FREE TAPATALK APP

DavidJames · 10th May 2008, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

The nozzle would have to be as big as the column, yes? And it would have to be big enough to hold enough thermite to cut a large coumn.

Follow the cables/hoses and it connects to a larger box, several times larger than the cutting device.

I would bet you the mass density of a human body is more than that of a large building. At any rate, the prnciple is the same - static load vs. dynamic load. I can easily carry a 80lb bag of concrete on my head, I doubt I'd survive one falling on me from 10 feet up. The kinetic energy involved is too great, same as with the towers once collapse is initiated.

Now who's comparing apples to oranges? This makes me think you're not really an engineer.

The towers were not solid blocks. The lower mass wasn't destroyed all at once, it was destroyed one floor at a time.

CTists want to maneuver the debate such that we are required to prove it wasn't "x" or "y", that's what's going on here, don't allow that to happen. This is basic stuff, they want you to prove a negative.

The burden of proof is on the CTist.

WildCat · 10th May 2008, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

what device is connected pls? how big is it and especially, what does it do?

Did you not even look at the vid you posted? Your claim, you tell me what it does and how.

Quote:

strange strange

Let me kow when you or anyone else in the pathetic truth movement manages to cut a column the size of a WTC column with thermite.

Until then, you don't have a claim to stand on.

DC · 10th May 2008, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Did you not even look at the vid you posted? Your claim, you tell me what it does and how.

Let me kow when you or anyone else in the pathetic truth movement manages to cut a column the size of a WTC column with thermite.

Until then, you don't have a claim to stand on.

you have troubles with your eyes? you think that thing on the left side is a device?
isnt that a stone "brick" ?

and sure the cable goes prolly to the device that will deliver the electricity to get the thermite reaction started, wich then will creat the needed gas to cut steel.

johnny karate · 10th May 2008, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by wooooody64

http://freethoughtmanifesto.blogspot...stimony-9.html

Taking first responder testimony out of context and pretending it means something it doesn't? Yeah, haven't seen that one before.

These firefighters were describing their experiences using similes and metaphors, not making definitive statements about what happened. And an easy way to establish that is to actually contact them and ask for clarification.

But I notice nowhere in that blog does it indicate that MacQueen even attempted to do this. I wonder why. I guess his reasons are the same as every other Truther that flat out refuses to contact the FDNY. (Hint: The terms "coward" and "fraud" are applicable.)

And of course you realize that if you believe what MacQueen is asserting , you believe that by keeping silent all these years, the FDNY is complicit after the fact of assisting in the cover up to murder 3,000 innocent people, including 343 of their own.

Classy stuff!

wooooody64 · 10th May 2008, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Taking first responder testimony out of context and pretending it means something it doesn't? Yeah, haven't seen that one before.

These firefighters were describing their experiences using similes and metaphors, not making definitive statements about what happened. And an easy way to establish that is to actually contact them and ask for clarification.

But I notice nowhere in that blog does it indicate that MacQueen even attempted to do this. I wonder why. I guess his reasons are the same as every other Truther that flat out refuses to contact the FDNY. (Hint: The terms "coward" and "fraud" are applicable.)

And of course you realize that if you believe what MacQueen is asserting , you believe that by keeping silent all these years, the FDNY is complicit after the fact of assisting in the cover up to murder 3,000 innocent people, including 343 of their own.

Classy stuff!

Please accept my sincerest apologies for breaking the rules

You are correct, nowhere in the blog does it indicate that MacQueen even attempted to actually contact the firefighters in question and ask for clarification. So we dont know whether he did or did not

If you believe what Mcqueen is saying, you would obviously believe that those firefighters made statements about their experiences, so how is that "staying silent"?

WildCat · 10th May 2008, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

you have troubles with your eyes? you think that thing on the left side is a device?
isnt that a stone "brick" ?

OK, I'll concede it is a brick.

Still need to demonstrate this for a WTC sized column though. When do you plan to do so?

WildCat · 10th May 2008, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by wooooody64

If you believe what Mcqueen is saying, you would obviously believe that those firefighters made statements about their experiences, so how is that "staying silent"?

If you believe what he is saying the firefighters are being silent, in fact there's not a single one I'm aware of who thinks there were bombs in the towers. It seems to me that would be something they wouldn't just shrug off, don't you think?

aggle-rithm · 10th May 2008, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

WTC7 didnt need preperations for CD. when fires and damage could bring down the building, then for sure explosives or thermite can do it.

Which brings us back to the topic of the thread:

WHY, for God's sake WHY, do you think WTC7 was a CD?

And WHY don't you simply answer the question?

Although I think I know the answer to that second one.

DC · 10th May 2008, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

OK, I'll concede it is a brick.

Still need to demonstrate this for a WTC sized column though. When do you plan to do so?

would oversimplified elementary calculations be enough?

aggle-rithm · 10th May 2008, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

would oversimplified elementary calculations be enough?

Why do you keep asking other people questions? The purpose of this thread is to get YOU to answer a very simple question: WHY DO YOU BELIEVE WTC7 WAS A CD?

If you have already answered this question, then I must have missed it. Please direct me to the post where you answered it.

If you haven't...WHY NOT? TEN PAGES so far!

DC · 10th May 2008, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Which brings us back to the topic of the thread:

WHY, for God's sake WHY, do you think WTC7 was a CD?

And WHY don't you simply answer the question?

Although I think I know the answer to that second one.

i answered several times now.

i dont think a onesided damaged and asymetric uncontrolled burning building would collapse nearly symmetrically.

pomeroo · 10th May 2008, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

i answered several times now.

i dont think a onesided damaged and asymetric uncontrolled burning building would collapse nearly symmetrically.

We will assume that you were unable to read Arthur Scheuerman's paper.

aggle-rithm · 10th May 2008, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

i answered several times now.

i dont think a onesided damaged and asymetric uncontrolled burning building would collapse nearly symmetrically.

Okay, I apologize for missing that. The signal-to-noise ratio on this thread is very low.

Of course, you do realize that this is an argument from personal incredulity, unless you can define "nearly symmetrically" and say why NO building could possibly collapse in that fashion under the conditions seen on 9/11.

DC · 10th May 2008, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by pomeroo

We will assume that you were unable to read Arthur Scheuerman's paper.

oh why would you assume that?
i even agree on some things he wrote, like this one

Quote:

NIST can do a computer analysis of the forces involved and connection strength to confirm or disprove the analysis and clarify this theory.

DC · 10th May 2008, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Okay, I apologize for missing that. The signal-to-noise ratio on this thread is very low.

Of course, you do realize that this is an argument from personal incredulity, unless you can define "nearly symmetrically" and say why NO building could possibly collapse in that fashion under the conditions seen on 9/11.

i knew nearly simmertically would cause a reaction.

while, UA93 impacted straight down while in fact it was 40° is ok......

scissorhands · 10th May 2008, 02:25 PM

Quote:

i dont think a onesided damaged and asymetric uncontrolled burning building would collapse nearly symmetrically.

On what experience of damaged and burning 47 story skyscrapers falling down, do you base this expectation?

scissorhands · 10th May 2008, 02:27 PM

Quote:

while, UA93 impacted straight down while in fact it was 40° is ok......

Off topic, but I have already asked you in another thread why you think this is an important detail?
You failed to answer.

DC · 10th May 2008, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by scissorhands

On what experience of damaged and burning 47 story skyscrapers falling down, do you base this expectation?

On what experience of damaged and burning 47 story skyscrapers falling down, do others base their expectation?

aggle-rithm · 10th May 2008, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by scissorhands

Off topic, but I have already asked you in another thread why you think this is an important detail?
You failed to answer.

It has to do with the first two words of your post, which is where DC prefers to reside most of the time.

aggle-rithm · 10th May 2008, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

On what experience of damaged and burning 47 story skyscrapers falling down, do others base their expectation?

The observed behavior of every single burning 47-story building that has collapsed in human history.

DC · 10th May 2008, 02:34 PM

you both perfectly got the point, but oc you cant adress it.

DC · 10th May 2008, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

The observed behavior of every single burning 47-story building that has collapsed in human history.

got a list?

scissorhands · 10th May 2008, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

you both perfectly got the point, but oc you cant adress it.

You will have to do much better than this DC.
You have no basis for your presumptions about how a building like that should or should not behave in such circumstances, have you?
No experience of a similar event and no clue about the specific damage or the specific amount of fire induced failure of columns.
Nothing in fact, other than it "looked like a cd" from a blurry youtube video of a partially obscured building falling down.

aggle-rithm · 10th May 2008, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

got a list?

Uh...sure.

1. Salomon Brothers Building, New York City, September 11, 2001

aggle-rithm · 10th May 2008, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

you both perfectly got the point, but oc you cant adress it.

Sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you're saying here.

johnny karate · 10th May 2008, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by wooooody64

You are correct, nowhere in the blog does it indicate that MacQueen even attempted to actually contact the firefighters in question and ask for clarification. So we dont know whether he did or did not

Yeah, I'm sure what happened was that MacQueen called all 118 of the firefighters he's quoting, got them to admit that they in fact thought controlled demolitions were in involved in the collapses of the WTC, and as part of his relentless quest to expose "The Truth", just forgot to mention it in is blog. Or ever.

Originally Posted by wooooody64

If you believe what Mcqueen is saying, you would obviously believe that those firefighters made statements about their experiences, so how is that "staying silent"?

They're not staying silent about their experiences. That's the point. What they are staying silent about, according to Truthers, is they believe that any of the buildings on 9/11 collapsed due to controlled demolition.

I break it down to you like this:

According to reality, the fact that no firefighters have expressed a belief in controlled demolition = They don't believe there were controlled demolitions.

According to Truthers, the fact that no firefighters have expressed a belief in controlled demoltion = They were paid off/coerced/too stupid to realize what was going on.

Which camp are you in?

pomeroo · 10th May 2008, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

oh why would you assume that?
i even agree on some things he wrote, like this one

Is Arthur's theory correct, or did he make some mistakes?

DC · 10th May 2008, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by pomeroo

Is Arthur's theory correct, or did he make some mistakes?

NIST's Computer analysis could show that.
i doubt that his theory will be confirmed.

aggle-rithm · 10th May 2008, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

NIST's Computer analysis could show that.
i doubt that his theory will be confirmed.

Does it rely on any fantastical speculative technologies, like horizontal thermite cutter charges?

beachnut · 10th May 2008, 08:11 PM

DC, no evidence yet? DC, where is your evidence?

Oh, you just think it was a CD. Your thermite device needs to be specified. How big is it? Do you understand jet fuel has more energy per pound than thermite? Does CD know thermite was made up by Jones four years after 9/11. How many mols of this stuff does it take to destroy a steel column, and what stops it from just hardening back into a steel alloy.

Better get your themo stuff out and all the engineering you have to specify how this thermite device could do what the impact and fire did better. Your lack of evidence is enormous.

DC · 11th May 2008, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by beachnut

DC, no evidence yet? DC, where is your evidence?

Oh, you just think it was a CD. Your thermite device needs to be specified. How big is it? Do you understand jet fuel has more energy per pound than thermite? Does CD know thermite was made up by Jones four years after 9/11. How many mols of this stuff does it take to destroy a steel column, and what stops it from just hardening back into a steel alloy.

Better get your themo stuff out and all the engineering you have to specify how this thermite device could do what the impact and fire did better. Your lack of evidence is enormous.

can Jetfuel generate the same thermal energy in 1 minute like a Thermite reaction?

and why do i get asked about the size of the devide? i thaught you guys figured that out already, the size if a truck, i got told....

WildCat · 11th May 2008, 01:07 AM

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Does it rely on any fantastical speculative technologies, like horizontal thermite cutter charges?

Yes, it relies 100% on horizontal thermite cutter charges!

Any luck with that DC?

DC · 11th May 2008, 01:39 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Yes, it relies 100% on horizontal thermite cutter charges!

Any luck with that DC?

normal cutting charges can do the same at least

Evilgiraffe · 11th May 2008, 01:56 AM

And off on the merry-go-round once more....

DC,

If it was thermite cutters, you need to explain exactly how they would work.

If it was conventional explosives, you need to explain why there was no coordinated sequence of deafeningly loud bangs before WTC7 fell.

Alternatively you could always go back to being a no-claimer.
I'd go for the third option, you were better at it.

DC · 11th May 2008, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by Evilgiraffe

And off on the merry-go-round once more....

DC,

If it was thermite cutters, you need to explain exactly how they would work.

If it was conventional explosives, you need to explain why there was no coordinated sequence of deafeningly loud bangs before WTC7 fell.

Alternatively you could always go back to being a no-claimer.
I'd go for the third option, you were better at it.

i showed a patent, that describes how it work, i also tryed to explain it in my own word. but thats not enough, the goalposts have now been moved to a video of such a device cuting a WTC like column. cause the video that showed the principle working was also not good enough.

and for the explosives, i showed an interview with a former NY Cop, that claims to have heard explosives. it is not just a similie or a quote ripped out of contect, he clearly says that he thinks that he heard explosions. and he also implied that those are related to the collapse and prolly come from explosives devices. there are also other testemonys.
also the peoples was "pull it" out of the collapse zone. and still we have peoples that seem to have heard explosives.

and about WTC7 there are several experts that say it was most propably a CD. but here we get asked a very very detailed and perfect proven theory.
while when a retired fireman writes a very little theory where he describes the stresses in steel when heated up unevenly and or cool down uneven. and shows in 2d how a failure of 1 or 3 columns would pull in all the other columns and result in a nearly symmetric collapse. without much details.
Especially would i miss the details in his theory that are in his field. the fires and the fireproofing.
but here nobody yells for evidence.

Evilgiraffe · 11th May 2008, 02:45 AM

Quote:

i showed a patent, that describes how it work, i also tryed to explain it in my own word. but thats not enough, the goalposts have now been moved to a video of such a device cuting a WTC like column. cause the video that showed the principle working was also not good enough.

The video showed a device that was much larger than the steel section it was cutting. It has been pointed out to you, repeatedly, that for such a device to have a hope of working on WTC7 it would have to be the size of a small truck. This is not moving the goalposts, it is merely following your line of reasoning to a logical conclusion.

Many processes do not scale up well. And it is not unreasonable to ask for some evidence that thermite cutters can actually perform the job you claim they can. If they're so good at this sork of work providing the evidence will be easy, right?

Quote:

and for the explosives, i showed an interview with a former NY Cop, that claims to have heard explosives. it is not just a similie or a quote ripped out of contect, he clearly says that he thinks that he heard explosions. and he also implied that those are related to the collapse and prolly come from explosives devices. there are also other testemonys.
also the peoples was "pull it" out of the collapse zone. and still we have peoples that seem to have heard explosives.

You can't really use the terms explosions and explosives interchangeably.
Explosives sound, well, like explosives, but there are many other phenomena that make loud explosive sounds.

DC · 11th May 2008, 02:52 AM

care to backup the claim of a device the size of a small truck?

are you talking about box columns or I shaped columns? what thickness?

i thaught JREFers dont claim without evidence?
it sounds like you are experts on those devices, at least when it comes to trucke sized devices....

so Bartmer did NOT mean explsoions from explosive devices? are you sure? did you watch the interview?

Evilgiraffe · 11th May 2008, 03:18 AM

Quote:

care to backup the claim of a device the size of a small truck?

The core columns were 3' wide, yes?
Therefore the nozzle of your putative cutter need to be this wide. Then you need a supply of thermite big enough to supply this nozzle with gas while it cuts the column. That's going to be a lot of thermite => big device.
Very noticeable when it comes to installing the thing.

Quote:

so Bartmer did NOT mean explsoions from explosive devices? are you sure? did you watch the interview?

I refer you to your own signature.

Yes he may well have heard a loud bang. But that doesn't mean it was caused by an explosive charge. Particularly when there was no other evidence of explosives being used.

This is what truthers always conveniently forget. Your theory has to be consistent with the totality of the evidence.

DC · 11th May 2008, 03:25 AM

Originally Posted by Evilgiraffe

The core columns were 3' wide, yes?
Therefore the nozzle of your putative cutter need to be this wide. Then you need a supply of thermite big enough to supply this nozzle with gas while it cuts the column. That's going to be a lot of thermite => big device.
Very noticeable when it comes to installing the thing.

I refer you to your own signature.

Yes he may well have heard a loud bang. But that doesn't mean it was caused by an explosive charge. Particularly when there was no other evidence of explosives being used.

This is what truthers always conveniently forget. Your theory has to be consistent with the totality of the evidence.

indeed the wide needs to be the same as the columns, you also neeed enough thermite to cut the thickness of the steel.
and how much would that be? where exactly will it be comaparebale to a small truck? are US trucks only 0.5m wide?

would Cheney admit his criminal involvement, you would be first to say he is either misstaken or a liar.

eeyore1954 · 11th May 2008, 04:19 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

On what experience of damaged and burning 47 story skyscrapers falling down, do others base their expectation?

I would base my opinion on knowledge of which direction gravity pulls.

10th May 2008, 11:13 AM	#363
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by WildCat Did you not even look at the vid you posted? Your claim, you tell me what it does and how. Let me kow when you or anyone else in the pathetic truth movement manages to cut a column the size of a WTC column with thermite. Until then, you don't have a claim to stand on. you have troubles with your eyes? you think that thing on the left side is a device? isnt that a stone "brick" ? and sure the cable goes prolly to the device that will deliver the electricity to get the thermite reaction started, wich then will creat the needed gas to cut steel.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it Last edited by DC; 10th May 2008 at 11:14 AM.

10th May 2008, 12:18 PM	#364
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,889	Originally Posted by wooooody64 http://freethoughtmanifesto.blogspot...stimony-9.html Taking first responder testimony out of context and pretending it means something it doesn't? Yeah, haven't seen that one before. These firefighters were describing their experiences using similes and metaphors, not making definitive statements about what happened. And an easy way to establish that is to actually contact them and ask for clarification. But I notice nowhere in that blog does it indicate that MacQueen even attempted to do this. I wonder why. I guess his reasons are the same as every other Truther that flat out refuses to contact the FDNY. (Hint: The terms "coward" and "fraud" are applicable.) And of course you realize that if you believe what MacQueen is asserting , you believe that by keeping silent all these years, the FDNY is complicit after the fact of assisting in the cover up to murder 3,000 innocent people, including 343 of their own. Classy stuff!
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here. Last edited by johnny karate; 10th May 2008 at 12:21 PM.

10th May 2008, 01:29 PM	#365
wooooody64 Thinker Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Two Dogs Fightin' Posts: 171	Originally Posted by johnny karate Taking first responder testimony out of context and pretending it means something it doesn't? Yeah, haven't seen that one before. These firefighters were describing their experiences using similes and metaphors, not making definitive statements about what happened. And an easy way to establish that is to actually contact them and ask for clarification. But I notice nowhere in that blog does it indicate that MacQueen even attempted to do this. I wonder why. I guess his reasons are the same as every other Truther that flat out refuses to contact the FDNY. (Hint: The terms "coward" and "fraud" are applicable.) And of course you realize that if you believe what MacQueen is asserting , you believe that by keeping silent all these years, the FDNY is complicit after the fact of assisting in the cover up to murder 3,000 innocent people, including 343 of their own. Classy stuff! Please accept my sincerest apologies for breaking the rules You are correct, nowhere in the blog does it indicate that MacQueen even attempted to actually contact the firefighters in question and ask for clarification. So we dont know whether he did or did not If you believe what Mcqueen is saying, you would obviously believe that those firefighters made statements about their experiences, so how is that "staying silent"?
	__________________ "One man's terrorist is another man's patriot." "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein.

10th May 2008, 01:33 PM	#366
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,455	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney you have troubles with your eyes? you think that thing on the left side is a device? isnt that a stone "brick" ? OK, I'll concede it is a brick. Still need to demonstrate this for a WTC sized column though. When do you plan to do so?
	Last edited by WildCat; 10th May 2008 at 01:33 PM.

10th May 2008, 01:45 PM	#368
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,297	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney WTC7 didnt need preperations for CD. when fires and damage could bring down the building, then for sure explosives or thermite can do it. Which brings us back to the topic of the thread: WHY, for God's sake *WHY, do you think WTC7 was a CD? And WHY* don't you simply answer the question? Although I think I know the answer to that second one.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens. Last edited by aggle-rithm; 10th May 2008 at 01:45 PM.

10th May 2008, 10:34 AM	#361
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,116	Originally Posted by WildCat The nozzle would have to be as big as the column, yes? And it would have to be big enough to hold enough thermite to cut a large coumn. Follow the cables/hoses and it connects to a larger box, several times larger than the cutting device. I would bet you the mass density of a human body is more than that of a large building. At any rate, the prnciple is the same - static load vs. dynamic load. I can easily carry a 80lb bag of concrete on my head, I doubt I'd survive one falling on me from 10 feet up. The kinetic energy involved is too great, same as with the towers once collapse is initiated. Now who's comparing apples to oranges? This makes me think you're not really an engineer. The towers were not solid blocks. The lower mass wasn't destroyed all at once, it was destroyed one floor at a time. CTists want to maneuver the debate such that we are required to prove it wasn't "x" or "y", that's what's going on here, don't allow that to happen. This is basic stuff, they want you to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the CTist.

10th May 2008, 10:42 AM	#362
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,455	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney what device is connected pls? how big is it and especially, what does it do? Did you not even look at the vid you posted? Your claim, you tell me what it does and how. Quote: strange strange Let me kow when you or anyone else in the pathetic truth movement manages to cut a column the size of a WTC column with thermite. Until then, you don't have a claim to stand on.

10th May 2008, 01:36 PM	#367
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,455	Originally Posted by wooooody64 If you believe what Mcqueen is saying, you would obviously believe that those firefighters made statements about their experiences, so how is that "staying silent"? If you believe what he is saying the firefighters are being silent, in fact there's not a single one I'm aware of who thinks there were bombs in the towers. It seems to me that would be something they wouldn't just shrug off, don't you think?

10th May 2008, 01:46 PM	#369
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by WildCat OK, I'll concede it is a brick. Still need to demonstrate this for a WTC sized column though. When do you plan to do so? would oversimplified elementary calculations be enough?
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

10th May 2008, 01:55 PM	#370
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,297	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney would oversimplified elementary calculations be enough? Why do you keep asking other people questions? The purpose of this thread is to get YOU to answer a very simple question: WHY DO YOU BELIEVE WTC7 WAS A CD? If you have already answered this question, then I must have missed it. Please direct me to the post where you answered it. If you haven't...WHY NOT? TEN PAGES so far!
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

10th May 2008, 01:55 PM	#371
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by aggle-rithm Which brings us back to the topic of the thread: WHY, for God's sake *WHY, do you think WTC7 was a CD? And WHY* don't you simply answer the question? Although I think I know the answer to that second one. i answered several times now. i dont think a onesided damaged and asymetric uncontrolled burning building would collapse nearly symmetrically.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

10th May 2008, 01:57 PM	#372
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In a Little Cafe Just the Other Side of the Border Posts: 7,091	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney i answered several times now. i dont think a onesided damaged and asymetric uncontrolled burning building would collapse nearly symmetrically. We will assume that you were unable to read Arthur Scheuerman's paper.

10th May 2008, 02:09 PM	#373
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,297	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney i answered several times now. i dont think a onesided damaged and asymetric uncontrolled burning building would collapse nearly symmetrically. Okay, I apologize for missing that. The signal-to-noise ratio on this thread is very low. Of course, you do realize that this is an argument from personal incredulity, unless you can define "nearly symmetrically" and say why NO building could possibly collapse in that fashion under the conditions seen on 9/11.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

10th May 2008, 02:21 PM	#374
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by pomeroo We will assume that you were unable to read Arthur Scheuerman's paper. oh why would you assume that? i even agree on some things he wrote, like this one Quote: NIST can do a computer analysis of the forces involved and connection strength to confirm or disprove the analysis and clarify this theory.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

