Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7

[Edx]

So you can not show the same effect?

UH I just said I could, cant you read? Stop reading what you want to read.

The effect is the same. Its just the buildings are smaller and slightly different so the effect is slightly different, but the effect is the same. No explosives required.

 

[Marokkaan]

UH I just said I could, cant you read? Stop reading what you want to read.

The effect is the same. Its just the buildings are smaller and slightly different so the effect is slightly different, but the effect is the same. No explosives required.

well show it. I dont care how small the building is, i want to see the same effect, im curious.

 

[triforcharity]

I'll tell you what, some peoples' kids. Idiots!!

"Watch the verinage demolitions. They're there. "

"So, you can't show me?"

"Watch the Verinage demolitions"

"Is that a yes, or a no?"

 

[Marokkaan]

Lets take an example, if edx does not want to.

Ow my god... when i look to this video, i do not see the same effect, shocking!!...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5iFW89tw2k&feature=related

 

[Animal]

Except the elevator repairmen.

Will troofers ever be able to grasp the concept that elevator shafts are not big wide spaces like depicted in movies, but instead operate on really small tolerances. (Architects and building owners really do not like to waste space like that......unless it is visible to the public)

 

[Edx]

well show it. I dont care how small the building is, i want to see the same effect, im curious.

Pay attention to the trajectory of the "ejected" debris in these various examples, some show it better than others. Its the same as in the WTC and something Gage claims can only be caused by explosives.

 

[Marokkaan]

And now a picture of verinage please!

 

[Marokkaan]

Pay attention to the trajectory of the "ejected" debris in these various examples, some show it better than others. Its the same as in the WTC and something Gage claims can only be caused by explosives.

I watched the whole compilation, but i still can not see the same effect, maybe you have a picture, or you can make a printscreen?

 

[Edx]

Once again you ignore what I said, good job genius. Gage claims debris cannot be ejected out the collapse front without explosives, verinage shows it can and it has the same trajectory.

But lets just assume we have never heard of verinage, the fact is your china demolition doesnt look like the WTC collapses since the china demolition occures at specific points in the building, you can tell when the explosives have gone off and it only starts to collapse when an explosive has gone off. The WTC collapse starts gradually and no explosions can be heard and none of what you call explosions can be seen either until well into the collapse.

 

[Animal]

In fact, a firefighter invented a tool to be used in the future, if this type of problem arises, right?

Read about it.
http://firechief.com/mag/firefighting_waterjet_technology_cuts/

Pretty cool tool. I've used it myself.

Great Tri...I can see it now, troofers will abandon the nanny termite claim and move to "water jets" cut the steel columns. They used the sprinkler system as "cover" and after the planes hit the water from the water jets could be explained away as broken sprinkler lines........and who else uses a lot of high pressure water? The Fire Dept. You had to be in on it.

 

[Marokkaan]

Once again you ignore what I said, good job genius. Gage claims debris cannot be ejected out the collapse front without explosives, verinage shows it can and it has the same trajectory.

But lets just assume we have never heard of verinage, the fact is your china demolition doesnt look like the WTC collapses since the china demolition occures at specific points in the building, you can tell when the explosives have gone off and it only starts to collapse when an explosive has gone off. The WTC collapse starts gradually and no explosions can be heard and none of what you call explosions can be seen either until well into the collapse.

Thats a lie, you can not show it, the video does not show it. So show a picture/printscreen to debunk me please.

By the way why do you dont show a verinage, with a collapse with a small block thats destroying the rest of the building?

I dont even call the other factors...

Do you realize you are using a wrong video?

 

[triforcharity]

Great Tri...I can see it now, troofers will abandon the nanny termite claim and move to "water jets" cut the steel columns. They used the sprinkler system as "cover" and after the planes hit the water from the water jets could be explained away as broken sprinkler lines........and who else uses a lot of high pressure water? The Fire Dept. You had to be in on it.

**** me running! I MUST have been in on it!!!

(Don't give those morons any ideas. )

 

[Edx]

Thats a lie, you can not show it, the video does not show it. So show a picture/printscreen to debunk me please.

You are too incompetent to understand that the trajectory of the "ejected" debris is the same as seen on the WTC collapses. I cant help you.

By the way why do you dont show a verinage, with a collapse with a small block thats destroying the rest of the building?

UH, I did. In the last one you see about 4 floors EASILY destroying over 12. According to the truth movement this is something else they claim is impossible.

Now, the fact is your china demolition differs from the WTC collapses in ways I pointed out, you ignored it, obviously.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Once again you ignore what I said, good job genius. Gage claims debris cannot be ejected out the collapse front without explosives, verinage shows it can and it has the same trajectory.

Welcome to my world... he was even calling me a liar when I mentioned the job description of architects and engineers. *snickers*

 

[Marokkaan]

You are too incompetent to understand that the trajectory of the "ejected" debris is the same as seen on the WTC collapses. I cant help you.

lol nice dodge just show the picture/printscreen to debunk me.

Calling me incompetent LOL

UH, I did. In the last one you see about 4 floors EASILY destroying over 12. According to the truth movement this is something else they claim is impossible.

its not an example of a building collapse. its a assymetrical partial collapse. We are talking about a whole collapse.

The second its not a steel structure.

Is it really difficult to get a good example?

Now, the fact is your china demolition differs from the WTC collapses in ways I pointed out, you ignored it, obviously

You are blaiming me for ignoring, while you still did not show the proof of a good example....

 

[Edx]

lol nice dodge just show the picture/printscreen to debunk me.

No, anyone can see that the tragectory of the ejected debris in verinage is the same as seen in the WTC, its just you are too stupid or dishonest to acknowledge it.

I see the comparison of your china demolition, I see what you see. I am not denying the similarities. But you deny the similarities between veirnage and the collapses of the WTC. I understand the differences between verinage and the collapses of the WTC. You however will not acknowledge the differences between your china demolition and the WTC collapses.

its not an example of a building collapse. its a assymetrical partial collapse. We are talking about a whole collapse.

UH, they were all total collapses. . .The top block of about 3 -4 floors pancaked collapsed down through over 12 floors below it. You can see that on the video. Are you blind as well as illiterate?

The second its not a steel structure.

Your china demolition does not show a steel building either. So I guess it disqualifies your example as well.

I also already gave you plenty of differences between the china demolition and the WTC collapses, why do you pretend its the same?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

its not an example of a building collapse. its a assymetrical partial collapse. We are talking about a whole collapse.

To truthers, the difference between partial and complete collapse is absolutely irrelevant. "A smaller part of a building does not crush a larger lower half", which is a position you very clearly supported when I spoke about Gage's card board box analogy being totally stupid.

Similar to how I have a problem with the AE911 using card board boxes to try and explain how a building at full scale should perform.

About gage, it was a perfect presentation, to show, any fool have to know that you are violating the nature laws, when you think the top of the tower was capable to go through the path of most resistance with near freefall.

 

[Marokkaan]

No, anyone can see that the tragectory of the ejected debris in verinage is the same as seen in the WTC, its just you are too stupid or dishonest to acknowledge it.

Lol do you mean trajectory? Well show the picture/printscreen

I see the comparison of your china demolition, I see what you see. I am not denying the similarities. But you deny the similarities between veirnage and the collapses of the WTC. I understand the differences between verinage and the collapses of the WTC and I understand the differences between what veirnage looks like and the WTC collapses. You however will not acknowledge the differences between your china demolition and the WTC collapses.

You do not understand, the prinicple, its about the force to get that effect. Thats what im trying to show you with the example. Thats impossible with verinage. The video you show, shows it, ofcourse you have a little bit ejection, thats logical. But you dont see the same effect like wtc and the chinese building.

UH, they were all total collapses. . .The top block of about 3 -4 floors pancaked collapsed down through over 12 floors below it. You can see that on the video. Are you blind as well as illiterate?

No its not a total collapse. The rest of the building remains

Are you blind and illiterate?

By the way why you are ignoring the fact its not a steelframe building?

Your china demolition does not show a steel building either. So I guess it disqualifies your example as well.

:Facepalm:, the example is not about the construction, but about the explosive force........

I also already gave you plenty of differences between the china demolition and the WTC collapses, why do you pretend its the same?

Maybe i have to repeat. Show me an example, of a steelframe building, where you can see the upper small block can destroy a whole building

 

[atavisms]

Even if it exploded you cant fling heavy steel around quietly which is what the truth movement claim happened.

They also claim 8 floors the size of a city block were removed at the same time with Building 7, yet this happened again completely quietly.

Oh no.. each one coming down made a very loud 15 second roar. The sound of hundreds (thousands?) of explosives going off. You can see this clearly in the unnaturally violent lateral energy the perimeters were subjected to. The squibs, the pulverized concrete the debris fields. And 1100 unaccounted for people.
You know, bombs experts whose job it is to survey the sites of bombings have a method to help determine how powerful a blast was (if it was in a building) They look at the concrete/ and structure to see how damaged it is.
That is why we have these regulationsin place:
There is no justifiable reason for not applying the national standard, for NOT testing for explosives! and that is another red flag.

NFPA 921 *http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

18.3.2 - “High-Order Damage. High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet. High-order damage is the result of rapid rates of pressure rise.”

NIST didn't even test for explosives. what the hell else do we need to know/?
we are manipulated because 'justice will only exist where those who are unaffected by injustice respond with the same outrage as those offended.' -Plato.

*the first (most crucial) investigation FEMA was not even given access to the site and then after 4 weeks were given what was described as a 'guided tour.' of GZ. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html
And still, they brought us this: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm
and that (like wtc7s freefall 99 fires, excessive temps.. and everything Ive mentioned ad nauseum, conclusively reveal preplanted explosives in wtc 1,2&7 Lower Manhattan on 9.11.01

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Oh no.. each one coming down made a very loud 15 second roar. The sound of hundreds (thousands?) of explosives going off

The smallest explosive capable of cutting a column generates a 140 decibel sound. A 140 decibel "roar" would have been akin to a jet engine firing continuously next to thousands of people running from the disaster area, causing hearing damage to all of them, and completely overrunning any other sound picked up by audio devices throughout the area. There were no such sounds, and none of the steel columns (part of the actual load carrying structure) recovered exhibited signs of blast trauma at the connection points where they failed.