WTC building 7

[Maggdy]

bahahahahahahah!

Maggdy I am fascinated ----which are your top three "hard facts" ???

Sorry, but I still do not know what should to believe. I'm on the other side of the globe. The facts are out there, but in my country also operate a government, (mass média similar too?).

there is no should what you have are not hard facts the only thing that makes them fact is the fact that the are not.

I can imagine that the WTC building was such as the boat Titanic, "unsinkable".

what the hell is that supposed to mean ?

6:55 in hours talking with a man who says that should not to collapse the building, because the structure is such as a mosquito net ( English language speaking in video) USA 2001 szeptember 11. rejt lye - YouTube

 

[eots]

Sorry, but I still do not know what should to believe. I'm on the other side of the globe. The facts are out there, but in my country also operate a government, (mass média similar too?).

there is no should what you have are not hard facts the only thing that makes them fact is the fact that the are not.

I can imagine that the WTC building was such as the boat Titanic, "unsinkable".

did you have to write that? I almost cried. I watched the thick white smoke rise from BUILDING one for-----at least ---I think ---an HOUR -----and was absolutely sure that EVERYONE would get out-----. I understood that someone in a plane got killed------but I thought----THAT IS ALL THAT HAPPENED Just across the Hudson River (the WTC was on the shore of that river)----was a small
airplane field for little private planes----(teterboro airport) For at least an hour I thought-----A TINY PLANE crashed into the building by mistake. REALLY---to me the WORLD TRADE CENTER----was utterly immune from harm. --------then things began to get clear when the SECOND PLANE HIT -----------

another pointless ramble

you don't like eyewitness accounts------you prefer your fantasies

there is nothing relevant in your account

 

[eots]

Maggdy I am fascinated ----which are your top three "hard facts" ???

Sorry, but I still do not know what should to believe. I'm on the other side of the globe. The facts are out there, but in my country also operate a government, (mass média similar too?).

there is no should what you have are not hard facts the only thing that makes them fact is the fact that the are not.

I can imagine that the WTC building was such as the boat Titanic, "unsinkable".

what the hell is that supposed to mean ?

It was so solid-----seemed so strong------LOOMED over all of Manhattan

explosive demolitions can do that to a building strong or not

 

[Hollie]

Sorry, but I still do not know what should to believe. I'm on the other side of the globe. The facts are out there, but in my country also operate a government, (mass média similar too?).

there is no should what you have are not hard facts the only thing that makes them fact is the fact that the are not.

I can imagine that the WTC building was such as the boat Titanic, "unsinkable".

what the hell is that supposed to mean ?

It was so solid-----seemed so strong------LOOMED over all of Manhattan

explosive demolitions can do that to a building strong or not

Only if there actually are explosive demolitions. There were none in the WTC in contradiction to you Alex Jones groupies.

 

[Capstone]

for 2.5 seconds-----the CALCULATED velocity of the fall was consistent with
FREE FALL-------that's it-------eodtiot stakes his entire "philosophy" on observation and calculation of a 2.5 second interval? . sheeeeesh

Not just any "2.5 second interval" Rosie; those were 2.25 seconds during which the building's "facade" descended symmetrically for about 105 ft. against zero resistance to the downward motion. That means something on the order of 8 floors were completely removed from the path of descent, either simultaneously or in rapid enough succession to circumvent the resistance that would have otherwise been in effect. The fire-induced progressive collapse model holds no explanatory power for a single inch of that 105+ ft. freefall descent; which is why accepting NIST's explanation is tantamount to rejecting the third law of motion. The significance of that measly "2.5 second interval" can't be overstated.

 

[eots]

there is no should what you have are not hard facts the only thing that makes them fact is the fact that the are not.

I can imagine that the WTC building was such as the boat Titanic, "unsinkable".

what the hell is that supposed to mean ?

It was so solid-----seemed so strong------LOOMED over all of Manhattan

explosive demolitions can do that to a building strong or not

Only if there actually are explosive demolitions. There were none in the WTC in contradiction to you Alex Jones groupies.

and you know this how ?

 

[Hollie]

I can imagine that the WTC building was such as the boat Titanic, "unsinkable".

what the hell is that supposed to mean ?

It was so solid-----seemed so strong------LOOMED over all of Manhattan

explosive demolitions can do that to a building strong or not

Only if there actually are explosive demolitions. There were none in the WTC in contradiction to you Alex Jones groupies.

and you know this how ?

I read it on the Internet.

 

[Hollie]

 

[eots]

what the hell is that supposed to mean ?

It was so solid-----seemed so strong------LOOMED over all of Manhattan

explosive demolitions can do that to a building strong or not

Only if there actually are explosive demolitions. There were none in the WTC in contradiction to you Alex Jones groupies.

and you know this how ?

I read it on the Internet.

and how did.. what you read on the internet
substantiate this claim ?

 

[eots]

This kind of old news..I think we know by now Alex was right and there were no WMDs and that the cia funds al qaeda..lol so whats your point ?
US secretly backs rebels to fight al-Qaeda in Syria
Sources tell Telegraph that America is backing 'friendly' rebels with millions in cash and non lethal aid to take on extremists in Syria
US secretly backs rebels to fight al-Qaeda in Syria - Telegraph

 

[Hollie]

It was so solid-----seemed so strong------LOOMED over all of Manhattan

explosive demolitions can do that to a building strong or not

Only if there actually are explosive demolitions. There were none in the WTC in contradiction to you Alex Jones groupies.

and you know this how ?

I read it on the Internet.

and how did.. what you read on the internet
substantiate this claim ?

Everything you read on the Internet is true.

 

[Hollie]

This kind of old news..I think we know by now Alex was right and there were no WMDs and that the cia funds al qaeda..lol so whats your point ?
US secretly backs rebels to fight al-Qaeda in Syria
Sources tell Telegraph that America is backing 'friendly' rebels with millions in cash and non lethal aid to take on extremists in Syria
US secretly backs rebels to fight al-Qaeda in Syria - Telegraph

If you read it on the Internet, it must be true.

 

[eots]

explosive demolitions can do that to a building strong or not

Only if there actually are explosive demolitions. There were none in the WTC in contradiction to you Alex Jones groupies.

and you know this how ?

I read it on the Internet.

and how did.. what you read on the internet
substantiate this claim ?

Everything you read on the Internet is true.

I am asking specifically what you read on the internet and how the claim was substantiated are you unable to do that ?

 

[eots]

This kind of old news..I think we know by now Alex was right and there were no WMDs and that the cia funds al qaeda..lol so whats your point ?
US secretly backs rebels to fight al-Qaeda in Syria
Sources tell Telegraph that America is backing 'friendly' rebels with millions in cash and non lethal aid to take on extremists in Syria
US secretly backs rebels to fight al-Qaeda in Syria - Telegraph

If you read it on the Internet, it must be true.

is this your attempt at creating a strawman... its pretty lame

 

[Capstone]

Knowledge of the rudimentary laws of physics was established hundreds of years ago. As far as I know, no internet activity was involved.

 

[irosie91]

for 2.5 seconds-----the CALCULATED velocity of the fall was consistent with
FREE FALL-------that's it-------eodtiot stakes his entire "philosophy" on observation and calculation of a 2.5 second interval? . sheeeeesh

Not just any "2.5 second interval" Rosie; those were 2.25 seconds during which the building's "facade" descended symmetrically for about 105 ft. against zero resistance to the downward motion. That means something on the order of 8 floors were completely removed from the path of descent, either simultaneously or in rapid enough succession to circumvent the resistance that would have otherwise been in effect. The fire-induced progressive collapse model holds no explanatory power for a single inch of that 105+ ft. freefall descent; which is why accepting NIST's explanation is tantamount to rejecting the third law of motion. The significance of that measly "2.5 second interval" can't be overstated.

LOL ---the façade fell freefall? so? it separated from the supporting structures and fell-------like a peach pit off a tower-------I AM SO DAMNED IMPRESSED. The people who fell from the windows of the WTC fell free-fall too

 

[eots]

for 2.5 seconds-----the CALCULATED velocity of the fall was consistent with
FREE FALL-------that's it-------eodtiot stakes his entire "philosophy" on observation and calculation of a 2.5 second interval? . sheeeeesh

Not just any "2.5 second interval" Rosie; those were 2.25 seconds during which the building's "facade" descended symmetrically for about 105 ft. against zero resistance to the downward motion. That means something on the order of 8 floors were completely removed from the path of descent, either simultaneously or in rapid enough succession to circumvent the resistance that would have otherwise been in effect. The fire-induced progressive collapse model holds no explanatory power for a single inch of that 105+ ft. freefall descent; which is why accepting NIST's explanation is tantamount to rejecting the third law of motion. The significance of that measly "2.5 second interval" can't be overstated.

LOL ---the façade fell freefall? so? it separated from the supporting structures and fell-------like a peach pit off a tower-------I AM SO DAMNED IMPRESSED. The people who fell from the windows of the WTC fell free-fall too

 

[eots]

 

[eots]

 

[Capstone]

LOL ---the façade fell freefall? so? it separated from the supporting structures and fell-------like a peach pit off a tower-------I AM SO DAMNED IMPRESSED. The people who fell from the windows of the WTC fell free-fall too

Your cartoonish depiction fails to account for any of the materials in the exterior bearing walls themselves. Contrary to your apparent belief, the so-called "facade" wasn't suspended 8 stories up in mid-air after all of its internal support columns had been taken out allegedly by office fires. No, in line with the official story, it supposedly failed largely under its own weight, meaning the uppe portion would have pulverized the lower portion. Of course, there wouldn't be a problem with that hypothesis, if it weren't for the pesky fact that the exterior bearing walls were also composed of physical materials! Concrete doesn't pulverize concrete at freefall acceleration either, Rosie, at least not outside of Wonderland.