Moment frames are flexible, by design.
The seat was 1" thick.
You have denied both, and are making not one jot of sense. Chill.
Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr
- Thread starter chrismohr
- Start date
- Status
Moment frames are flexible, by design.
The seat was 1" thick.
You have denied both, and are making not one jot of sense. Chill.
Wait. How did you know what floors had explosives planted on them?
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Yeah, looks like he had the joint pretty well cased out. You don't suppose he and SHC both... hmmm. Plus ergo seemed to be able to pull up those staircase locations up pretty quick.
Nah.... couldn't be.
Could it?
ozeco41
Philosopher
I see a few of gems:
And there are three errors in this bit. Spot 'em for yourself:
Wrong.
Also wrong
And there are three errors in this bit. Spot 'em for yourself:
Wrong, wrong and wrong. Respectively.
Last edited:
zomg!!!!!!yeah, looks like he had the joint pretty well cased out. You don't suppose he and shc both... Hmmm. Plus ergo seemed to be able to pull up those staircase locations up pretty quick.
Nah.... Couldn't be.
Could it?
Chris, are you an engineering professional? Because the frequency with which you are claiming knowledge that trumps other engineering professions is quickly escalating, and is troubling.
A wise man once told me "the less a man makes declarative statements, the less apt he is to look foolish in retrospect".
Last edited:
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
I like "billowing" myself.....
billowingpresent participle of bil·low (Verb)
Verb:
(of fabric) Fill with air and swell outward: "her dress billowed out around her".
(of smoke, cloud, or steam) Move or flow outward with an undulating motion.
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
Where are the photos of the Titanic sinking?
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
Chimneys like this can exist, but they need to have a stonkin' great fire in them. Such mechanisms were once used to ventilate mineshafts
Ah no, they were not. In mine shafts you placed the fire at the bottom of one shaft, that shaft acted as a chimney drawing air in at the bottom out of the mine. fresh air was drawn in via another shaft. This is quite different from what you suggest happened in WTC7 where a wind driven venturi effect is sucking smoke out of the top WTC 7, hence sucking smoke in, lower down.
Pictures of the flames coming out the north side suggest this is unlikely as the pressure difference would have had air entering not flames exiting.
Pity you didn't go to college or you could have perhaps worked that out for yourself........
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Maybe you don't know that I repeatedly call myself a layperson, an English/journalism major, etc. Here on JREF I sometimes toss out ideas for correction and discussion. People on both sides are quick to correct me if I'm wrong. I try to limit statements and assertions to things I've run by people who know more than I do first. If I'm not sure of something I try to frame it as a question. I don't make stuff up except as I am trying to understand a new concept.
Attacks on my honesty and my technical worthiness to weigh in on 9/11 provoke swift negative reaction, defensiveness, etc. because such attacks come only from the 9/11 truth side. They are not OK and I give everyone who brings up such accusations one polite reply, as I am giving you now. Corrections of my mistakes come from both sides. Hope this helps.
Miragememories
Banned
There are ZERO pictures of the Titanic sinking.
The same cannot be said for 9/11.
As shown by myself and Christopher7, that vast amount of smoke on the southface of WTC7 does not reveal an equally vast amount of WTC7 fire.
WTC7's canyon-like location, chimney-like south face damage pattern, updrafting convection currents, significant fire activity only on a small group of lower floors, heavy drifting nearby smoke from the WTC6 inferno, no remarkable winds...
Of course WTC7's lower floor, migrating office furnishing's fires, produced a lot of smoke.
Given the updraft from WTC7's lower floor fires, and WTC7's cooperative damage pattern, the intense billowing smoke from across the street at WTC6, argues that smoke cupping up the WTC7 southface fails as proof of a conflagration.
What you have is a lot of smoke.
Unlike WTC1, WTC2, WTC5, WTC6, the only significant fire activity in the WTC7, was visually recorded on a few lower floors of the eastface.
MM
I think you must be responding to MM here, or have crossed wires somehere. Because I agree with you and my point was that it would take vigorous fire in WTC7 to suck in smoke from WTC5+6, and that fire is what MM denies. Incidentally the original mine ventilation furnaces were placed at the top of the exit shaft but, indeed, eventually the bottom as this worked better.
Last edited:
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Late in the day WTC6 fires were all but extinguished/burnt out.
This is late in the day, and that smoke isn't coming from WTC5+6:
slowsmile
Critical Thinker
It's also ironic that one of the "inside jobbie" claims so fond of twoofers - the BBC newsclip with the premature report of the WTC7 collapse - shows large amounts of smoke issuing from said building.
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
oops
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
That photo should be the nail in the coffin for the whole stupid small localized fires meme. I fully expect evasive maneuvering in response.
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,764
Wow how have i never seen this picture of wtc7 burning before. Good post. I'll need to save that one.
Then compare it with the one below, to see how little WTC6 was adding, even earlier. Then bear in mind WTC5 was rather far away for its smoke to enter the fray and that its fires didn't even touch the bookstore on floor 3 ....
Last edited:
- Status