10th May 2008, 02:23 PM	#375
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by aggle-rithm Okay, I apologize for missing that. The signal-to-noise ratio on this thread is very low. Of course, you do realize that this is an argument from personal incredulity, unless you can define "nearly symmetrically" and say why NO building could possibly collapse in that fashion under the conditions seen on 9/11. i knew nearly simmertically would cause a reaction. while, UA93 impacted straight down while in fact it was 40° is ok......
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

10th May 2008, 02:25 PM	#376
scissorhands Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,538	Quote: i dont think a onesided damaged and asymetric uncontrolled burning building would collapse nearly symmetrically. On what experience of damaged and burning 47 story skyscrapers falling down, do you base this expectation?

10th May 2008, 02:27 PM	#377
scissorhands Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,538	Quote: while, UA93 impacted straight down while in fact it was 40° is ok...... Off topic, but I have already asked you in another thread why you think this is an important detail? You failed to answer.

10th May 2008, 02:29 PM	#378
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by scissorhands On what experience of damaged and burning 47 story skyscrapers falling down, do you base this expectation? On what experience of damaged and burning 47 story skyscrapers falling down, do others base their expectation?
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

10th May 2008, 02:30 PM	#379
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,297	Originally Posted by scissorhands Off topic, but I have already asked you in another thread why you think this is an important detail? You failed to answer. It has to do with the first two words of your post, which is where DC prefers to reside most of the time.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

10th May 2008, 02:31 PM	#380
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,297	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney On what experience of damaged and burning 47 story skyscrapers falling down, do others base their expectation? The observed behavior of every single burning 47-story building that has collapsed in human history.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

10th May 2008, 02:34 PM	#381
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	you both perfectly got the point, but oc you cant adress it.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

10th May 2008, 02:35 PM	#382
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by aggle-rithm The observed behavior of every single burning 47-story building that has collapsed in human history. got a list?
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

10th May 2008, 02:45 PM	#383
scissorhands Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,538	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney you both perfectly got the point, but oc you cant adress it. You will have to do much better than this DC. You have no basis for your presumptions about how a building like that should or should not behave in such circumstances, have you? No experience of a similar event and no clue about the specific damage or the specific amount of fire induced failure of columns. Nothing in fact, other than it "looked like a cd" from a blurry youtube video of a partially obscured building falling down.

10th May 2008, 03:10 PM	#384
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,297	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney got a list? Uh...sure. 1. Salomon Brothers Building, New York City, September 11, 2001
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

10th May 2008, 03:11 PM	#385
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,297	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney you both perfectly got the point, but oc you cant adress it. Sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you're saying here.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

10th May 2008, 03:55 PM	#386
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,889	Originally Posted by wooooody64 You are correct, nowhere in the blog does it indicate that MacQueen even attempted to actually contact the firefighters in question and ask for clarification. So we dont know whether he did or did not Yeah, I'm sure what happened was that MacQueen called all 118 of the firefighters he's quoting, got them to admit that they in fact thought controlled demolitions were in involved in the collapses of the WTC, and as part of his relentless quest to expose "The Truth", just forgot to mention it in is blog. Or ever. Originally Posted by wooooody64 If you believe what Mcqueen is saying, you would obviously believe that those firefighters made statements about their experiences, so how is that "staying silent"? They're not staying silent about their experiences. That's the point. What they are staying silent about, according to Truthers, is they believe that any of the buildings on 9/11 collapsed due to controlled demolition. I break it down to you like this: According to reality, the fact that no firefighters have expressed a belief in controlled demolition = They don't believe there were controlled demolitions. According to Truthers, the fact that no firefighters have expressed a belief in controlled demoltion = They were paid off/coerced/too stupid to realize what was going on. Which camp are you in?
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here. Last edited by johnny karate; 10th May 2008 at 04:04 PM.

10th May 2008, 06:06 PM	#387
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In a Little Cafe Just the Other Side of the Border Posts: 7,091	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney oh why would you assume that? i even agree on some things he wrote, like this one Is Arthur's theory correct, or did he make some mistakes?

