WTC building 7

[daws101]

there was Hollie for 2.5 sec it's a meaningless stat it has no investigative Relevance.

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

the entire collapse was 10 sec you nit-wit

so? it fell down------things fall down. I did not see 7 go down----I saw the other two--------but I cannot calculate that quickly and did not have it on film

lol is there supposed to be a point to this video ?

Your tenuous grip on reality is showing.

 

[daws101]

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

There was no CD speculation is not evidence

 

[daws101]

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.

Bullshit you assholes over state its importance constantly.
its the linchpin of your fantasy.

 

[daws101]

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 alledgedly 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. 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.

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.

I did not see it-----HOWEVER----in order to determine velocity of falling stuff------like a part of a wall-----
one would have to follow a POINT on the wall over time-------and measure distance it fell. distance/time =
velocity. (see? I read the first page) The building was struck with HEAVY falling debris and subject to
a hot shot energy wave when buiding one and two collapsed. It seems logical to me that large chunks
of the façade could have been dislodged -------and then they fell------free fall.------same story for "pulverized"
concrete found------on the ground. Somehow all the TROOOF explanations seem to leave out the fact of
two GIANT PLANES crashing into the buildings. There seems to be lots of pulverized concrete in TIBET---right now--------also "CONTROLLED DEMOLITION"???

no there is no pulverised concrete in tibet only explosive can create that result

False.

 

[daws101]

I did not see it-----HOWEVER----in order to determine velocity of falling stuff------like a part of a wall-----
one would have to follow a POINT on the wall over time-------and measure distance it fell. distance/time =
velocity. (see? I read the first page) The building was struck with HEAVY falling debris and subject to
a hot shot energy wave when buiding one and two collapsed. It seems logical to me that large chunks
of the façade could have been dislodged -------and then they fell------free fall.------same story for "pulverized"
concrete found------on the ground. ...

The structural damage sustained from fallen debris from Tower 1 was asymmetrical and limited to the west side of the south face (where only 7 exerior columns were compromised). Even according to the government's own science lackeys at NIST, beyond supposedly being the site at which the office fires were started, the structural damage itself played no role in the initiation of the collapse. Remember, NIST's multi-stage video analysis involved footage from the "north face" of the building. The notion that highly localized, asymmetrical damage to a handful of exterior columns on the other side of the building could account for the symmetrical drop of the intact bearing walls at gravitational acceleration is beyond all credulity.

...Somehow all the TROOOF explanations seem to leave out the fact of
two GIANT PLANES crashing into the buildings. There seems to be lots of pulverized concrete in TIBET---right now--------also "CONTROLLED DEMOLITION"???

No aircraft/drone struck Building 7; the fires were fuelled by office furnishings (not jet fuel or fuel oil fires); and the damage sustained from fallen debris from Tower 1 was asymmetrical and localized/limited to a handful of exterior columns on the south/west region of the building. That's all according to NIST. None of those purported facts were born in "TWOOF explanations", Rosie.

The simple fact of the matter is that the observed "collapse" (with the 2.25 seconds of freefall admitted by NIST) requires the complete removal of more than 8 stories from the path of descent, by which I mean there could have been no physical interaction between the compositional materials from those floors and the rest of the building (I.E. no crushing, bending, breaking, ETC.). So YES, "controlled demolition" is the only way that could have been done.

Asimetrical just means uneven it has no value in proving a CD or a conspiracy.

 

[daws101]

I have a theory of my own------my theory is based on that which I experienced on 9-12-01. -----after that which I experienced on 9-11-01 On 9-11-01------while getting ready to ALIGHT
the "A" train-----ie the one that runs under the WORLD TRADE CENTER at chambers street------I looked out of my window and saw a THICK PLUME of white smoke rising from the WTC building------the news on TV----a PLANE HIT THE BUILDING ------"oh" thought I-----a poor little piper cub from Teterboro airport ---------someone is dead....... ---It was fascinating sight-----then SUDDENLY a huge flash-----"SECOND PLANE" said the TV ------"terrorism" --
said hubby. "nah" thought I------"the fire jumped"-----"SECOND PLANE" insisted the TV------"oh gee" I thought "TERRORISM" "THE CITY IS UNDER
ATTACK" ---<no going to work today> ----then the rest----bodies on smashed on the ground -----the SKY BLACK etc etc. ---------I have to move out----I have things to do----I have work. -----"OH GEE----dancing on Atlantic Avenue" ------maamoul flying around. Call from relatives in Israel "they're dancing in rammaleh" -----Call from New Jersey "theyre dancing in Paterson, New Jersey. Next day back to work---------Queens, ny "da joooos did it"
da mosssad CALLED EVERY JOOO AND SAID "STAY AWAY FROM THE WTC" --------GEE----NO ONE CALLED ME-----HOW COME? ISRAEL ACTUALLY KNOWS THAT THERE IS AN ISRAELI IN MY HOUSE----AND THEY DID NOT CALL ME-------I GET MAIL FROM THEM NOW AND THEN------AND THEY DID NOT CALL ME. -------next few days------every muslim kid over the age of three----"DA JOOOS DID IT" DA MOSSAD TOLD EVERY JOOOOO" -----------almost 14 years later------the islamo Nazi scum on this board----DA MOSSAD----DA MOSSAD---DA MOSSAD------

what a freak

Oh the irony!

 

[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

There was no CD speculation is not evidence

its the only way to explain a symmetrical free fall collapse...

 

[eots]

NIST has no evidence to support its progressive collapse theory

 

[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.

Bullshit you assholes over state its importance constantly.
its the linchpin of your fantasy.

Its over 100 ft of free fall..hardly measly

 

[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

There was no CD speculation is not evidence

its the only way to explain a symmetrical free fall collapse...

