| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:10 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: |
There's no need to retreat. The whole idea of WTC7 being a controlled demolition is preposterous.
The ONLY reason to think WTC7 was demolished is to support the pre-conceived idea, "someone is lying". Other than that, it explains nothing. It doesn't fit into any hypothetical scenario in which the evil government decided to kill it's own people to start a war. And, of course, it makes absolutely no sense that people would risk life, limb, and reputation to secretly destroy a building that the lease holder had every right to destroy anyway. (Unless you believe Larry Silverstein was involved in the most bone-headed insurance scam in history, one which cost him millions of dollars in lost revenue. Even so, what does this have to do with "false flag terror"?) |
So Jowenko believes it was CD because it LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE A CD, whereas you do not believe it was CD because you dont know why someone would set up a CD.
Notice your absurd logic here. |
As far as I can tell it's perfectly mathematical logic:
asymmetric damage + asymmetric design + thick smoke= symmetric collapse.
It may have been the smoke that tipped the balance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: |
So Jowenko believes it was CD because it LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE A CD, whereas you do not believe it was CD because you dont know why someone would set up a CD.
Notice your absurd logic here. |
That, plus there's the difficulty of setting up a CD in a burning building, the fact that there's no evidence that CD took place, and the fact that there is an alternate explanation (structural damage and fires) for which there is ample evidence.
Tell me, if a building catastrophically collapses from a structural failure near the bottom of the building, and you are only watching the TOP HALF of the collapse, how would YOU distinguish between a controlled demolition and an accidental collapse? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Err it went straight down, sorry no doubt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Brown wrote: | | Err it went straight down, sorry no doubt. |
What direction did you think it should go?
Here's the point I was making: Controlled demolition works by taking the supports out of the bottom of the building and letting gravity pull the rest of the building down.
The structural damage and fire compromised the supports near the bottom of WTC7, and gravity pulled it down.
When you're only looking at the top half of the building, why would one look different from the other? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | | Err it went straight down, sorry no doubt. |
What direction did you think it should go?
Here's the point I was making: Controlled demolition works by taking the supports out of the bottom of the building and letting gravity pull the rest of the building down.
The structural damage and fire compromised the supports near the bottom of WTC7, and gravity pulled it down.
When you're only looking at the top half of the building, why would one look different from the other? |
You forgot the crucial word 'simultaneously' when referring to 'taking the siupports out'. That is the art of controlled demolition, otherwise any idiot could topple it at a fraction of the cost. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | | Err it went straight down, sorry no doubt. |
What direction did you think it should go?
Here's the point I was making: Controlled demolition works by taking the supports out of the bottom of the building and letting gravity pull the rest of the building down.
The structural damage and fire compromised the supports near the bottom of WTC7, and gravity pulled it down.
When you're only looking at the top half of the building, why would one look different from the other? |
You forgot the crucial word 'simultaneously' when referring to 'taking the siupports out'. That is the art of controlled demolition, otherwise any idiot could topple it at a fraction of the cost. |
chek, please read the portions of the NIST progress report I listed in this post:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=29955#29955
And the art of controlled demolition is the control part, as in, not destroying or massively damaging surrounding structures like WTC7 did. CDs are often non-simultaneous and asymmetrical in order to avoid such things.
Also, clearly WTC7's supports did not fail simultaneously. The east penthouse dropped several seconds before the rest of the visible portion of the building began to collapse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: | | Patrick Brown wrote: | | Err it went straight down, sorry no doubt. |
What direction did you think it should go?
Here's the point I was making: Controlled demolition works by taking the supports out of the bottom of the building and letting gravity pull the rest of the building down.
The structural damage and fire compromised the supports near the bottom of WTC7, and gravity pulled it down.
When you're only looking at the top half of the building, why would one look different from the other? |
You forgot the crucial word 'simultaneously' when referring to 'taking the siupports out'. That is the art of controlled demolition, otherwise any idiot could topple it at a fraction of the cost. |
chek, please read the portions of the NIST progress report I listed in this post:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=29955#29955
And the art of controlled demolition is the control part, as in, not destroying or massively damaging surrounding structures like WTC7 did. CDs are often non-simultaneous and asymmetrical in order to avoid such things.
Also, clearly WTC7's supports did not fail simultaneously. The east penthouse dropped several seconds before the rest of the visible portion of the building began to collapse. |
I've looked at both, and yet it still appears to me (photos and videos being all the direct evidence we have) that in classic style, the middle of the building is crippled (excuse my technical term), and then the sides fall in.
They obviously aren't going to remain vertical the whole way down (this wasn't a total shredding like the Towers) - at some point in their descent they will lean inwards to give the perimeter+70ft - that's feet not meters - collapsed zone as the 'debunk' photos show, surely?
As you point out - the firemen cleared a 600ft safety zone. That indicates they were expecting, according to their experience, an asymmetric collapse. As would we all, especially given what we now know about the construction.
A 'natural' sequential failure in just the right order seems somewhere between exceedingly unlikely and astronomically impossible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