10th May 2008, 07:13 PM	#388
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by pomeroo Is Arthur's theory correct, or did he make some mistakes? NIST's Computer analysis could show that. i doubt that his theory will be confirmed.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

10th May 2008, 07:50 PM	#389
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,297	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney NIST's Computer analysis could show that. i doubt that his theory will be confirmed. Does it rely on any fantastical speculative technologies, like horizontal thermite cutter charges?
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

10th May 2008, 08:11 PM	#390
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,950	DC, no evidence yet? DC, where is your evidence? Oh, you just think it was a CD. Your thermite device needs to be specified. How big is it? Do you understand jet fuel has more energy per pound than thermite? Does CD know thermite was made up by Jones four years after 9/11. How many mols of this stuff does it take to destroy a steel column, and what stops it from just hardening back into a steel alloy. Better get your themo stuff out and all the engineering you have to specify how this thermite device could do what the impact and fire did better. Your lack of evidence is enormous.
	Last edited by beachnut; 10th May 2008 at 08:14 PM.

11th May 2008, 01:04 AM	#391
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by beachnut DC, no evidence yet? DC, where is your evidence? Oh, you just think it was a CD. Your thermite device needs to be specified. How big is it? Do you understand jet fuel has more energy per pound than thermite? Does CD know thermite was made up by Jones four years after 9/11. How many mols of this stuff does it take to destroy a steel column, and what stops it from just hardening back into a steel alloy. Better get your themo stuff out and all the engineering you have to specify how this thermite device could do what the impact and fire did better. Your lack of evidence is enormous. can Jetfuel generate the same thermal energy in 1 minute like a Thermite reaction? and why do i get asked about the size of the devide? i thaught you guys figured that out already, the size if a truck, i got told....
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

11th May 2008, 01:07 AM	#392
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,455	Originally Posted by aggle-rithm Does it rely on any fantastical speculative technologies, like horizontal thermite cutter charges? Yes, it relies 100% on horizontal thermite cutter charges! Any luck with that DC?

11th May 2008, 01:39 AM	#393
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by WildCat Yes, it relies 100% on horizontal thermite cutter charges! Any luck with that DC? normal cutting charges can do the same at least
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

11th May 2008, 01:56 AM	#394
Evilgiraffe Scatterer of X-rays Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Oxfordshire Posts: 743	And off on the merry-go-round once more.... DC, If it was thermite cutters, you need to explain exactly how they would work. If it was conventional explosives, you need to explain why there was no coordinated sequence of deafeningly loud bangs before WTC7 fell. Alternatively you could always go back to being a no-claimer. I'd go for the third option, you were better at it.

11th May 2008, 02:22 AM	#395
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by Evilgiraffe And off on the merry-go-round once more.... DC, If it was thermite cutters, you need to explain exactly how they would work. If it was conventional explosives, you need to explain why there was no coordinated sequence of deafeningly loud bangs before WTC7 fell. Alternatively you could always go back to being a no-claimer. I'd go for the third option, you were better at it. i showed a patent, that describes how it work, i also tryed to explain it in my own word. but thats not enough, the goalposts have now been moved to a video of such a device cuting a WTC like column. cause the video that showed the principle working was also not good enough. and for the explosives, i showed an interview with a former NY Cop, that claims to have heard explosives. it is not just a similie or a quote ripped out of contect, he clearly says that he thinks that he heard explosions. and he also implied that those are related to the collapse and prolly come from explosives devices. there are also other testemonys. also the peoples was "pull it" out of the collapse zone. and still we have peoples that seem to have heard explosives. and about WTC7 there are several experts that say it was most propably a CD. but here we get asked a very very detailed and perfect proven theory. while when a retired fireman writes a very little theory where he describes the stresses in steel when heated up unevenly and or cool down uneven. and shows in 2d how a failure of 1 or 3 columns would pull in all the other columns and result in a nearly symmetric collapse. without much details. Especially would i miss the details in his theory that are in his field. the fires and the fireproofing. but here nobody yells for evidence.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it Last edited by DC; 11th May 2008 at 02:25 AM.