• 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

Clayton Moore said:
Science proves that the steel columns, because of their huge size, could never have become hot enough to fail.
Click to expand...

To bad science also proves that a column, no matter how "huge in size" will buckle when the loading exceeds the critical point on slender columns. Euler figured that out in 1757.........too bad troofers still have not caught on.
 
Miragememories said:
"You could probably convince me that many who religiously adhere to the Official Story are stupid. That is, stupid enough to consider Richard Gage's illustration of the size disparity between the upper and lower sections of WTC1, not an effective model."
Click to expand...
DGM said:
"I think that model just shows who Gage's target audience is."
Click to expand...

His target audience is anyone unafraid of the truth.

The Official Story rules because it provides sanctuary for those who fear the truth.

People much like yourself DGM.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
His target audience is anyone unafraid of the truth.

The Official Story rules because it provides sanctuary for those who fear the truth.

People much like yourself DGM.

MM
Click to expand...
It's interesting you did not answer the question in my post

"Have you been to one of Gages shows?"

I have, and I stayed to the end and talked to Gage and his followers in person. Strange a person with a "closed mind" would do that.

:rolleyes:
 
NoahFence said:
Wow. That's a hellova statement.

Remember this the next time you whine about being called a liar.
Click to expand...


But remember, he doesn't knowingly tell lies. That means he is utterly unaware that nearly everything he says is incorrect.

He also claims to correct his misstatements when shown proof. However, he's posted since numerous people have reminded him of the mechanical penthouse. Hmm...
 
Zeuzzz said:
Watched this before. Reminds me something though, judging from the graph (that I think I'm right in thinking NIST has since agreed with?) it only took ~0.8 seconds for the building to accelerate from 0 to g, and then it maintains downwards acceleration of g for a further 2.5 seconds before any sort of resistance is reached. Correct? Want to check other people agree, mainly because the above graph is in a youtube video, before I presume its true.
Click to expand...


Anyone?
 
Miragememories said:
"So let us carefully look at this.

Inside WTC7, all the floor assemblies, girders, interior and exterior structural columns are all interconnected, making the building quite strong and rigid as you previously pointed out.

wtc7column79hm2.png


Now in the NIST global collapse scenario, column 79 has buckled and collapsed, and apparently over seven seconds the inner structural guts of WTC7 also failed.

column79failure1.jpg


During this period, watching and recording cameras were trained on the WTC7 north side along with the pre-warned public. What they observed during this period, was the collapse of the east penthouse and some window breakage on the upper northeast face.

Could you explain why not even a ripple was observed anywhere on the very visible north side of WTC7?

wtc7preglob1.jpg


Supposedly, inside girders and trusses were being pulled downward by massive gravitational forces. Girders, trusses and floor pans connected to the perimeter columns, windows, etc.

At least in their flawed hypothesis for explaining the collapse of the WTC Twin Towers, the NIST could show some bowing columns to support their argument.

Yet, with WTC7, not even a single brick was observed to drop until the start of global collapse. [For Oystein, I am talking about after the east penthouse collapsed]

set3sccompositeua1.png


How much do you expect a person to suspend their disbelief?"
Click to expand...
NoahFence said:
"It is Femr2's very own anaylsis that shows CLEARLY a "ripple" effect. The south side of the building is collapsing before the penthouse. That's why the penthouse collapses in the first place. The structure beneath it is going-going-gone."
Click to expand...

As usual, you have nothing but bluster and in this case some south side debris that ended up across the street.

Regardless of you and femr2's hand waving about the unseen southside of WTC7, neither of you address why those massive pull-in forces were not great enough to do more than break a few windows on the upper northeast side of WTC7.

You may have noticed in that collapse composite above, that both the north and west faces of WTC7 are intact. There is no new post-east penthouse collapse damage showing at the southwest corner prior to the start of global collapse. If the south side had been initiating the collapse as you say, by this time, some noticeable upper southwest corner destruction should have been dramatically apparent in this image.

So you are subscribing to a theory that the south face started collapsing, brought down the east penthouse, and for 7 more seconds continued collapsing but miraculously leaving the whole north and west sides virtually intact.

A theory that might have a tiny bit of merit if not for how well connected the relatively undamaged north face and the west face were to your totally collapsing internal structure.

MM
 
Oystein said:
What a transparent and masochistc lie.
Did you hope that all of us have forgotten the drop of the east penthouse several seconds before the "start of global collapse"? Ok, well, technically the east penthouse wasn't brickwork.
Click to expand...

Well there ya go.

Show me the brick.

Plus, in my defense, I was talking about after the east penthouse fell.

Time to get back to your paint chip obfuscation don't you think?

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Well there ya go.

Show me the brick.

Plus, in my defense, I was talking about after the east penthouse fell.

Time to get back to your paint chip obfuscation don't you think?

MM
Click to expand...

Up above you seem to be quoting yourself but editing your own embedded posts.

In your #1493 you quote your own post (#1432) while saying -

"Yet, with WTC7, not even a single brick was observed to drop until the start of global collapse. [For Oystein, I am talking about after the east penthouse collapsed]"

- as if that was your original #1432 quote. It wasn't, afaics. And you seem to have embedded extra graphics in your own quoted post.

You're not supposed to amend quoted posts unless it's done explicitly, like "my bolding" and so on.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Well there ya go.

Show me the brick.

Plus, in my defense, I was talking about after the east penthouse fell.

Time to get back to your paint chip obfuscation don't you think?

MM
Click to expand...

Another dishonest poster who wants to split the collapse up into chunks. I guess it helps when you are utterly clueless on what global collapse is. Maybe you want to rethink your position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom