• 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

MM,

Miragememories said:
Cannot be in "pure freefall" as compared to some other form of freefall?
Click to expand...

Yup.

As opposed to "near free fall".

A critical concept with which you have had extraordinary difficulty.

Miragememories said:
So it is back to the; "the collapse looks just like a controlled demolition but since we won't accept any proof that it was", it can't be, argument.
Click to expand...

Except that it only "looks just like a controlled demolition" to rank amateurs.

There were a bunch of CD professionals hanging around WTC7 when it collapsed (from Protec). They have clearly stated that, to them, "it looked nothing like a CD".

And then, when engineers examined the velocity & acceleration profiles of the external wall in detail, surprise, surprise, it does not look like a CD.

Now, you have taken down with explosives precisely zero buildings, I trust. (Feel free to correct me if I wrong about that.) The CD pros have taken down 100s of buildings. You disagree with their assessment. Fine. Please explain to me why we should take your word over theirs.

Miragememories said:
CD clearly explains the observed freefall collapse.
Click to expand...

Except for three little facts:

1. it wasn't really in free fall.

2. CD's don't really fall in free fall.

3. CD professionals say "it wasn't a CD".

… other than that ...

Miragememories said:
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png

The NIST calculation of Stage 2 freefall was based on the observation of "the entire upper half of the the north wall" doing what you now claim was not pure freefall.
Click to expand...

Nope. NIST didn't say that. Better read the NIST assertions again.

You ain't doing very well here, MM.
___

Now, since you're having so much trouble with velocity versus acceleration, let me provide you with a quick synopsis. And where your thought process is derailing.

All of the below statements are true.

You have been saying that, if an objects velocity is zero, then its acceleration must be zero. That's wrong.

1. An object can have any velocity (negative, zero or positive) and its acceleration can be any value (negative, zero or positive). In any combination. (v+, a+), (v+, a-), (v+, a0), (v-, a-), (v0, a+), [your fave:] (v0, a0), (v0, a-), etc.

2. You allude to the statement that "if an objects velocity is zero (and imply to yourself without saying it "and it stays zero"), then its acceleration is zero."

This statement is correct. But the unspoken part "and it stays zero" translates into "its acceleration is zero". If the velocity stays at any value whatsoever, then its acceleration equals zero.

You're essentially saying "if its acceleration is zero, then its acceleration is zero".
This is true.

It's just not very useful or perceptive.

Glad to help.


tk
 
DGM said:
Tom:

I've been to (4 now) demolitions and the flashes are usually not visible. The charges are wrapped to avoid flying debris.

Naturally the "kick in the chest" from the shock-wave will be a dead give-away that explosives were used. That's why my deaf friend loves going to these, she can "hear" the charges going off (The smile on her face is why I like going with her).

:)
Click to expand...

DG,

Thanks. Makes sense.

Noah, strike #3.

tom
 
Miragememories said:
CD clearly explains the observed freefall collapse.

[qimg]http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png[/qimg]

MM
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you'll be the first truther EVER to show us another known CD that experiences even a short period of FFA.

We'll wait.......:rolleyes:
 
triforcharity said:
Then perhaps you'll be the first truther EVER to show us another known CD that experiences even a short period of FFA.

We'll wait.......:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

....another 10 years.

Funny how the Trade Towers resembled a "classic" controlled demo, but twoofers can't seem to find another example.

Doesn't sound very honest to me. Par for the course.
 
NoahFence said:
Har har, hardee har har.

:)
Click to expand...

I drove over the Zakim bridge the other day. This bridge looks odd, like it won't work. It dawned on on me, NO ENGINEER HAS TOLD ME PERSONALLY IT WAS SAFE. It's one of a kind. STAY OFF THIS BRIDGE! Does this mean the bridge is un-safe? This to me is "truthism".

Zakim_bridge.jpg


http://www.leonardpzakimbunkerhillbridge.org/
 
Zeuzzz said:
The way he worded it was misleading then, as I got the same meaning from the words 'totaled' and 'building gone' as above.
Click to expand...

