• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Then why do you even complain about the availability of the models in the first place?
 
Clayton Moore said:
Evidence for the trial.
Click to expand...

LOL I wish you would get your "trial", Clayton. I really do. Lets just see how your "evidence" would stand up in a court of law subject to cross-examination. I would PAY to see that.

Alas it's not to be. Crackpots seldom get to see their day in court.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Using an accurate computer model of WTC 7 I guarantee that a simulation that suddenly completely removed col 79 would not result in its destruction as happened on 9/11.
Click to expand...

Well then all you have to do is do that simulation.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Using an accurate computer model of WTC 7 I guarantee that a simulation that suddenly completely removed col 79 would not result in its destruction as happened on 9/11.
Click to expand...

So you must think that explosive demolition ("suddenly completely") can be ruled out?

Cool! :cool:
 
JayUtah said:
Actually they used a commercial finite-element analysis system that is extremely available to the public if you can afford it. Most can't. It's tens of thousands of dollars per seat. But that's the grade of tools used in commercial engineering.
Click to expand...

Troofers are like the OWS crowd......they want everything given to them for free. :rolleyes:
 
Miragememories said:
"I am sure that Bush considered the hugely expensive invasion of Iraq to be an investment in your safety as well as the safety of everyone, but most would agree that making such a decision on a false analysis was a huge mistake.

The NIST made costly, previously 'not considered necessary' building construction safety recommendations based on their erroneous analysis of the cause of WTC7's collapse.

They would have made a mockery of their WTC7 collapse analysis if they didn't produce building construction safety recommendations in response.

Obviously, Richard Gage quite understood this, even if you do not."
Click to expand...
DGM said:
"Can you point to these please?"
Click to expand...

I can, and I have, numerous times, and in this very thread.

The fact that you repeat the question reveals your total disinterest in my answer.

MM
 
tsig said:
Well then all you have to do is do that simulation.
Click to expand...

Simulations of highly complex events are totallly unnecessary when you have an ideology that tells you in adcance the result. This is the Clayton-Moore-approach, and it is vastly superior to actual engineering and math.

You want to know just how great the Clayton-Moore-approach is? Well let me tell you:
- If an actual sim gets the result that CM knew in advance would come out, that proves it's a good sim.
- If an actual sim gets a result that differs from what CM knew in advance should come out, that proves it's an obvious fraud. (Most likely perpetrated by Joos Zionists.)
 
Clayton Moore said:
Using an accurate computer model of WTC 7 I guarantee that a simulation that suddenly completely removed col 79 would not result in its destruction as happened on 9/11.
Click to expand...

You didn't add the fire damage nor the damage from the collapsed tower...
911 happened. The world saw it happen.
Why don't you mention the other buildings on the Plaza that were destroyed that day ?
 
NoahFence said:
MM -
Chris Sarns is a moron. He's wrong on so many levels it's not even funny.

Anybody who takes this guy's word over the word of actual professionals is severely lacking in good judgement.
Click to expand...

Where is the mature adult behavior in calling Chris a moron.

You have obviously not walked in his shoes, or studied his tireless work on the subject of WTC7.

He is so strongly disliked here in JREF because he stood long and fast against their constant onslaught of ignorant lies and abuse, resulting in probably the longest thread ever created here.

Try looking before you leap Noah.

MM
 
George152 said:
You didn't add the fire damage nor the damage from the collapsed tower...
911 happened. The world saw it happen.
Why don't you mention the other buildings on the Plaza that were destroyed that day ?
Click to expand...

Yes what about WTC3,4,5,6 and the Greek Orthodox church? No plane hit them yet they were all destroyed????? Why the obsession about WTC7

Why are you not demanding an investigation into their failures......I mean its the first time EVER EVER that a Church or a Marriot Hotel has been destroyed by a 110 floor building falling on it.............so clearly they must have been CDs:rolleyes:
 
Miragememories said:
Where is the mature adult behavior in calling Chris a moron.
Click to expand...

OK then he is "alternately gifted and special".........

You have obviously not walked in his shoes, or studied his tireless work on the subject of WTC7.
Click to expand...

What size shoes does he have?? they might not fit. And tireless woo is still woo.

"He is so strongly disliked here in JREF because he stood long and fast against their constant onslaught of ignorant lies and abuse, resulting in probably the longest thread ever created here."
Click to expand...

ie he is stubbornly ineducable. Not nothing to be proud of. Jammo had a huge thread where he maintained that high def video of planes proved there were no planes.........do you think that made anything other than a laughing stock?:confused:
Click to expand...
 
NoahFence said:
"What never happened? A massive aircraft full of fuel slamming into the side of a 110 story building? I agree. Or is it a 47 story building being damaged beyond repair by pieces of the aforementioned 110 story building as it collasped, setting fires that were fought for a grand total of zero minutes, by zero firefighters?

Which is it?

Stop it, Clayton. You know damn well what really happened. If you're just being contrary for the sake of doing so, that's fine. Just admit it for crying out loud."
Click to expand...

Please do your homework Noah.

The massive aircraft full of fuel slamming into the WTC Towers was engineered into the design. Yes the sheeple here will claim otherwise, but if you research the debate here in earlier threads, you will see the truth.

The 47-storey WTC7, was not "damaged beyond repair". But, quite possibly to the point where the insurance claim looked more inviting.

The NIST said the secondary damage from the WTC1 collapse was not a factor in the cause of the WTC7 collapse.

There have been a lot worse fires than what WTC7 was exposed to that did not lead to collapse. Here, I expect the usual sheeple outcry of "different architecture" regardless of the length and breadth of those infernos. The majority of the WTC7 floors never suffered from fire and the fire burned itself out on many that did.

MM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom