79 of 91
79
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 01 January 2014 11:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1171 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 30 December 2013 10:18 AM
jomper - 30 December 2013 08:36 AM

Or to put it another way, you lied about having scientific evidence.

Correct.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 January 2014 12:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1172 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  469
Joined  2012-07-02

I’ll take that as a concession you have zero evidence for charges and no precedent example of a building burning uncontrolled for many hours prior to charges going off.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 January 2014 12:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1173 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 01 January 2014 12:01 PM

I’ll take that as a concession you have zero evidence for charges and no precedent example of a building burning uncontrolled for many hours prior to charges going off.

Take it as a statement that I won’t engage with someone who wilfully lies about having scientific evidence grin

You’re on ignore, Robert.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 January 2014 12:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1174 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  469
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 01 January 2014 12:04 PM
Robert Walper - 01 January 2014 12:01 PM

I’ll take that as a concession you have zero evidence for charges and no precedent example of a building burning uncontrolled for many hours prior to charges going off.

Take it as a statement that I won’t engage with someone who wilfully lies about having scientific evidence grin

You’re on ignore, Robert.

Actually, I take it as you desperately clinging to a fib I openly admitted to making (along with the reason why) as an excuse to avoid simple questions I posed. grin

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 January 2014 12:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1175 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16

Whatever it is, tell it to VYAZMA. He’s been ignoring a simple question for at least 100 posts, while you’ve been wilfully lying about scientific evidence since May last year. Whatever point you wanted to make by doing so is facile. Go ahead and award yourself victories all round. I’ll talk to Fuzzy Logic if he/she comes back.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 January 2014 01:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1176 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  469
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 01 January 2014 12:44 PM

Whatever it is, tell it to VYAZMA. He’s been ignoring a simple question for at least 100 posts, while you’ve been wilfully lying about scientific evidence since May last year. Whatever point you wanted to make by doing so is facile. Go ahead and award yourself victories all round. I’ll talk to Fuzzy Logic if he/she comes back.

You desperately clinging to a fib in order to avoid answering simple questions is most definitely another victory for me, jomper. grin

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 January 2014 04:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1177 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20

There is also the fact that in the case of all three buildings there were intense fires burning for long periods before the buildings collapsed and in the case of WTC 1 & 2 there were massive impacts from airliners hitting the buildings. Even if there were charges in place, how do you explain the ability to detonate them when in all likelihood wiring, electronics and the explosives themselves would in many cases be damaged or burned beyond functioning?

Even in ideal conditions bringing skyscrapers down in a controlled fashion is challenging, the conditions present at the WTC were highly chaotic.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 January 2014 05:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1178 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  469
Joined  2012-07-02

There’s little point in considering demolition tools for the collapse of any of the towers until actual evidence is presented there were any. One may as well speculate invisible alien beam weaponry actually collapsed the towers.

You create conclusions based upon the available evidence, you don’t start with a conclusion and then seek evidence to justify it.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2014 01:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1179 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Fuzzy Logic - 02 January 2014 04:22 PM

There is also the fact that in the case of all three buildings there were intense fires burning for long periods before the buildings collapsed and in the case of WTC 1 & 2 there were massive impacts from airliners hitting the buildings. Even if there were charges in place, how do you explain the ability to detonate them when in all likelihood wiring, electronics and the explosives themselves would in many cases be damaged or burned beyond functioning?

Even in ideal conditions bringing skyscrapers down in a controlled fashion is challenging, the conditions present at the WTC were highly chaotic.

You speak as if insensitive munitions have not been in existence since the 1960s and wireless detonation technology since the 90s. The fact that absolutely no physical evidence from the building was examined makes any attempt to claim there was no evidence for charges/accelerants absurd. That is why it was essential that NFPA 921 was followed as closely as possible and the fact that it was ignored is a strong reason to claim the investigation was not meaningful.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2014 02:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1180 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Fuzzy Logic - 02 January 2014 04:22 PM

the conditions present at the WTC were highly chaotic.

But the collapse of 7 was not. This is a problem for you if you are claiming the collapse was caused by chaotic factors such as fire, and you cannot claim evidence supports this conclusion when no physical evidence was examined.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2014 01:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1181 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  469
Joined  2012-07-02

Visual evidence was definitely examined and it is completely consistent with the conclusion that fire brought down the building, as well as there is zero evidence for any other cause nor need to assume one.

Unless it is proven that fire couldn’t possibly have brought down the building under the circumstances, fire is the obvious cause and the sole cause we have overwhelming evidence for.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2014 01:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1182 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16

Robert, I can see you’re making posts although not what they are; please don’t imagine I’m going to engage with a self confessed liar like yourself after all the claims of scientific evidence you fabricated. Fuzzy, my comments are directed at you, so if Robert is making points you agree with, I’m afraid you’ll have to repeat them as your own.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2014 02:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1183 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  469
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 03 January 2014 01:40 PM

Robert, I can see you’re making posts although not what they are; please don’t imagine I’m going to engage with a self confessed liar like yourself after all the claims of scientific evidence you fabricated. Fuzzy, my comments are directed at you, so if Robert is making points you agree with, I’m afraid you’ll have to repeat them as your own.

Ignore me all you want, jomper, I won’t lose any sleep over it. As others previously noted, there is no real conversation going on where you are concerned. grin

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2014 03:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1184 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
jomper - 03 January 2014 01:40 AM

You speak as if insensitive munitions have not been in existence since the 1960s and wireless detonation technology since the 90s. The fact that absolutely no physical evidence from the building was examined makes any attempt to claim there was no evidence for charges/accelerants absurd. That is why it was essential that NFPA 921 was followed as closely as possible and the fact that it was ignored is a strong reason to claim the investigation was not meaningful.

Insensitive to shock doesn’t equate to impervious to intense heat and gross physical trauma. To survive the kind of conditions found in the WTC buildings under consideration the “explosives” would have to be functionally inert.

We have the visual evidence from the collapse itself, which shows a far more prolonged and complex failure of the WTC 7 building that the snap-shot 2.5 second “freefall” that is taken out of context along with the audio record that doesn’t capture the detonation of the munitions required to create the effect being claimed.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2014 03:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1185 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Fuzzy Logic - 04 January 2014 03:30 PM

Insensitive to shock doesn’t equate to impervious to intense heat and gross physical trauma. To survive the kind of conditions found in the WTC buildings under consideration the “explosives” would have to be functionally inert.

I don’t think you understand what the term “insensitive” means in this context.

Insensitive munitions are munitions that are chemically stable enough to withstand mechanical shocks, fire, and impact by shrapnel,[1] but that can still explode as intended

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insensitive_munitions

Fuzzy Logic - 04 January 2014 03:30 PM

We have the visual evidence from the collapse itself, which shows a far more prolonged and complex failure of the WTC 7 building that the snap-shot 2.5 second “freefall” that is taken out of context

There is no sole focus on the period of freefall acceleration and the fact that the penthouse fell first is not ignored. Neither of those facts actually support the fire hypothesis.

The visual evidence in fact confirms rapid onset and simultaneous failure of columns on opposite sides of the structure, and the fire hypothesis does not explain this at all.

Fuzzy Logic - 04 January 2014 03:30 PM

along with the audio record that doesn’t capture the detonation of the munitions required to create the effect being claimed.

Even if this was true, what kind of argument are you attempting to advance here? That it’s acceptable to rule out examining physical evidence a priori because some video footage didn’t happen to record audio?

Profile
 
 
   
79 of 91
79