Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition
- Thread starter LSSBB
- Start date
Miragememories
Banned
WTC7 South Side viewing from SE corner
Clearly you see only what you wish to see.
Good luck with that.
MM
There is literally one assertion in your post, and the rest is a hand-wave. In fact, even the assertion is a backpedal from the assertions you made earlier about how much of the collapsed front was covering the street. Nothing in your post is an actual response to anything JDS said, including a direct, if rhetorical, question. It's a boilerplate.
You have a habit of this. Say something, then get contested, then gradually backpedal without actually admitting you're wrong about anything, as your posts get smaller and smaller as you say less and less. Then make the same claims again later, elsewhere.
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
No, per MM, that's just a wide sidewalk. Including the building across the street. It's all just a matter of perspective.
It's all still a dodge. No support for constant free fall, and any free fall acceleration can be caused by load vs. resistance.
Amen. Overhead shots also show WTC7 debris to the SW impinging on WTC6, let alone sidewalks and the road.
Meanwhile MM's photo upthread actually shows precious little of the SE length of the building with, also, no clue as to at what part of the cleanup it was taken.
And, as Reactor Drone pointed out upthread, that's actually quite a lofty part of WTC7 shown in the photo. In the street.
And check out the original layout .... WTC7 was set slightly N of the line of the S facade of the Verizon. In MM's photo the line of the Verizon S facade is clearly visible, telling us that the debris has fallen S.
But wait! Danny Jowenko's interviewer told DJ that the collapse was 'so clean you could walk around it' <cough>.
What a stack of liars. I wonder if you took out the bottom few they'd tumble down at free-fall?
Miragememories
Banned
Gamolon your photo does show the street on the south side nicely filled with debris.
Of course you do not comment on where all that debris originated from.
WTC1, WTC5, & WTC6 are all represented in that street pile.
The part of the debris that can be clearly identified as belonging to WTC7 seems to end around the edge of the street.
MM
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
Really?
How about this then. Here is a photo. Based on the amount of debris on Vesey street and the condition of the pedestrian bridge, this is after the South Tower collapsed, which was the first to go down. WTC7 still up.
Here is the next picture. More damage to the pedestrian bridge, some debris in the street. WTC7 still up.
Last picture. Pedestrian bridge down. WTC7 down.
Now you tell me what the majority of the "street debris" in that last picture was from.
5+6 did not collapse. The substantial debris in the photo is from WTC7. Overhead photos confirm that its debris ended very close to WTC6, across Vesey, as Gamolon has shown.
And, yes, I can post overhead images of the same
Meanwhile, might you accept that your photo of the SE corner shows relatively little of the S front, that even that debris is well into/across the road, and was taken at an indeterminate point in the cleanup operation?
eta: MM, when Jowenko's interviewer mentioned that 'the WTC7 pile was so clean you could walk around it' (or words to that effect) ..... was he telling the truth?
Last edited:
swright777
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2012
- Messages
- 897
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Double ouch, when he is addressing a problem he substituted, symmetrical collapse, for one he couldn't solve in his favor, free fall. As if a big square, hard walled, moment framed building wouldn't look symmetrical when it fell anyway.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
As you say this is the SE corner. How in the name of any reason can you claim to be able to see the SW corner in this pic? I see the Verizon building and I suppose one could say that the space previously occupied by the SW corner is in this photo. You cannot see the SW corner remains from this location. Aerial photos show wtc7 debris losing up to the north wall of wtc6 and there is some indication of wtc7 debris having hit wtc6 , though admittedly the mixing of debris from three structures makes I'd high on certain. Your dismissal of the idea of 7's debris in 6 indicates you are not immune to seeing what you want to see. OTOH the distance between WTC7's south face to WTC6's north face is significant. One might also point out that the Fitterman to the NE managed to be hit hard enough to gouge out much of its SE showing that its not a 'neat pile' of debris.
Now, this thread is about the claim that FFA=CD.
So far there has been nothing other than a hand wave agruement from you on this subject. However, in addition it has been pointed out that there is no period through which any graph of descent shows a period of sustained FFA. Such a period is required for your assumption of removal of all vertical support to be true. Instead its a bouncy ramp up to, and above, FFA. That later part indicates another influence that cannot be explained by thermite or explosives or removal of all vertical support. It is possible that these influences would also occur during an explosives generated collapse BUT the very fact of those influences indicates that the simplistic claim that FFA=CD cannot be supported since they must also be present in a non-CD collapse and thus would result in acceleration reaching, and/or exceeding 'g'.
Last edited:
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
Jennings knew and told the world. The mainstream media scumsuckers ignored him. And the neocons likely sealed his deal.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Off topic, reported.
Miragememories
Banned
I have no interest in playing dueling debris piles.
The prime suspect for the 47-story WTC7 collapsing at FFA, or close, is CD.
Un-fought office furnishing's fires are an extremely poor candidate for such a smoothly executed collapse.
Can you rationally explain how natural causes allowed WTC7 to have such a sophisticated high speed collapse.
MM
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Now all you have to do is accept the rest of the collapse and you might understand WTC 7.
I'm not holding my breath until you accept reality.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
If the fall was above, below, not constant at g, how could it be from freely dropping? I showed you in the OP how the collapse could naturally be around g.
What's sophisticated about the sides of a building being pulled down by a collapse?
You know those scenes in movies where the hero picks a fight in a bar, and realizes the guy who he just ticked off is actually huge?
Barring the whole "physically impossible by any known conventional or unconventional method of controlled demolition" aspect, yes.
More words with vague, subjective meanings.
Again, more meaningless technoblather. That sort 'o talk might impress the folks in the cheap seats, but not us.
Miragememories
Banned
WTC7 north side showing ~8 storeys removed to permit FFA.
Accepting a rigid box-like integrity for the WTC7 shell;
The collapse can be seen to be balanced (all sides failing at the same rate), and does not tilt until late in the collapse.
A delay in the failure of the west side perimeter columns, would have resulted in the east side leading the collapse (tilt to the left) topple.
A delay in the failure of the east side perimeter columns, would have resulted in the west side leading the collapse (tilt to the right) topple.
A delay in the failure of the south side perimeter columns, would have resulted in the north side leading the collapse (tilt forward) topple.
A delay in the failure of the north side perimeter columns, would have resulted in the south side leading the collapse (tilt backward) topple.
As the collapse video shows, WTC7 did not topple or tilt during FFA.
What natural cause could have made those 8 storeys of perimeter columns fail together?
MM
Oh, look, a subject change now that you've been spanked on the subject of the debris pile.
Of course, this ignores the fact that the interior had already partially collapsed, as evidenced by the Mechanical Penthouse, therefore the "box-like integrity" was at best compromised. And in an asymmetric fashion, too.
Also, it's pretty obvious why you only use a selected few of the angles on the building available, which studiously ignore the penthouse.
Of course, this ignores the fact that the interior had already partially collapsed, as evidenced by the Mechanical Penthouse, therefore the "box-like integrity" was at best compromised. And in an asymmetric fashion, too.
Also, it's pretty obvious why you only use a selected few of the angles on the building available, which studiously ignore the penthouse.
Last edited: