Split Thread 7WTC - controlled demolition or fire and damage induced collapse?

[Miragememories]

And he uses the wrong model again. Try the damage + fire model next time.

And what model do you suggest I was using?

MM

 

[triforcharity]

It's already been linked for you. Don't be lazy.

 

[Miragememories]

It's already been linked for you. Don't be lazy.

I have no reason to accept that link as legitimate.

The screencap I used game from a NIST animation that showed a more complete collapse.

MM

 

[triforcharity]

The wrong collapse either way.

Sorry to hear about your laziness.

ETA: It's even got the NIST stamp on the bottom. Sorry that you don't like it, and still want to continue using the wrong model.

 

[Miragememories]

The wrong collapse either way.

Sorry to hear about your laziness.

ETA: It's even got the NIST stamp on the bottom. Sorry that you don't like it, and still want to continue using the wrong model.

The animation I used also had the NIST stamp.

Sorry to hear about your subterfuge.

I know of no 3rd party animations, but feel free to link
me to any credible ones.

MM

 

[excaza]

Sheesh, osmium is less dense...

 

[triforcharity]

MM,

Feel free to pull your head out of your ass, and use the CORRECT moldel.

 

[Miragememories]

MM,

Feel free to pull your head out of your ass, and use the CORRECT moldel.

What is a "moldel"?

The model I used was the right model.

I'm surprised that the Mods tolerate your abusive language.

MM

 

[triforcharity]

What is a "moldel"?

The model I used was the right model.

I'm surprised that the Mods tolerate your abusive language.

MM

A typo.

Really? Did you use the damaged model?

You haven't even seen abusive language. That was pretty mild IMO.

If you don't like it, complain.

 

[Miragememories]

A typo.

Really? Did you use the damaged model?

You haven't even seen abusive language. That was pretty mild IMO.

If you don't like it, complain.

Yes I saw the damaged model.

Your point?

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Sheesh, osmium is less dense...

Could you please explain how that statement has any relevance to the thread topic?

MM

 

[excaza]

Could you please explain how that statement has any relevance to the thread topic?

MM

Went right over your head, don't worry about it.

 

[Miragememories]

Went right over your head, don't worry about it.

Phew.

I am so happy the peanut gallery bs missed me.

MM

 

[triforcharity]

yes i saw the damaged model.

Your point?

Mm

YOU USED THE WRONG ******* MODEL!!

Damn, is that so hard?

 

[Miragememories]

YOU USED THE WRONG ******* MODEL!!

Damn, is that so hard?

Your proof?

Is that even harder?

MM

 

[triforcharity]

Look at this threads past 10 pages or so, and tell me which model you are using? It's been pointed out numerous times.

 

[Miragememories]

Look at this threads past 10 pages or so, and tell me which model you are using? It's been pointed out numerous times.

If that the case we wouldn't still be playing tennis with the subject.

My screen cap was from the most destructive simulation animation that the NIST appeared to produce.

Are you suggesting that the legitimate, final approval sim was far less destructive?

That would seem very odd.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

So I'm off the 'ignore' list now. Great.

Great?

Only as long as you are not trolling. I have a feeling the wait will be short.

Since there is so much disagreement about the screencap of the NIST WTC 7 simulation final frame of the projected collapse,
I would like to see a link or an image to what the image my detractors think I should have used.

It is called put up or shut up.

MM

 

[twinstead]

I have no reason to accept that link as legitimate.

What is your criteria for accepting links as legitimate?

 

[Edx]

What is your criteria for accepting links as legitimate?

It isnt a youtube video and by a truther, only stuff made by truthers is valid.