Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

Tony, how about you start providing evidence for your claims.

Show where you get your information from.

From what you are saying, the "arsonists" would have had to have ignited the debris piles for Wt 1 & 2
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The reason I did not reply to either your's or Oysteins weasel points here earlier is that they are silly and nonsensical.
Click to expand...
I take that as confirmation that you realize honest answers would seriously damage your story. :)

Tony Szamboti said:
The fires in WTC 1 were put out as soon as the floor they were on was impacted from above. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...
Sure. Because embers would not be moved by the ejection of 14,000 cubic meters of air in a fraction of a second. Nothing was ejected from the office floors, right? There wasn't any gypsum dust... :)

Tony Szamboti said:
There was essentially no chance for hot debris from WTC 1 to fly over to WTC 7 and start fires.
Click to expand...
Except, of course, for the magic pixie dust aka thermite that set fire to the cars :)

Tony Szamboti said:
Oystein wants to say there was massive damage to the south face of WTC 7 but the evidence does not support him and he has no legitimate photos to support his contention.
Click to expand...
I have fire fighter testimony.
Are you saying we should dismiss the testimony of fire fighters if their accounts are not corroborated by clear, legitimate data?
 
Oystein said:
I take that as confirmation that you realize honest answers would seriously damage your story. :)


Sure. Because embers would not be moved by the ejection of 14,000 cubic meters of air in a fraction of a second. Nothing was ejected from the office floors, right? There wasn't any gypsum dust... :)


Except, of course, for the magic pixie dust aka thermite that set fire to the cars :)


I have fire fighter testimony.
Are you saying we should dismiss the testimony of fire fighters if their accounts are not corroborated by clear, legitimate data?
Click to expand...

Oystein, if you aren't a shill and honestly believe the nonsense you try to argue here then you are a deluded person desperately trying to hold on to a fantasy. You can't produce photos to back your claims. What a surprise.

I am talking reality. There is no chance the limited fires in WTC 1 caused the fires in WTC 7 because they would have been put out quickly during the collapse and the buildings were 350 feet apart. There is also no doubt that the collapse of WTC 7 was due to controlled demolition and the non-explanatory nature and silliness of the NIST WTC 7 report is apparent with its tortured asymmetric north to south then east to west interior collapse while the exterior comes down all at the same time symmetrically, no addressing of the implications of free fall, and need to omit pertinent structural features.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Oystein, if you aren't a shill and honestly believe the nonsense you try to argue here then you are a deluded person desperately trying to hold on to a fantasy. You can't produce photos to back your claims. What a surprise.
I am talking reality. There is no chance the limited fires in WTC 1 caused the fires in WTC 7 because they would have been put out quickly during the collapse and the buildings were 350 feet apart. There is also no doubt that the collapse of WTC 7 was due to controlled demolition and the non-explanatory nature and silliness of the NIST WTC 7 report is apparent with its tortured asymmetric north to south then east to west interior collapse while the exterior comes down all at the same time symmetrically, no addressing of the implications of free fall, and need to omit pertinent structural features.
Click to expand...

Come on Tony, practise what you preach.
 
GlennB said:
This is not a multi-storey gash in WTC7:

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc7damagecomposite_zps0f53f5db.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

GlennB, I said Oystein couldn't show any legitimate photos to back his claims for severe south face damage on WTC 7 and that doesn't come as a surprise because heavy debris wouldn't have flown 350 feet away from the collapse of WTC 1.

The image you show here was even rejected by NIST as some sort of phony composite. If it had any legitimacy whatsoever they surely would have used it.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
This is not a multi-storey gash in WTC7:

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc7damagecomposite_zps0f53f5db.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...


And this photo is in no way indicative of anything at all, honest, guv:

WTC1%20Collapse%20amp%20WTC7_zpscbxbzcyu.png


(It was posted by a truther though, so maybe it should be taken with a pinch of salt)


Tony Szamboti said:
The image you show here was even rejected by NIST as some sort of phony composite. If it had any legitimacy whatsoever they surely would have used it.
Click to expand...


