No seismic signatures, no blown out windows, no sounds of explosives, no flying debris from the blast waves, no detonators found in debris, no det-cord found in debris, no delay devices found in debris, no copper residue on blast-severed joints, impossibility of demo prep work on actively used building without detection...
None of which occurs if fire brings a building down.
Indeed, the numbers are still correct. The 91.66% expert stand against 9/11 twoof is quite damaging to MM's position. It willwon't be entertaining to see how he screws up handlingignores it.
Fixed that for you. I can't imagine MM slowing down to carefully consider your point, let alone respond intelligently and with substance relative to your point. That doesn't happen here, from what I have seen.
Hmmm, not only does MM refuse to clarify whether he thinks Brent Blanchard is an expert on controlled demolition or not, but he also misrepresents the collapse of WTC 7 as being 'mostly freefall'
Warning, this false statement of MM's was made over at LCF. He's more careful here, but it's in the public record.
In MM's false world, an interval of approx. 2.25 s out of a total of at least 14 s is 'mostly freefall'. Wow. Now 16% is 'mostly'?
That's almost as embarrassing as the 66% of Jowenko's statements which contradict 9/11 Truthers, or the 91.66% of a sample of CD experts, including Jowenko, who disagree with 9/11 Truth.
You have been asked repeatedly to back up both the assertion that the concrete in any way provided structural support or that a characteristic of a CD is FFA. Do you plan to do so?
I will take this as an admission that you can not back up your claim that freefall acceleration is planned for in CDs. You made the claim, you back it up.
"freefall acceleration" is g = 9.8 m/s2 - the acceleration a body experiences in the gravity field near the surface of planet earth when no other force is acting on it.
These two sentences imply, among others the following claims:
1. (Complete?) freefall is something that has never occurred in a concrete and steel building
Got a source for that claim?
2. (Complete?) freefall is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions
We have asked you to provide a source for this item for a long time now. Seems you can't support the claim. Ready to retract it?
More claims are less clearly discernable from the two sentences, however, they deserve some scrutiny:
3. WTC7 underwent a "complete freefall" for at least 8 stories.
Do you mean to say that ALL of WTC7 was in freefall for 8 stories? Or do you mean to say that "freefall" means really at the complete acceleration of 9.8m/s2? If the former, you need to support that claim. If the latter, we are not in disagreement, I think.
4. WTC7 was a "concrete and steel building", or its structural properties with regard to collapse mechanisms are comparable.
It has been pointed out to you many times that any concrete used in WTC7 did not contribute to overall structural stability, but rather representes a liabilty on account of its mass. All structural elements were steel. Not concrete. Do you acknowledge that?
Once you have acknowledged that fact, you can start explaining why the behaviour of other buildings that were not pure steel-frame is instructive with regards to WTC7.
Or you can retract that implicit claim and clarify for us that you don't consider concrete to be of relevance here.
5. Freefall occurred for at least 8 stories, but potentially more
What is your reason to include the claim of "at least"?
"It's the same thing you see with firefighters and WTC7.
Firefighters hear explosions, truthers hold them up as saints.
Firefighters see massive impact damage to WTC7, they see fires on every floor, they hear the groaning of metal grinding on metal as it shifts unnaturally, the see bulges where the frame has warped, the see it leaning from a mile away... Truthers say nothing about this... usually. The stupidest ones say what the smarter ones are thinking but won't say... that the firefighters were in on it."
Glad to see an OCTer admit that firefighters did indeed hear explosions.
Firefighters certainly saw impact damage to WTC7. That is not under dispute. The fact that after 7 years of investigation, the NIST determined that the impact damage had no direct connection to the WTC7 collapse initiation makes their observation meaningless to this debate.
Firefighters did not see fires on every floor. That is a straight out lie.
"..they hear the groaning of metal grinding on metal.." the quote below is the only quote I could find regarding groaning;
Kevin Darnowski -- Paramedic (E.M.S.) said:
"I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down."
"By now, this is going on into the afternoon...but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."
JREF forum-Thread 10-story hole in WTC7-Page 106 said:
"A guy who works nearby and a fireman, three blocks away thought the building was leaning.
No one at the scene thought WTC 7 was leaning.
Chief Hayden said there was a bulge in the SW corner.
He did not say it was leaning.
NIST did not say it was leaning.
WTC 7 was NOT leaning!"
"Explosion" is just a loud noise. There were lots of loud noises at WTC.
nobody heard a loud noise consistent in timing, loudness and brisance with man-made demolition.
Firefighters certainly saw impact damage to WTC7. That is not under dispute. The fact that after 7 years of investigation, the NIST determined that the impact damage had no direct connection to the WTC7 collapse initiation makes their observation meaningless to this debate.
Strawman. Nobody claims "every floor." Fire on "every floor " was unnecessary to cause the collapse of WTC7 in a way consistent with the evidence and fire science.
"..they hear the groaning of metal grinding on metal.." the quote below is the only quote I could find regarding groaning;
On the 56th floor, an architect believes the building was failing structurally. Architect Bob Shelton had his foot in a cast; he'd broken it falling off a curb two weeks ago. He heard the explosion of the first plane hitting the north tower from his 56th-floor office in the south tower. As he made his way down the stairwell, his building came under attack as well. "You could hear the building cracking. It sounded like when you have a bunch of spaghetti, and you break it in half to boil it." Shelton knew that what he was hearing was bad. "It was structural failure," Shelton says. "Once a building like that is off center, that's it." http://911stories.googlepages.com/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande
I've only just stopped laughing. Too funny for words.
But how about - WTC7 was supposed to come down at the same time as WTC1, but things went a bit haywire. Then they managed to fix it in time for 5:25, even though the building was burning. And, what's more, they aimed - for fun - to set a new CD fall record by slicing out 8 entire floors simultaneously. Without making a noise. Without anyone noticing the prep work for months. To destroy financial records.
I've never said there wasn't. In fact, I don't know of any debunker who has. Explosions are a common feature of major structural fires. You have been told this before, but every time it comes up, you act like it's the first time you've heard it.. Either you have a rare form of recurring amnesia, or Alzheimers disease or you are simply lying your ass off like you have always done before along with every other twoofer before and after you.
Firefighters certainly saw impact damage to WTC7. That is not under dispute.
“I was talking about the third building that nothing hit and yet it fell as if it was hit the same way, all three buildings fell the same way, but the third building wasn’t hit by anything,”
-Chronic Illegal Drug Abuser and 9/11 Twoofer, Willie Nelson
Firefighters did not see fires on every floor. That is a straight out lie.
Oh dear... you are not going to enjoy reading this:
I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run.
–FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti
When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers
It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and what-not. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block.
– Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy, FDNY
We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside.
–Port Authority Police Department Officer William Connors
"There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse."
–Firefighter Gerard Suden
The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor."
– Fire Captain Brenda Berkman
"When I got out and onto a clear pile, I see that 7 World Trade Center and the customs house have serious fire. Almost every window has fire. It is an amazing site. –Captain Jay Jonas, Ladder 6, FDNY
7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable.
–Firefighter Steve Modica
So I attempted to get in through the Barkley Street ramp which is on Barkley (sic) and West Broadway, but I was being held back by the fire department, because 7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed.
–PAPD K-9 Sergeant David Lim
We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors.
–FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco
Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down.
–FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
"..they hear the groaning of metal grinding on metal.." the quote below is the only quote I could find regarding groaning;
Regarding the infamous bulge;
From Firehouse Magazine;
"You see the way it's leaning like this? It's definately coming down. There's no way to stop it! The structural integrity isn't there."
That's gotta suck for you to hear stuff like that from the firefighters who lost 343 of their own that day.
Now the only way out of this for you is to ignore this and pretend it was never posted or claim the firefighters were in on it and helped kill their own brothers, fathers, and sons.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
I can't imagine MM slowing down to carefully consider your point, let alone respond intelligently and with substance relative to your point. That doesn't happen here, from what I have seen.