Conspiracy theories don't explain anything. They're formatted to ask questions and suggest a dark, ulterior motive. Just as all your other conspiracy theories do.

 

[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

There was no CD speculation is not evidence

its the only way to explain a symmetrical free fall collapse...

You twoofers manufacture an explanation and then invent data to support the conspiracy laden conjecture.

 

[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

There was no CD speculation is not evidence

its the only way to explain a symmetrical free fall collapse...

You twoofers manufacture an explanation and then invent data to support the conspiracy laden conjecture.

what evidence was manufactured,,what data invented..can you support anything you say?

 

[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

There was no CD speculation is not evidence

its the only way to explain a symmetrical free fall collapse...

Conspiracy theories don't explain anything. They're formatted to ask questions and suggest a dark, ulterior motive. Just as all your other conspiracy theories do.

its not conspiracy theory it is physics and peer reviewed science

 

[Hollie]

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

explosive demolitions can do that to a building strong or not

There was no CD speculation is not evidence

its the only way to explain a symmetrical free fall collapse...

You twoofers manufacture an explanation and then invent data to support the conspiracy laden conjecture.

what evidence was manufactured,,what data invented..can you support anything you say?

I've yet to read a coherent argument for your conspiracy theories. Peer reviewed by peer twoofers is not in any way peer reviewed.

 

[Hollie]

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

explosive demolitions can do that to a building strong or not

There was no CD speculation is not evidence

its the only way to explain a symmetrical free fall collapse...

Conspiracy theories don't explain anything. They're formatted to ask questions and suggest a dark, ulterior motive. Just as all your other conspiracy theories do.

its not conspiracy theory it is physics and peer reviewed science

Your "alternate reality" physics only seems resolvable by the Alex Jones types you're in thrall to.

 

[Capstone]

Its over 100 ft of free fall..hardly measly

As if it shouldn't go without saying, that adjective, as I used it, was dripping with sarcasm.

 

[eots]

explosive demolitions can do that to a building strong or not

There was no CD speculation is not evidence

its the only way to explain a symmetrical free fall collapse...

Conspiracy theories don't explain anything. They're formatted to ask questions and suggest a dark, ulterior motive. Just as all your other conspiracy theories do.

its not conspiracy theory it is physics and peer reviewed science

Your "alternate reality" physics only seems resolvable by the Alex Jones types you're in thrall to.

you say that yet you know its false..you are fully aware many esteemed physicist that support controlled demolition ..that has been well established to any rational person and all you have offered to refute them is NIST and "sciences buffs" that are actually at times contradicting the NIST report to try and refute these facts is one thing but to just post inane denials is really pathetic

 

[Capstone]

...but to just post inane denials is really pathetic

Then again, maybe not. Think about it. If 911ij is right about some of these posers, maybe they're getting paid by response count, as opposed to word count or quality of content, in which case one-liner inanity could be very lucrative!

 

[eots]

explosive demolitions can do that to a building strong or not

There was no CD speculation is not evidence

its the only way to explain a symmetrical free fall collapse...

You twoofers manufacture an explanation and then invent data to support the conspiracy laden conjecture.

what evidence was manufactured,,what data invented..can you support anything you say?

I've yet to read a coherent argument for your conspiracy theories. Peer reviewed by peer twoofers is not in any way peer reviewed.

...but to just post inane denials is really pathetic

Then again, maybe not. If 911ij is right about some these posers, maybe they're getting paid by response count, as opposed to word count or quality of content...

its hard to imagine what else could motivate one to just post inane repeated denials,truly

 

[Hollie]

There was no CD speculation is not evidence

its the only way to explain a symmetrical free fall collapse...

Conspiracy theories don't explain anything. They're formatted to ask questions and suggest a dark, ulterior motive. Just as all your other conspiracy theories do.

its not conspiracy theory it is physics and peer reviewed science

Your "alternate reality" physics only seems resolvable by the Alex Jones types you're in thrall to.

you say that yet you know its false..you are fully aware many esteemed physicist that support controlled demolition ..that has been well established to any rational person and all you have offered to refute them is NIST and "sciences buffs" that are actually at times contradicting the NIST report to try and refute these facts is one thing but to just post inane denials is really pathetic

There was no CD speculation is not evidence

its the only way to explain a symmetrical free fall collapse...

Conspiracy theories don't explain anything. They're formatted to ask questions and suggest a dark, ulterior motive. Just as all your other conspiracy theories do.

its not conspiracy theory it is physics and peer reviewed science

Your "alternate reality" physics only seems resolvable by the Alex Jones types you're in thrall to.

you say that yet you know its false..you are fully aware many esteemed physicist that support controlled demolition ..that has been well established to any rational person and all you have offered to refute them is NIST and "sciences buffs" that are actually at times contradicting the NIST report to try and refute these facts is one thing but to just post inane denials is really pathetic

While you are in denial of contingent reality, your "esteemed Physicists" and the entire Twoofer cult has been marginalized and refuted for a decade now. The Twoofer has been relegated to a conspiracy theory fad that has run its course. Your silly "controlled demolition" conspiracy is no more credible now than it was more than a decade ago when introduced by the quacks and charlatans you gullible types worship.

This helps explain the personality type that so willingly mouths the bait of conspiracy theories:
Six really stupid 9 11 conspiracies debunked in about six seconds

PSYCHOLOGISTS will tell you that even perfectly sane people have the ability to accept wild conspiracy theories. The more powerless or alone we feel, the more likely we are to develop such theories.

It's all linked to self-esteem. If you're the sort of person who feels isolated or disenfranchised, you're much more likely to develop wild theories as a way of making you seem more knowledgeable, more powerful, more special.