So now you trust the words of NIST?

Do make up your mind, Tony.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The image you show here was even rejected by NIST as some sort of phony composite. If it had any legitimacy whatsoever they surely would have used it.
Click to expand...

It's just a shame it took you so many years to even know that wtc7 had collapsed. Perhaps if you had seen it live things would be different for you.
 
Ape of Good Hope said:
And this photo is in no way indicative of anything at all, honest, guv:

[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/WTC1%20Collapse%20amp%20WTC7_zpscbxbzcyu.png[/qimg]

(It was posted by a truther though, so maybe it should be taken with a pinch of salt)





So now you trust the words of NIST?

Do make up your mind, Tony.
Click to expand...

You seem to be a confused person who has a hard time understanding inference and logic.

The NIST WTC 7 report is non-explanatory and even used some slight of hand in some areas such as the omission of structural features. If even they didn't have the stomach to use that phony composite photo it adds to its denouncement.
 
Spanx said:
It's just a shame it took you so many years to even know that wtc7 had collapsed. Perhaps if you had seen it live things would be different for you.
Click to expand...

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said anywhere that I didn't know about the collapse of WTC 7 for years. It is clear that you are disingenuous and willing to do anything to further your agenda to cover up the controlled demolitions of these buildings.

I knew about it on the night of 911 and my reaction was "how the hell did that happen?".
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
GlennB, I said Oystein couldn't show any legitimate photos to back his claims for severe south face damage on WTC 7 and that doesn't come as a surprise because heavy debris wouldn't have flown 350 feet away from the collapse of WTC 1.
Click to expand...

This is not heavy debris that has flown more than 350' away from WTC1 :

 
Tony Szamboti said:
GlennB, I said Oystein couldn't show any legitimate photos to back his claims for severe south face damage on WTC 7 and that doesn't come as a surprise because heavy debris wouldn't have flown 350 feet away from the collapse of WTC 1.

The image you show here was even rejected by NIST as some sort of phony composite. If it had any legitimacy whatsoever they surely would have used it.
Click to expand...

They did use it, in effect. The top part of that composite is their figure 5-78.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said anywhere that I didn't know about the collapse of WTC 7 for years. It is clear that you are disingenuousness and willing to do anything to further your agenda to cover up the controlled demolitions of these buildings.

I knew about it on the night of 911 and my reaction was "how the hell did that happen?".
Click to expand...

What agenda to cover up "controlled demolitions of these building"

You provide absolutely nothing, you make claims and don't provide evidence to support your claims, you have fantasy and that is all.

Back up your claims with evidence.

It would appear you are being paid to post here until Gerrycan takes over.
 
Spanx said:
What agenda to cover up "controlled demolitions of these building"

You provide absolutely nothing, you make claims and don't provide evidence to support your claims, you have fantasy and that is all.

Back up your claims with evidence.

It would appear you are being paid to post here until Gerrycan takes over.
Click to expand...

Spanx, your willingness to say things that aren't true shows you have an agenda and on this forum that would be to cover up and obscure the fact that the three building collapses in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 were due to controlled demolition.

I have provided plenty of evidence to show those buildings came down via controlled demolition. The reason you simply deny it is because it goes against your obvious agenda to cover up that fact.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
They did use it, in effect. The top part of that composite is their figure 5-78.
Click to expand...

They did not use it in their model, so they did not see it as something they could count on as a scientific fact.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
This is not heavy debris that has flown more than 350' away from WTC1 :

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc7%20girders%20in%20street_zpsqaluqyol.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

That is not heavy debris that would do serious damage to a building like WTC 7. It might break a few windows but it is not putting the gash in the building shown in the phony composite photo.

The collapse of WTC 7 was due to controlled demolition and you can't get around that no matter how hard you try. I really don't understand why you are unless you have some sort of obligation to do so.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom