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

[Mr. Skinny]

Well I must confess that I can't put my hand on the link right now. But I have read it and if I find the link again I may post it. If you find it I would be obliged iof you would do the same.

Please try to find it.

You see, I have the distinct advantage of working at a place where I can easily walk to an adjoining building, go up two floor and talk to dozens of experts on nanomaterials, then go up one more floor and talk to dozens of experts on polymers.

They might be interested in your citation as well.

 

[bill smith]

Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together.

What about if you put a small plastic table in a big oven, put some bricks on it and turn the oven to 220c what do you think would happen bill?

I think it would slump and deform unlike wTC7 which fell like a classic controlled demolition.

 

[000063]

Goodness me EDX, you sure are keen on the star trek stuff aren't you ? It would be easy to melt or explosively cut a bunch of columns simultaneously and cause at least an eight floor freefall. Just as we saw in fact.

See my sig. about WTC7

A more accurate analogy would be a a table with a few dozen identical tables on top of it. In which case, you could quite possibly cut one leg and cause a collapse.

 

[Edx]

What a silly boy you are EDX. The whole building was in freefall for the 2.25 seconds. Otherwise how could the eight floors that were measured go into freefall ? Therefore given that NIST admit to the freefall for the eight floors they are in fact admitting to the freefall of the whole building for that length of time. Didn't you understand that ?

No no you dont get to do that. Even if what NISt said was total nonsence, you dont understand it anyway and its entirely irrelevant., because even if it was intentionally brought down you'd still be dead wrong back to front.

The fact is you claim that 8 stories VANISHED INTO THIN AIR. Sorry, but truthers are utterely insane.

 

[bill smith]

Please try to find it.

You see, I have the distinct advantage of working at a place where I can easily walk to an adjoining building, go up two floor and talk to dozens of experts on nanomaterials, then go up one more floor and talk to dozens of experts on polymers.

They might be interested in your citation as well.

Really ? You have a golden opportunity to test my statement in the field. Please do ands get back to us.

 

[bill smith]

No no you dont get to do that. Even if what NISt said was total nonsence, you dont understand it anyway and its entirely irrelevant.

The fact is you claim that 8 stories VANISHED INTO THIN AIR. Sorry, but truthers are utterely insane.

Well maybe you had better show the Readers where I said that eight floors vanished into thin air. You don't want to come over as a liar in your old age do you ?

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Really ? You have a golden opportunity to test my statement in the field. Please do ands get back to us.

Just as soon as you provide a citation.

ETA: Or are you talking about your "impregnating concrete with thermite idea" or you "pumping thermite into box columns idea" or your "painting thermite onto beams" idea?

 

[bill smith]

A more accurate analogy would be a a table with a few dozen identical tables on top of it. In which case, you could quite possibly cut one leg and cause a collapse.

Is that so ? Amazing isn't it ?

 

[twinstead]

You'd think you would be the one "test your statements in the field" before you even make them, bill.

 

[Edx]

Well maybe you had better show the Readers where I said that eight floors vanished into thin air. You don't want to come over as a liar in your old age do you ?

Its really very simple.

You claim that 8 stories worth of the collapse WTC7 fell with zero resistence. This means, you claim, there was ZERO matter there to slow the decent. So you claim 8 stories were removed from the building simulatously

If you suddenly removed supports in 8 stories in a building it would not fall in free fall, because 8 stories worth of matter would still be there, which is why normal demoltions are not free fall collapses. Matter still needs to be pushed away. Therefore you must believe that 8 stories vanished into thin air.

No getting around it Bill. Now, the next problem is the fact that what you claim happened with WTC1 and 2 with all the hurled steel would require explosives so powerful it would destroy half the city. We see ABSOLUTELY NO characteristics of high explosives whatsoever in the collapse of WTC1 and 2. Not the sound, not the visible blast wave, not the air condensing, not the violent and immediate ejection of matter and absolutely no one with any blast trauma at all. Nothing. Its all slow, gradual, like a verinage collapse, which does not use explosives.

You claim impossible explosives destroyed all 3 towers. Got it? Impossible. You will now refuse to demonstrate even in theory how these explosives could exist let alone show an example of an explosive doing what you claim happened at the WTC.

 

[bill smith]

Just as soon as you provide a citation.

ETA: Or are you talking about your "impregnating concrete with thermite idea" or you "pumping thermite into box columns idea" or your "painting thermite onto beams" idea?

You could check that lot out too while you are at it. You don't need any citation if you have a good relationship with those scientists.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

You could check that lot out too while you are at it. You don't need any citation if you have a good relationship with those scientists.

What I'm asking is: What exactly do you want me to check out? You haven't given me anything to check out!

I'm not going to go take up the time of serious scientists spouting a bunch of half-baked crap that you make up in your vivid imagination.

Provide a citation and quit spouting nonsense.

 

[bill smith]

Its really very simple.

