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

[Mr. Skinny]

It was steel. Highly tempered structural steel.

Please explain why structural steel would be tempered.

Provide a citation for this claim please.

and in many places besides that! Explained away as paint or primer usually.. the chain of custody is also regularly attacked. (both completely absurd)/

Please explain why these criticisms are "absurd"

Paint is not highly energetic when ignited and will not leave elemental iron spheres in it's wake.

Citation for this claim also please.

Paint will not have the chemical signature of thermitic material. That simple.

Agree. Except when the tests are improperly performed or the results are distorted in such a manner to fool someone with no experience in analyzing materials.

 

[Xero]

All speculation
So you have no proof/evidence?



All speculation
So you have no proof/evidence?




All speculation
So you have no proof/evidence?

Lol your example is ridiculous.

The irony, it tastes delicious.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

- Fires burned for 99 days underground (why underground would there be anyfire months later? makes no sense) much less the crazy temperatures and excessive heat are well documented. (nasa & bechtel). These temps also persisted at WTC 7.

If that is your position then what is your comment on examples such as:
Centralia
and other fires that have burned underground for decades? What is your position on other fires that have burned continuously for 6,000 years.

 

[Dave Rogers]

pls watch this and then maybe you can stop talking nonsense.
WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)
http://www.youtube.com/user/DavidChandler911#p/u/4/v3mudruFzNw


Read my other 9/11 posts and the facts and material they link to.

If you still think its all just 'conspiracy theories' thats fine but at least you wont go around making nonsensical posts like the one above

cheers

WTC7 took over 12 seconds to collapse. A group of truthers have repeatedly claimed that (a) they have studied the collapse in detail, and (b) the collapse took less than seven seconds. Either (a) or (b) is a blatant lie. And it's no less of a blatant lie for you, atavisms, to claim that it's nonsensical to point out this lie just because part of the collapse occurred at an acceleration close to freefall and that . AE911T are liars, and by pretending that they aren't, you make yourself into a liar too. You won't find out the truth by lying.

Dave

 

[atavisms]

Just from a sampling of your posting history I can find find the following lies ...nonsense redacted

Patience eventually runs out, whether appropriate or not in its timing.

Your post reveals you have a lot of free time to waste on meaningless minutia instead of addressing even a single issue at the heart of 9-11Truth .
(what are you even doing here? This is to discuss these issues not dismiss them.

Here are some facts:

WTC7 was a highly supported structure with large redundancies built into it.
We know it experienced freefall acceleration for the first 8 storeys or 100' of it's sudden and symmetrical descent -despite NIST's attempt to obfuscate this fact. It is a well known fact of physics that this would not have been possible without the support structures being removed almost simultaneously. That is why they are safe to go into. ^^

FREEFALL = EXPLOSIVES.
Its that simple and that is a fact.

Please watch :

I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
II http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
III http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw

any intact columns would -naturally- cause a much more asymmetrical collapse than we witnessed. We know what the columns were doing (offering no support once they were cut) because we can see its facade, the roof line, and rate of collapse.: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ni0i2KZn9Hc

You can write argue the sky is purple and even believe if you choose to but that isnt going to ever make it so.

best

 

[Dave Rogers]

Here are some facts:

I think you mean "lies". Impressively, even for a truther, not one of your "facts" is true.

WTC7 was a highly supported structure with large redundancies built into it.

WTC7 was a tube-in-tube structure designed to maximise the open floor space for a given structural weight. As such, it had a much lower reserve of structural strength that a building constructed in a more orthodox fashion, and in particular it relied, possibly to an excessive amount, on column 79.

We know it experienced freefall acceleration for the first 8 storeys or 100' of it's sudden and symmetrical descent -despite NIST's attempt to obfuscate this fact.

Totally and embarrassingly wrong. We know that the downward acceleration of the building increased gradually during the first 1.75 seconds of its descent, and that it was not until after this initial stage of increasing acceleration that its acceleration reached a value close to 1G.

It is a well known fact of physics that this would not have been possible without the support structures being removed almost simultaneously.

It is clear from the dynamics of the collapse that the support structures failed progressively over the initial 1.75 seconds of the collapse. This makes a mockery of any sane usage of the word "simultaneously".

FREEFALL = EXPLOSIVES.
Its that simple and that is a fact.

And this is the overarching truther lie: that this one single, simple feature of the collapse can only possibly result from explosives. The explanation is always presented as vaguely as possible, and any questioning is met with a simple insistent demand that we must believe every word the truther says. It's significant that, in this case as in so many others, this argument is being presented by someone utterly and shamefully ignorant of the details he's seeking to explain.

It's no coincidence that people who understand engineering can see that the WTC collapses progressed very much as would be expected. Nor is it a coincidence that those who believe otherwise demonstrate their ignorance and incompetence at every turn.

Dave

 

[Mince]

From the video in the OP:

Danny Jowenko is the expert on this [building demolition] in Europe. What did he say [about building 7]?

That is controlled demolition.

Well, what did Jowenko say about the possibility of WTC 1 and 2 being a controlled demolition?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrJH8nLO8kc

If Jowenko is to be believed, even though his research was limited to YouTube videos, then WTC 1 and 2 were not controlled demolitions.

Ed Assner, you simple-minded, easily manipulated feeb.

 

[twinstead]

If only Jowenko had not said the WTC1 and 2 couldn't be CD; it would have made the truther cult's propaganda a little easier for them to try to shove down our throats.

 

[bill smith]

From the video in the OP:






Well, what did Jowenko say about the possibility of WTC 1 and 2 being a controlled demolition?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrJH8nLO8kc

If Jowenko is to be believed, even though his research was limited to YouTube videos, then WTC 1 and 2 were not controlled demolitions.

Ed Assner, you simple-minded, easily manipulated feeb.

Just WTC7 will do fine in this case. We'll soon work it back to the Twin Towers, you can bet the farm on that.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Just WTC7 will do fine in this case. We'll soon work it back to the Twin Towers, you can bet the farm on that.

Translation: Any evidence that suggests natural collapse will be discarded for no reason. Any evidence, however tenuous, that suggests an inside job will be considered conclusive.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

Translation: Any evidence that suggests natural collapse will be discarded for no reason. Any evidence, however tenuous, that suggests an inside job will be considered conclusive.

Dave

Well we'll take our chance in open court if you will. I won't hold my breath though.

 

[twinstead]

Well we'll take our chance in open court if you will. I won't hold my breath though.

LOL I would PAY to see you "take your chances" in open court, bill, if only I supported wasting taxpayer money.

 

[twinstead]

Just WTC7 will do fine in this case. We'll soon work it back to the Twin Towers, you can bet the farm on that.

NO, WTC1 and 2 will do just fine in this case. We'll soon work it back to the WTC7, you can bet the farm on that.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Well we'll take our chance in open court if you will. I won't hold my breath though.

Nobody's stopping you bringing any lawsuits you may care to bring, except for the ones that have already been laughed out of court. Seems to me that it isn't reality that can't decide whether to put up or shut up, it's truthers whining about the fact that they wouldn't be allowed to do anything despite the fact that they've never tried.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

NO, WTC1 and 2 will do just fine in this case. We'll soon already have worked it back forward to the WTC7, you can bet the farm on that.

FTFY.

Dave

 

[twinstead]

FTFY.

Dave

Thanks

 

[Clayton Moore]

Translation: Any evidence that suggests natural collapse will be discarded for no reason. Any evidence, however tenuous, that suggests an inside job will be considered conclusive.

Dave

Natural "collapse?"

You mean the natural complete destruction of three huge skyscrapers in less than a visual minute?
The pulverization of those buildings into dust that blanketed NYC?

The three huge buildings fall down?

Someone here mentioned the gravity and avalanches.

A comparison of an avalanche and the natural destructions would be valid if most of the snow evaporated and a grinning dancing Zionist snowman remained.

 

[twinstead]

Natural "collapse?"

You mean the natural complete destruction of three huge skyscrapers in less than a visual minute?
The pulverization of those buildings into dust that blanketed NYC?

The three huge buildings fall down?

Someone here mentioned the gravity and avalanches.

A comparison of an avalanche and the natural destructions would be valid if most of the snow evaporated and a grinning dancing Zionist snowman remained.

Pulverization of the buildings? Hardly. Argument from ignorance and incredulity noted, and rejected.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Natural "collapse?"

Well, you have a point there; like any terminology introduced by truthers, the term "natural collapse" to describe a collapse due to a deliberate act of mass murder by terrorists is a pretty stupid usage.

You mean the natural complete destruction of three huge skyscrapers in less than a visual minute?
The pulverization of those buildings into dust that blanketed NYC?

No, I'm talking about the real events of 9/11, in which two large buildings collapsed as a result of the damage caused by terrorists crashing airplanes into them and the subsequent fires, and a third collapsed as a result of burning debris from the first two collapses crashing into it and the damage caused by subsequent fires. I'm not talking about the insane fantasies of delusional maniacs, professional deniers and neo-Nazi scumbags.

I'm quite interested in this idea of a "visual minute", though. As far as I'm aware, the concept is unknown to science.

Dave

 

[NoahFence]

Your post reveals you have a lot of free time to waste on meaningless minutia instead of addressing even a single issue at the heart of 9-11Truth .

Kiddo - there is no "heart" of the truth movement. You dolts are quite literally all over the place.

You have no single theory, you can't even agree on how one particular aspect could have occurred. You constantly throw : on the wall, hoping it sticks. You jump up and down like schoolkids who managed to accidentally do something cool, while us adults giggle at the fact that you really didn't do anything at all. But you persist, so we laugh at you.

NOTHING you have said is accurate. Not a single theory.