• 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

Miragememories said:
The ball has upward momentum until it stops, which is the driving force gained by the development of a process or course of events (someone tossing it).

Let's just cut the academia about balls in the sky and confine the discussion to WTC7 dropping in freefall.
Click to expand...

If you're hazy on as simple a construct as F=ma, by what assumption are you proposing you get a buy to discuss other assertions that require a far more nuanced understanding of physics?

Does not compute

Fitz
 
Clayton Moore said:
...Am I that much more intelligent than the debunkers?...
Click to expand...

This reminds me of a joke where a motorists hears in the radio traffic announcements: "Attention on highway 555, a vehicle is driving your lane in the wrong direction", and the motorists exclaims to his wife: "A vehicle?? Thousands!!"
 
sylvan8798 said:
Are you at all able to grasp the concept of relative? The absolute value of the size of something has nothing to do with whether it constitutes a small or large part something else.

Here is the quote from Dave's original post (bolding mine):
Click to expand...

8 floors fell at free fall speed and NIST, at first, hid the 8 floors by citing a time for 18 floors.

Think one fall swoop. You've got one failure instigating failures in multiple directions. In what ten seconds?

If the inside of the building failed first, causing the disappearing of the penthouse, how did the facades of the building fall straight down in tandem?
 
Clayton Moore said:
If the inside of the building failed first, causing the disappearing of the penthouse, how did the facades of the building fall straight down in tandem?
Click to expand...


What do you mean "if"? You can literally SEE the inside failing first
 
Clayton Moore said:
If the inside of the building failed first, causing the disappearing of the penthouse, how did the facades of the building fall straight down in tandem?
Click to expand...

Because it was weird/crappy design and construction but with very robust outer walls?

It wouldn't be the first time that architects and engineers ********** up, would it? Tacoma Narrows Bridge ring a bell?

The alternative official WTC7 CT requires all columns to be removed - in a jiffy - over 8 entire floors.

Which gets your vote as more plausible? -

1) 1200+ columns (in a busy and pretty fully occupied building) rigged for CD on the quiet for no good reason yet with monumental risk of detection.

And with no guarantee of prior debris strike that would set fires to provide an 'alibi'.

And (here's the real joke) using a method that actually provokes 8 storeys of 'freefall' when nothing of the kind was remotely necessary. Were the perps worried about making Manhattan a little untidy or something?

2) The building just happened to fall the way it did.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
8 floors fell at free fall speed and NIST, at first, hid the 8 floors by citing a time for 18 floors.

Think one fall swoop. You've got one failure instigating failures in multiple directions. In what ten seconds?

If the inside of the building failed first, causing the disappearing of the penthouse, how did the facades of the building fall straight down in tandem?
Click to expand...
The facades were rather rigid, as it were. It was designed to act as a single structural entity. And it tried to do so as best it could.
 
GlennB said:
And (here's the real joke) using a method that actually provokes 8 storeys of 'freefall' when nothing of the kind was remotely necessary.
Click to expand...
That's the part that kills me. Why do CT loons think anyone would need to drop the WTC buildings to accomplish whatever it was they think was the plan? It's not like we'd have said, "Oh, only a few hundred died when those planes smashed into the buildings. That's not worth going to war..."
 
Robrob said:
That's the part that kills me. Why do CT loons think anyone would need to drop the WTC buildings to accomplish whatever it was they think was the plan? It's not like we'd have said, "Oh, only a few hundred died when those planes smashed into the buildings. That's not worth going to war..."
Click to expand...

On the other hand why do scum defend the the neocon scum who instigated and over saw the 9/11 false flag attack on America?

The neocons published that their foreign policy intent was to use America's military to force world wide for so called democracy building. 9/11 enabled just that.
 
sylvan8798 said:
The facades were rather rigid, as it were. It was designed to act as a single structural entity. And it tried to do so as best it could.
Click to expand...

What, then, caused that single structural entity to sink from view in its entirety. Where did the energy come from?
 
Clayton Moore said:
On the other hand why do scum defend the the neocon scum who instigated and over saw the 9/11 false flag attack on America?
Click to expand...

Assumptions based on facts not in evidence.

The neocons published that their foreign policy intent was to use America's military to force world wide for so called democracy building. 9/11 enabled just that.
Click to expand...

No, the neo-cons published their intent to invade Iraq.

1) If 9/11 were part of the plot to invade Iraq, wouldn't there have been a few Iraqis on the planes?

2) Do you think spending all that effort to invade Afghanistan first might have been distracting if their intent was to invade Iraq all along?

3) How many times do you think al Qaeda was going to try and blow up the WTC before it got lucky?

4) If 9/11 was a plot to invade Iraq, why'd they need to blow up the buildings in the first place. You don't think simply murdering hundreds of people on four airliners by crashing them into buildings would have worked?

Clayton Moore said:
What, then, caused that single structural entity to sink from view in its entirety. Where did the energy come from?
Click to expand...

Gravity?
 
Robrob said:
4) If 9/11 was a plot to invade Iraq, why'd they need to blow up the buildings in the first place. You don't think simply murdering hundreds of people on four airliners by crashing them into buildings would have worked?
Click to expand...
Usually our government seems rather inefficient and inept, but 9/11 was the ultimate in multitasking events. Silverstein wanted the towers torn down, but that was going to be expensive, so when they hatched the plot with the planes, he took the opportunity to have them rigged for CD as well and bought hisself some insurance. Building 7 had to go as well because of all those computers and files with the evidence of the attack on them.

Over at the Pentagon, they not only wanted to make a statement, but also to get rid of some pesky accountants and try out the new missile system against a particularly strong reinforced section of building. Actually attacking themselves made it so much more convincing for the public.

:rolleyes:
 
Clayton Moore said:
What, then, caused that single structural entity to sink from view in its entirety. Where did the energy come from?
Click to expand...

The same place, ironically, that it comes from in a controlled demolition using explosives. The energy needed for collapse initiation is a tiny fraction of the amount needed for complete destruction of the structure. So the WTC7 collapse did at least have this one thing in common with demolitions initiated by explosives: the overwhelming majority of this energy was supplied by the gravitational potential energy of the structure. The crucial differences with WTC7 were that the energy for collapse initiation came from the chemical energy released in the fires, rather than the much smaller amount of chemical energy released by a typical set of demolition charges, and that the collapse initiation was progressive rather than simultaneous, as can be seen very clearly from the dynamics of the collapse.

Dave
 
sylvan8798 said:
Over at the Pentagon, they not only wanted to make a statement, but also to get rid of some pesky accountants and try out the new missile system against a particularly strong reinforced section of building. Actually attacking themselves made it so much more convincing for the public.
Click to expand...

One of the areas taken out at he Pentagon was the Navy Operations Center. Makes the whole supposed government plot look even dumber.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom