue that it is evidence of something going on in the core of the building but I find no evidence that that's the case (i.e. reverberations through the rest of the building as you DO see just prior to the global collapse). However, I think you're leaning towards the idea (and correct me if I'm wrong) that it is proof of catastrophic damage to WTC7 from falling debris and/or ongoing fires, and therefore is evidence that the building collapses 'naturally'. I don't see any indication of what caused the penthouse collapse (debris, fires or anything else), and therefore cannot equate it to either of our theories of what did happen. Irreguardless of what happened to the penthouse, the global collapse appears to be caused by CD IMHO because it seems identical to clips I've seen of building collapses caused by CD. Startlingly so. |
OK - yes I do believe the building was falling apart internally, as you deduce.
But I doubt if we can progress much from here, eh?
(would this count as a reasonably satisfactory conclusion to this particular line of debate. Could be a first  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Ignatz]
OK - yes I do believe the building was falling apart internally, as you deduce. quote]
Just 'falling apart' as if that's what bolted and welded massive steel frame buildings are wont to do eh?
How mysterious |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | [quote="Ignatz]
OK - yes I do believe the building was falling apart internally, as you deduce. quote]
Just 'falling apart' as if that's what bolted and welded massive steel frame buildings are wont to do eh?
How mysterious |
Well, if you can explain why the E Penthouse suddenly found it had nothing holding it up, I'm all ears. No flashes up there, no loud cracks from demolition charges, nothing at all in any of the videos ... how mysterious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
edited to remove double post
Last edited by chek on Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:39 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | [quote="Ignatz]
OK - yes I do believe the building was falling apart internally, as you deduce. quote]
Just 'falling apart' as if that's what bolted and welded massive steel frame buildings are wont to do eh?
How mysterious |
Well, if you can explain why the E Penthouse suddenly found it had nothing holding it up, I'm all ears. No flashes up there, no loud cracks from demolition charges, nothing at all in any of the videos ... how mysterious. |
The latest Stephen Jones update does actually show squib emissions
coming from WTC7, but otherwise I think those spooky mysterious 'contractors' who were warning camera crews to stay away because the building was 'gonna go any minute' (even though this had never happened before - ever) would be worthy of at least a police interview don't you think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
The latest Stephen Jones update does actually show squib emissions
coming from WTC7, but otherwise I think those spooky mysterious 'contractors' who were warning camera crews to stay away because the building was 'gonna go any minute' (even though this had never happened before - ever) would be worthy of at least a police interview don't you think? |
chek - here's a photo you've never seen before, because you only look at CT sites:
"Isolated fires on a few floors" :
Dunno who these contractors are that you're talking about, but firecrews' testimony would get my respect. There are many quotes, none of which you have ever read. Because you only read the CT sites. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: |
The latest Stephen Jones update does actually show squib emissions
coming from WTC7, but otherwise I think those spooky mysterious 'contractors' who were warning camera crews to stay away because the building was 'gonna go any minute' (even though this had never happened before - ever) would be worthy of at least a police interview don't you think? |
chek - here's a photo you've never seen before, because you only look at CT sites:
"Isolated fires on a few floors" :
Dunno who these contractors are that you're talking about, but firecrews' testimony would get my respect. There are many quotes, none of which you have ever read. Because you only read the CT sites. |
Sorry to disappoint, but I do look at the debunking sites fairly regularly, until their sophistry and simplifications start to annoy me.
Which when you think about it is bound to happen, because Airplanes! Fire! Collapse! as we all know by now, isn't true no matter how you spin it.
There's no 'investigation motive' on those sites - not even an occasional 'oh- this is of interest, how odd'.
No, there is not; because they're there to cover up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: |
OK - yes I do believe the building was falling apart internally, as you deduce.
But I doubt if we can progress much from here, eh?
(would this count as a reasonably satisfactory conclusion to this particular line of debate. Could be a first |
Sure!
I will say one other thing on the subject, I'll promise not to use the E Penthouse collapse as indication of initial core column demolition if you promise not to use it as an indication of fire and/or debris damage. This seems fair since we both admit we have only suspicions about it's cause.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