You claim that 8 stories worth of the collapse WTC7 fell with zero resistence. This means, you claim, there was ZERO matter there to slow the decent. So you claim 8 stories were removed from the building simulatously

If you suddenly removed supports in 8 stories in a building it would not fall in free fall, because 8 stories worth of matter would still be there, which is why normal demoltions are not free fall collapses. Matter still needs to be pushed away. Therefore you must believe that 8 stories vanished into thin air.

No getting around it Bill. Now, the next problem is the fact that what you claim happened with WTC1 and 2 with all the hurled steel would require explosives so powerful it would destroy half the city. We see ABSOLUTELY NO characteristics of high explosives whatsoever in the collapse of WTC1 and 2. Not the sound, not the visible blast wave, not the air condensing, not the violent and immediate ejection of matter and absolutely no one with any blast trauma at all. Nothing. Its all slow, gradual, like a verinage collapse, which does not use explosives. No vanishing in other words- other than into the rubble pile.

You claim impossible explosives destroyed all 3 towers. Got it? Impossible. You will now refuse to demonstrate even in theory how these explosives could exist let alone show an example of an explosive doing what you claim happened at the WTC.

The building slid to the ground. Globally it was undistorted as can be seen in the video. So as the eight floors moved down at freefall all the floors below that were also moving down at freefall.After about eight floors were measured at this global freefall some resistance kicked in from the piles of demolished steel -and concrete building up at the bottom slowing the freefall by a few hairs. No vanishing of any kind - other than into the rubble pile.

 

[Edx]

The building slid to the ground. Globally it was undistorted as can be seen in the video. So as the eight floors moved down at freefall all the floors below that were also moving down at freefall.After about eight floors were measured at this global freefall some resistance kicked in from the piles of demolished steel and concrete building up at the bottom slowing the freefall by a few hairs.

No, again, removing all supports would not cause it to move at free fall for 8 stories because the matter would still RESIST the floors falling from above. You claim an entire 8 stories worth of S-P-A-C-E existed and that none of the matter from those floors made contact with the upper falling floors and therefore weren't able to put up any resistance. This requires the entire 8 floors to have vanished. This is why regular demolitions are not free fall because matter is still smashing into each other.

Good job doing exactly what I said you'd do btw, ignoring my challenge to tell me what sort of explosive could have been used to hurl heavy steel around with WTC 1 and 2 yet not exhibit any characteristics of a high explosive capable of doing that.

 

[bill smith]

No, again, removing all supports would not cause it to move at free fall for 8 stories because the matter would still RESIST the floors falling from above. You claim an entire 8 stories worth of S-P-A-C-E existed and that none of the matter from those floors made contact with the upper falling floors and therefore weren't able to put up any resistance. This requires the entire 8 floors to have vanished. This is why regular demolitions are not free fall because matter is still smashing into each other.

Good job doing exactly what I said you'd do btw, ignoring my challenge to tell me what sort of explosive could have been used to hurl heavy steel around with WTC 1 and 2 yet not exhibit any characteristics of a high explosive capable of doing that.

[sigh] I think I explained it clearly enough in the last post.

As regards the explosive ejection of columns and the 4-ton chunk going the 600 feet....post a big picture of the Winter Garden building that was destroyed on 9/11 and I'll tell you my view. I need the picture for reference.

 

[Edx]

[sigh] I think I explained it clearly enough in the last post.

Yes, you believe 8 floors vanished into thin air so they could not provide resistence. I know.

As regards the explosive ejection of columns and the 4-ton chunk going the 600 feet....post a big picture of the Winter Garden building that was destroyed on 9/11 and I'll tell you my view. I need the picture for reference.

No, Im asking you what kind of explosives were used. You claim explosive effects that do not match ANY EXPLOSIVES KNOWN TO MAN

There is no blast wave, no immediate violent ejection of matter, no air condensed, no detonations can be heard and no one suffered any blast trauma. You can see all these apart from the last one in every single large high explosive blast caught on tape. Not so on 911. It was all slow and gradual.

The power you require to hurl those steel beams around would have leveled half the city. Sorry Bill, but you cant just keep claiming it has to exist because there was so much destruction. Explosives have certain characterisics and the WTC collapses do not match any of them. Explosives do not work the way you want them to work.

 

[000063]

And he's referring to "global freefall", not progressive. Wow.

 

[bill smith]

And he's referring to "global freefall", not progressive. Wow.

'Progressive freefall'. Hmmmm....sounds kind of Nistian to me, lol

 

[Mr. Skinny]

As I understand it Dave some advanced polymers can be added to nanothermite to make it explosive. Ordinary nanothermite only burns ferociously without giving off the gas you would need in an explosive. The polymers are designed to propogate vast amounts of gas very quickly turning the NT into a (high) explosive. Versatile stuff.

Since no citation is forthcoming, I think those reading this forum can easily dismiss this claim.

Bill, you should retract this claim until such time as you can provide the citation.

 

[Edx]

'Progressive freefall'. Hmmmm....sounds kind of Nistian to me, lol

Dont know why you're laughing Bill, you're the one making up mythical explosives that do not and could not possibly exist in this universe.