Beachnut is beachnut... But it certainly is not misleading to say a building gutted by fire is "totalled " and has to be torn down, for the same reason is not misleading to say a car is totalled and has to be scraped after being in a car accident even if it isnt in lots of tiny pieces all over the ground. They had to demolish those buildings because they were far too destroyed to do anything with and would not be safe.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
So it is back to the; "the collapse looks just like a controlled demolition but since we won't accept any proof that it was", it can't be, argument.
Click to expand...

Which part of that do you think is accurate of what we said?

It doesnt not look "just like" a controlled demolition. It only superficially looks like that, if you ignore most of the collapse and everything else.
 
DGM said:
I drove over the Zakim bridge the other day. This bridge looks odd, like it won't work. It dawned on on me, NO ENGINEER HAS TOLD ME PERSONALLY IT WAS SAFE. It's one of a kind. STAY OFF THIS BRIDGE! Does this mean the bridge is un-safe? This to me is "truthism".

[qimg]http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l564/dgmwood/Zakim_bridge.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.leonardpzakimbunkerhillbridge.org/
Click to expand...

LOL

Remember when this whole thing started and you could drive up 93 and look into a Boston Garden that was split in 1/2?
 
DGM said:
I drove over the Zakim bridge the other day. This bridge looks odd, like it won't work. It dawned on on me, NO ENGINEER HAS TOLD ME PERSONALLY IT WAS SAFE. It's one of a kind. STAY OFF THIS BRIDGE! Does this mean the bridge is un-safe? This to me is "truthism".

[qimg]http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l564/dgmwood/Zakim_bridge.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.leonardpzakimbunkerhillbridge.org/
Click to expand...

I dunno, the whole bridge design screams Illuminati to me. You certainly can't trust it.
 
Zeuzzz said:
The way he worded it was misleading then, as I got the same meaning from the words 'totaled' and 'building gone' as above.
Click to expand...
Find the buildings; they were totaled by fire. Go ahead, show the world the buildings which failed in fire. Where is One Meridian Plaza today? Where is the Windsor building? Do you want the fire report on One Meridian Plaza?
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-049.pdf
Oops, NWO stuff.

onemeridiansag.jpg

Fire destroys, 911 truth lies; these are the facts.
 
Miragememories said:
CD clearly explains the observed freefall collapse.
Click to expand...

As we've pointed out many, many times:
(1) The collapse was not a "freefall collapse"; a small part of the facade collapse was at an acceleration of about 1G.
(2) CDs typically collapse at significantly less than freefall.
(3) Explosive demolition is specifically contra-indicated by the gradual, rather than abrupt, increase in acceleration.

Therefore, CD in truth explains none of the finer features of the collapse, whereas progressive collapse explains all of them satisfactorily.

But some rudimentary understanding of Newtonian dynamics is useful in understanding all this, which Miragememories has demonstrated that he lacks.

Dave
 
CD clearly explains the observed freefall collapse.
Click to expand...
Easy solution - provide us with just a few of the supposed CD that have resulted in "free fall collapse" ever in the world.

I'll put the kettle on, this will be a while. ;)
 
Dave Rogers said:
As we've pointed out many, many times:
(1) The collapse was not a "freefall collapse"; a small part of the facade collapse was at an acceleration of about 1G.
(2) CDs typically collapse at significantly less than freefall.
(3) Explosive demolition is specifically contra-indicated by the gradual, rather than abrupt, increase in acceleration.

Therefore, CD in truth explains none of the finer features of the collapse, whereas progressive collapse explains all of them satisfactorily.

But some rudimentary understanding of Newtonian dynamics is useful in understanding all this, which Miragememories has demonstrated that he lacks.

Dave
Click to expand...

A small part of the collapse?

8 stores is small?

The videos show the east, north and west sides falling in sync.

You just see it the way you want to don't you David.

Can't let a little thing like the truth get in your way.

MM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom