10 story hole in WTC 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
respublicus said:
Actually it's more of a rebunking.

The clueless brainwashing victim writes:

"And #4, presumably these “squibs” are supposed to be throwing smoke and material out of the windows. So why is it that the video shows the “squibs” staying in more or less the same place relative to the building, even as it’s falling?"

No, Mr Magoo. That is your false asshumption.
The material is being massively ejected higher up from the big explosions.
Squibs are from placed charges that sever supporting columns. They are characteristic of implosion demolitions.

That's why "the video shows the “squibs” staying in more or less the same place relative to the building, even as it’s falling" - it's the timing to bring the building down at free-fall speed. Voila.

I bought a copy of Demolition, illustrated book by the Loizeaux company on Amazon a while back. It has a lot of pix of demolitions and squibs. You know Loizeaux. Controlled Demolition Inc. That's their name. The outfit hired to clean up after the OKC and the WTC 9/11.... You can check out their website.
Click to expand...

Could you elaborate on these 'squibs'? whe Why would explosives be placed on the 40th floor of a 47 story bulding that clearly collapsed from it's lowest floors?

Do you observe any structural disturbance around these 'squibs'? Does the building fold, bend or come apart in any way at the point where the 'squibs' are seen?

You mention the building coming down at freefall speed - could you tell us how long it should have taken? Please provide your calculations. You can have the collapse begin at any (reasonable) location. Show how much resistance the lower floors would have provided to a falling mass of upper floors. Thanks in advance.
 
respublicus said:
Thanks. I quote

"The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial."

then there is a timeline showing the partial collapse took almost 3 hours.
These partial collapse events, spread over several hours, contrast with the implosion of WTC Building 7 in 7 seconds,

Of course these dildos still havent figured out how 110 stories could pancake in 10 seconds.

Chris, i'm getting the picture, the guys we are bantering with have an embarrassing little problem. They don't seem to be very smart. To put it charitably.

I really got a lot of better things to do than argue with these clueless cretins. Is there some way I can get in touch with you off this list? I got something better to share with you.

Sorry guys. I mean, there's nothing wrong with having an IQ of 90. If there were nobody below average, there wouldn't be anybody above it either, right? Ooops, sorry, i might have confused you there too. Not trying to make it complicated, honest.
Just don't worry about it. Der Fuehrer will take care of everything.
Click to expand...

You quote a CT web site and claim victory with no facts or numbers to support you CD world of lies. With no original thoughts on 9/11, just lies you retreat to your factless world of truth made of lies.

Good job with no facts yet. Neat how you take steel frame building that failed and was too weak to use ever again as proof the WTC could not fail in fire.

Funny how there are photos of WTC steel that failed due to fire. No failures due to CD explosives found yet.

Facts will do, but you bring lies. How many time have CTers declared victory with no logic or facts?

Can I see the steel that looks bent as if it was butter again please.

You guys are too smart for me. You must both be engineers or something to be so smart and full of great CT notions and such. I know one of you guys has to get some of that smart stuff from infowars. Am I right or what?
 
respublicus said:
Of course these dildos still havent figured out how 110 stories could pancake in 10 seconds.
Click to expand...

- Provide video evidence that the collapses took 10 seconds.
- State how long they should have taken. Show your calculations.
 
respublicus said:
Sorry guys. I mean, there's nothing wrong with having an IQ of 90.
Click to expand...

Now that explains why you use CT lies for your facts on 9/11. Keep trying to improve your mind.

But when will you tell me what you find wrong with what NIST said on the WTC complex and why you think there is no damage to WTC7?
 
Mancman said:
- Provide video evidence that the collapses took 10 seconds.
- State how long they should have taken. Show your calculations.
Click to expand...


UH, ohkay now, let's take this real slow now, i know heavy brainwashing has deleterious effects on your brain function. So this is going to be reaaalll eeazy, now

1. video evidence
get a clock or a watch. have you seen one of those before? Ask you mommy, maybe she has. Then get a video. Find somebody who can read the clock. clock the collapse.

2. Ok, this is a little bit harder but you can do it. You need to know a little bit of arithmetic and measures.

We'll keep it reeaaal simple. Let's say each floor pancakes really fast - say in one second flat.
There are 110 floors.
How many seconds. Take your time now.
Ok, give up?
Ok i will tell you.
It's 110 seconds.
Almost two minutes. Those are marked by the long hand on the clock, see?
 
1. video evidence
get a clock or a watch. have you seen one of those before? Ask you mommy, maybe she has. Then get a video. Find somebody who can read the clock. clock the collapse.
Click to expand...

That's not what he asked for. Is ad hominem all you can do?

2. Ok, this is a little bit harder but you can do it. You need to know a little bit of arithmetic and measures.

We'll keep it reeaaal simple. Let's say each floor pancakes really fast - say in one second flat.
There are 110 floors.
How many seconds. Take your time now.
Ok, give up?
Ok i will tell you.
It's 110 seconds.
Almost two minutes. Those are marked by the long hand on the clock, see?
Click to expand...

Why would it pancake in one second? Show your calculations. Like he asked you to.
 
God help us if any of you 'YouTube generation' troothers are ever on a jury hearing a legal case I am involved in.

"And now, members of the jury, I present Dr. Smith, an accomplished bartender and part-time amateur internet sleuth who will be testifying about the ballistic evidence he saw from a grainy video on his computer in his mother's basement".

"Afterwards, he will give a brief discussion about why all marine biologists on Earth are paid government shills followed by a 2 hour course in thoracic surgery".

Yea. God help us.
 
respublicus said:
There is no such calculation, because the floors did not pancake. The number is infinity. Duh.
Click to expand...

Oh. Let me rewrite the question so you can understand it: how long should the collapse have taken? Show your calculations.
 
respublicus said:
UH, ohkay now, let's take this real slow now, i know heavy brainwashing has deleterious effects on your brain function. So this is going to be reaaalll eeazy, now

1. video evidence
get a clock or a watch. have you seen one of those before? Ask you mommy, maybe she has. Then get a video. Find somebody who can read the clock. clock the collapse.

2. Ok, this is a little bit harder but you can do it. You need to know a little bit of arithmetic and measures.

We'll keep it reeaaal simple. Let's say each floor pancakes really fast - say in one second flat.
There are 110 floors.
How many seconds. Take your time now.
Ok, give up?
Ok i will tell you.
It's 110 seconds.
Almost two minutes. Those are marked by the long hand on the clock, see?
Click to expand...

Oops, the WTC core was still falling at 30 seconds. Mom said I did a good job with her watch. Wow you have debunked yourself again. Thank you CT guy, I only have a IQ of 40 wpm so I type real fast but think slow. Thanks again for proving yourself wrong. I watched the video and came up with more than 10 seconds. You were right to tell me to time it. You should have listened to yourself.

Oh by the way you could model the pancake theory which no one uses, but you could take each floor. And take the energy of the fall to collapse the next floor. And with momentum prove the there is only like 10 to 20 percent increase in the fall using an energy model and momentum.

Therefore your 110 seconds is the dumbest number every mentioned again and again (at least you have company in your madness).

10 to 20 percent would be more like 10 to 11 seconds for major portions to fail and fall to the ground. Kind of like happen on 9/11. But no one supports a pancake collapse. But I think modeling a pancake collapse with energy could help you figure out the time problem and get an idea of energy and momentum. What do you think?

You see you need to understand momentum and energy. When a floor fails due to impact the failing floor is for all intents and purposes at the new speed with respect to the new mass of the velocity base on the old momentum minus the energy of making the floor fail! The over velocity does not come to zero. Your 110 seconds makes you a failure at physics or understanding simple momentum. ( have a physics teacher help you on this to explain my mistakes)

Guess you never took physics did you? You could just be challenged with science, you can fix that with by studying more?
 
Last edited:
Brainache said:
respublicus, before you embarass yourself any further, I recommend you read this thread:

http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=70895&highlight=expertise
Click to expand...


What is that supposed to prove?
I have seen pictures and videos of actual controlled demolitions, and ditto of the WTC. It's clear.

The arguments from Nist are anything but clear. Fema and Nist admitted they were not able to explain the WTC 7 collapse.

I have also studied a lot of other relevant information, historical, about false flag terrorism and politics.
I know an enormous amount about 911 and I'm not going to sit here writing it all down for people with closed minds.

Plus I'm not a blinking fascist foot soldier like your lot who has to wait for a bureaucracy to tell me what to think

You're so totally naive. According to you, your government is always the good fairy.

Like you never even heard of corruption.

Write Santa Claus or your congressman and ask them to send you a book about it. I am not going to try to teach you.
 
respublicus said:
You moron. The building was blown up in a controlled demolition and fell at free fall speed.
Click to expand...

How do you calculate that speed? So how did you figure this out? What would you do to find the speed of a free fall?

How much energy was stored in the WTC as PE?

And exactly what in NIST do you have a problem with?

And we are still waiting on your evidence of CD. Will you be able to post that soon?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom