anyone ever notice how often truthtards dramatically and with such indignation declare their intent to stop responding to a reality-based person giving them fits and then, without fail, fail to live up to that declaration?
I've seen this about 5000 times. it is almost as common as the popular truther use of strawman arguments, quote mining, assumptions, and all the other silly antics they take part in to maintain their disassociation to reality.
There is a difference between calling someone stupid and "paying to choke someone". The first suggests that you are annoyed with the guy for whatever reason, the second suggests that you are some sort of redneck with an IQ of 70 at best, unable to gasp wtf is wrong with choking someone.
My point is that its a pretty interesting way to fix yourself a moral high ground this way. For all everybody knows and cares, you could be any sort of human trash, but hey. You are still better than "truthers", right?
This is an interesting human feature tho. No matter how much of a fagot one is, he/she always tends to pick on someone he/she perceives as weaker in any form. Kudos bro. You would make an excellent dick warmer in a jail. You have all the personality traits for it
you're the jerkoff who at one point says "Truly a model human arent ya son?" and then you show your ignorant inhumanity with multiple uses of "fagot"
this is why you need to kill yourself as soon as possible. do it now, truthtard.
Remember Building 7 dot org?! What a joke. It's lies and misstatements and false evidence and illogical conclusions and denial of physics and delusions. Stupid paranoid Truthers.
.FBI and Osama? This is typical of you conspiracy theory believers. The issue is the collapse of WTC 7, which is no mystery and which is proven to be well explained by the massive structural damage and raging fires. But Osama was involved in 911, that is proven as well. Americans look stupid and naive when we believe this paranoid delusion that you propose. It's proven by the evidence that there was no controlled demolition, no explosives, no free fall of Bldg 7.
And I did watch the video. Ridiculous! Stupid! Unscientific! You dishonor those who died that day. Nineteen Islamist terrorists did this and you are letting them off the hook. At least the comment thread for your ridiculous conspiracy theories shows many others see how wrong you are.
rememberbuilding7(dot)org On the contrary it's family members themselves who are pushing for a new investigation.
You do realize that In 2006 the FBI admitted they had "no hard evidence linking OBL to the September 11th attacks"? I'm sure you're also aware that the majority of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, so why are we in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya again?
The blind and ignorant continue to hide behind faux patriotism. USA sold itself out years ago...
How deluded do you have to be to say we who are stating the facts are making it up? Well, we can see, very deluded like you. You are using quotes out of context from the NIST report. Stage Two... that means that what you are calling the free fall is not the complete collapse! Deluded? No, that term is too kind for you. Stop this unscientific conglomeration of irrelevant and misleading ideas to justify your refusal to accept the facts.
MsCormik place: "At the time of the fire, the building contained highly combustible exhibits"
The Sight and Sound theater: The fire was caused by WELDING. Figure out how the "brand new" building wasnt even completed.
As for the rest:
Look bro, youtube is FULL with videos UNRELATED to 9/11 approving of the free fall theory. Controlled demolition is like that. Dont know where you got your experience from, but as long you arent on par with reality, i cant really add anything to it.
The lack of evidence cant be counted as evidence bro.
So technically if you cant/dont want to look for videos that undermine what you say, its your problem.
The expansion of explosions is never vertical in the case of the buildings, which (if you had anything at all to do with engieering) you would know.
So jingle jingle, i dont really give a fuck about the opinion of a fagot that claims to be god knows what but is too retarded to hit the search button on youtube.
Congratulations on the double negative bro. So since WTC went down in near free fall speed and controlled demolitions dont have that effect, im sure we are talking about a completely natural phenomena.
As for stuck in childhood. Yes im completely sure that i will place my judgment on the opinion of a homosexual redneck with the nick of uncleasamsnephew666 that has some sort of inferiority complex and enjoy claiming shit over youtube.
"Congratulations on the double negative bro." - care to point it out, truthtard?
"So since WTC went down in near free fall speed and controlled demolitions dont have that effect, im sure we are talking about a completely natural phenomena." - wrong, we are talking about an anomaly with no connection to CD, truthtard.
"fagot" - nice combination of illiteracy and bigotry, truthtard.
"We are talking about an anomaly with no connection to CD"
Actually its quite interesting to watch you counterargument yourself several times within 1 sentence. You just fucked up your own argument about demolition's vertical expanse and raised the whole thing into brand new heights, calling it an "anomaly".
So go on then. Elaborate this "anomaly" for the readers my dear redneck 70 iq friend.
I stated the double negative son. Are you easily confused? You first dissed my argument by saying that CD causes vertical expansion, preventing free fall (which is bullshit on its own) and then you call what happened at WTC a free fall anomaly.
You change your opinion and arguments a bit too much to be considered coherent or mentally healthy for all it matters. Alas your nursery style name calling leaves me cold. Hard to take anything serious from some redneck in puberty
that must be why you said "Congratulations on the double negative" dummy
"...by saying that CD causes vertical expansion" - I never said that, truthtard.
I said the 2.25 sec is an anomaly and FFA does not occur in CD. if this makes you so upset you read things that aren't there and can't figure out what you said and how it makes no sense, get a new hobby
"nursery style name calling" from the jerkoff who calls everyone "fagot" -truthtard irony.
Oh look you are talking in the comments section of a video that contradicts your statement. Maybe you should actually watch it?
In before "everything on youtube is manipulated". And then im the paranoid conspiracy theorist "truthtard" right? See, now thats irony. which reminds me... why are you riding the word fagot so hard in every each of your comments? Could it be that i was actually right with it?
Thank you for creating me an excuse within the same sentence.
As for self deceit. Was a good joke bro. I wasnt the one who claimed all videos on youtube are fake so can be ignored, but you do deserve a pat on the shoulder for trying to turn around the table.
I stay by my statement. grow the fuck up and then give me a call. I cba to argue with someone who has double standards and sucks at trolling at the same time.
"Thank you for creating me an excuse within the same sentence."
no, thank you for making me laugh out loud with yet another meaningless, hopelessly confused thought of yours. they are like gems of unintentional comic brilliance.
"I wasnt the one who claimed all videos on youtube are fake so can be ignored" - nor did I, but why let that stop you from implying I did?
"I stay by my statement" - you have one? how adorable.
mine is that FFA does not occur in CD. what's yours?
"you arrived at a point where you willingly accept the content of the video as information source"
don't you mean you finally got over the typical truthtard all-or-nothing binary thinking and arrived at a point (however briefly) where you recognized where your all-or-nothing assumptions are wrong?
no FFA in CD.
2.25 sec of FFA is accepted by most on both sides.
at 4:05 in this vid, supporting evidence point 1 is a laughable lie.
what was heard 9.5 sec before collapse was visible was the internal collapse that led to the east penthouse collapse. since that event, plus the pause the preceded the rest of the building came down took about 9.5 seconds, that explains it.
the "shockwave" was the internal collapse.
truthers leave out the east penthouse factor all the time. now it seems they are simply pretending it never happened.
No, however what you are saying is that the complete internal structure of the building vanished within 10 seconds without any outside sign except for a few broken windows. Then, after 10 seconds the building came down at nearly ff speed.
"No" - no what? no you don't know about the east penthouse? if not, what?
"what you are saying is that the complete internal structure of the building vanished within 10 seconds..." - no I'm not.
you realize you can ask if I am saying something rather than assume it, don't you?
if you don't know about the east penthouse, not only does that prove the failure of truther "info," it shows why you are so confused about this. look it up. vids on my homepage show its collapse.
here, look at this: watch?v=1bjrAJVp4ds&feature=channel_video_title
the collapse of the building begins at the start of this video. the "main part" of the building does not start to collapse until 8 or 9 seconds into it.
be honest, have you ever seen this before? the vast majority of truther sites leave it out completely.
That is certainly interesting, but you can also see that whatever collapsed in the top left corner, the structure of the building was still intact enough to stop it from collapsing further, and then like at a magic touch, the structure that was solid a moment ago crumbled to dust and didnt stop till the very base of the building.
If you ask my opinion about the video, that very first moment where top left collapsed seemed like a natural collapse. Then stand still and leveled
"That is certainly interesting" - does this mean you've never seen the east penthouse collapse?
I've asked this once already and you didn't answer it. I'd like to address the rest of the points you make in response to the video of the east penthouse, because you raise a good point.
but can you tell me if you've ever seen the east penthouse collapse before? a simple yes or no. this is not a gotcha question, I am legitimately curious if you've seen this before.
The laws of physics made the building collapse from the damage and fires. You believe it was a demolition and you reject all the evidence that proves it was not. You only accept erroneous data and irrational conclusions. As Bill Clinton said, how stupid you are to believe anyone other than those terrorists in those airliners were responsible.
You blather on about the lads of physics but you deny the applications of those in the analysis of the experts. There was no free fall. There was no evidence of explosives and no hallmarks of a controlled demolition. You lie about the NIST report. You deny its conclusions. I watched your video and it proves nothing. Bldg 7 fell because it was weakened by falling debris and fire. Ten floors burned for hours! The collapse was atypical, yes. And architects and fire engineers learned from it.
Don't repeat those erroneous physics quotes that you don't understand yourself. The creator of this video said less than seven seconds which WOULD be free fall but is FALSE, and you say eleven secondary which would NOT be free fall.
@oriolesfan61 i understand them - you clearly do not - and cannot even find the 'reply' button lol
did you watcvh the video I posted? errr no - idiot - nist even admitted free-fall for 2.25 seconds - in stage two as they call it - don't be retarded all your life
@Merlin5by5 post this magic video of yours you keep talking about blue sky - where is this video? lol - is it in space with your black holes and shit? Chandler got nist to admit that free-fall occurred after Sunder had said that free-fall would occur when there were no structural components below - which as any rational person understands , is impossible for a 47 storey buildign with 58 perimeter columns and 24 core columns and 8 floors of beams and connections- newton says no - moron lol
Again, how deluded are you? Not impossible, not mysterious. It's about science and engineering and physics. Read the Popular Mechanics articles, too. You are pathetic, repeating the lies of others, dishonoring those who died that day.
NIST report did NOT admit free fall. Stop repeating the lies of others without verifying their truthfulness yourself. I read the NIST report, all of it. How deluded are you? Two airliners full of fuel hit the Twin Towers on live TV! The fires burned for hours and they collapsed! The debris from the collapses caused fires on almost a dozen floors burning for seven hours. No evidence of exploexplosions.
@oriolesfan61 "NIST report did NOT admit free fall. Stop repeating the lies of others without verifying their truthfulness yourself. I read the NIST report, all of it." then you are more of an idiot than I thought - you cannot derive meaning from written text try watching this series of videos then watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA lol - idiot
NIST admitted free fall for just a portion of the outside wall/parapet, and only for 2.3 seconds, after which the falling parapet wall fell on top of the collapsed inner core columns of WTC 7. The debris pile showed that much, the core columns were on the bottom of the pile. BUT, just to put the steel toes BOOT to your ass, NIST zeroed in on a window just behind the NorthWest parapet DavidRChandler focused on.
That went SKY BLUE, about 6 seconds Before General Collapse started.
@Merlin5by5 a portion? lol - fell off by itself? we can all see the video - are you blind? or just stupid? try watching the video you are talking shit on - and nist zeroed in on nothing - "NIST zeroed in on a window just behind the NorthWest parapet DavidRChandler focused on.
That went SKY BLUE, about 6 seconds Before General Collapse started." post your video of this mr 7 seconds of freefall- the roofline drops as the whole building drops in free-fall - inside job - muppet lol
@Merlin5by5 "Just the northwest parapet wall. The front of the building,
and the external walls had started collapsing earlier, forming the KINK in
the roofline." this desire of your for this to happen does not reflect what occurs in the video we can all see - the whole building drops - the roofline drops as one - you can say that the building was collapsing for as long as you like internally - as per a cd - but the free-fall is measured as the roofline drops - simple - unavoidable -lol
I cant really gasp what makes a person discard all physical facts.
Is it THAT appealing to believe that your life means something to your government?
EVEN IF 9/11 wasnt an inside job, America justified 3'000 deaths with 2'000'000 in Iraq, and then secretly and quickly disposed of Bin Laden's body presenting a 2 year old photo shopped image as proof of his death.
And then people say the nazi germany was terror incarnate...
Ridiculous... you are mass murderers and nothing more
As usual, you pile a whole truckload of HORSECRAP together and expect us NOT to challenge it.
1. It appeals to us that WE know physics better than you know George Bush Hatred politics.
2. America didn't need to justify a thing, SADDAM had already attempted to assasinate TWO american presidents, Clinton and Bush, senior, and thats an act of war, all by itself.
3. Assholes have been claiming that OBL was dead long ago,
but it turns out he was watching PORN just like you do.
it was FIRE and debris damage. i was an eye witness from the liberty street footbridge. there was noises of floors crashing into eachother - like thunder - over and over and over - then the building fell. get it? first steel then facade on video. no bombs. the fire was UNREAL - damage UNREAL - but all on S side. the cams were from the north so u couldnt see.
UNREAL was an early first person shooter for the PC.
A 500'000t building wont collapse in free fall cause a 80t plane hit it.
IF you were right and a plane had such a force of impact that it crashed the entire tower, then it would have happened at impact. Yet what happened at the impact? Nothing. The building swallowed up the plane.
Kerosene burns at 200-250°c whilst construction steel starts to melt at 600°c
Belief is a nice thing. Too bad it has nothing to do with science.
Yes and i bet they all free fall to the ground as they melt.
You can turn this around like a rubic cube as long and as many times you want. Melting and crumbling are two concepts that had nothing to do with the way wtc "free fell" into its own foundations.
Even the idea of melting the entire of the fucking wtc's inside away with no out side sign is as far fetched as fuck, but when you put everything together its a joke and nothing more.
Thing is that all of this was disclosed long ago in "9/11: Blueprint For Truth" which handles about nothing else but scientific evidence.
Conclusively, i throw it right back at ya: It is me who will not give a shit about you living in a dream world, claiming that where the government wont fund an investigation and tell you what to think, the rules of physics wont apply.
NIST and other investigators officially admit that they never even looked for explosives. Thats that.
Oh, and just to leave you with a POISON PILL. The laws of physics apply to Controlled Demolitions also, Junior Woodchuck.
The Building fell according to every known law of physics because its NOT a worthless piece of shit human like you, its a building, dumbass, and it CAN'T break the laws of physics.
IF the building fell as it did from Controlled Demolition, then it broke those same laws of physics you so DUMBLY throw out there.
The INITIATION of the fall is what's in question.duh
NO, JERKWAD, I implied that Buildings Collapse the same way whether human demolition, or Arab Terrorist attack. Once movement downward is initiated, all things fall the same.
And it is a nice job, because unless you had a downward pointed Rocket Engine on the roof of WTC plaza buildings, they would fall just like NIST explains.
Look bro, i aint gonna argue with you. Use google or youtube to find out for yourself whether a building collapses the same way under natural and controlled demolition and dont forget to check whether explosives slow down the process or not.
At this point i cant even believe you made it past pre-school, but combat and industrial engineer? My ass.
If engineers are THIS retarded in your country its a wonder that there are buildings at all.
Don't have to Junior. I can name two or three steel buildings built similar to the WTC towers that collapsed due to fire alone, without the damages done by the 160 Ton Airliners.
McCormick Place in Chicago didn't even last as long as the WTC towers, and it fell in it's own footprint also.
The Sight and Sound theater in Pennsylvania was brand new, newer than the WTC Plaza, and it burned to the ground, in it's own footprint, just prior to the WTC!
If you have issues with concepts involving resistance then you should re-roll school or at least watch some documentary to educate yourself. Collapses follow the path of least resistance which (believe it or not) is NOT through 500'000 ton of reinforced steel and concrete.
Im seriously not going to argue about the laws of physics with someone who seemingly skipped school.
If all of this makes no sense to you then simply assume im trolling and then gtfo.
If buildings always go down straight as you claim, why the fuck is there any need for a job like controlled demolitionist?
I get the part where you say that every documentation, photo and video on the internet about buildings not falling straight into their base is fake and manipulated, but why do demolitionists exist?
I wonder how the heck your country survives on "educated" ppl like you
@Merlin5by5 watch?v=lDnbfXLUyI4 - here's leslie robertson saying there was molten steel - and he built the towers - watch?v=dBNkw2Vvi28 and here the fdny saying that they saw molten steel - of course you have to believe that they are all lying , when they have no reason to - ha - dickhead
@Humantidote Or the fact that Giuliani sent the evidence to China. The reports of foundry like rivers of molten steel? Or Marvin Bush connection? Reports of the planes having no windows or being military. Or the recovered passport from the so called hijackers? Or the scientist, celebrity or public testimony not paid by governments who only have truth, love and questions in there hart? The news reports of building 7 collapsing BEFORE it fell BBC, Reuters?
@Humantidote What about the "put options on United Airlines and American Airlines." Or the lame video footage from the Pentagon? Or CNN, ABC, CBS live coverage and the sky looking like smog on a clear day in NY? Or the testimony from firefighters? or reports of explosions? Or the FACT that NO steel building as EVER COLLAPSED before or since 9/11.01. Or Larry Silverstein's omission that they pulled the building. Or the fact that there is no mention of building 7 in the 9/11 commission report?
Opps, wrong vid. My previous question was referring to a video that says WTC7 was suppose to be hit by plane, but that plane is destroyed by US aircraft that disobey the Government rule by entering air space to combat any lethal enemies. What doesn't make sense, is that is highly confirmed that Missiles is the one hit WTC1 and 2. But why suddenly there's a plane?
Huh? Impossible. The plane was computer graphic according to my solid research. It was missiles that hit WTC 1 and 2. How can they be suddenly a plane? Argh, damnit, is so confusing this matter.....
Wow these theorists have some balls to just straight up lie and say it took 7 seconds when you can watch from the first point it starts to fall to the end and it takes way longer. It doesnt take a genius to know that if there was real evidence u wouldnt need to make up lies.
@911TruthersAreLiars Durp de durp!! They took yar job!! Damn redkneck, just go away. The rest of us are trying to examine evidence that doesn't make sense to us so that we may get some real justice for the thousands of innocent people that lost their lives.
Unfortunately, this general lack of science literacy allows misunderstanding and paranoia to flourish, especially when substantiated by ill conceived factoids found all over the internet. We live in an unprecedented age of access to information but it has been hijacked by fools with theories. No wonder our faith in humanity slides when we surf the internet and get the false impression that such thinking is prevalent. Madness is not reality just cause its advocators are sincere!!
@Humantidote you are so uninformed it is very sad - adn your point about access to info is right - you have the web at your fingertips but choose to be ignorant
@Humantidote Your comment is just vapid and meaningless. You talk about lack of science literacy but don't point to any examples. Then you start talking about the internet in general which is even less relevant. Followed by some illogical theory about access to information causing a sliding faith in humanity.
If you take your head out of the ideological clouds and start looking at the facts you may too have some questions.
What is interesting about this video and others like it is that when asked, the ytube account holder hosting the video never provides proof of his or her authority to make these claims. They never respond to inquiries about the engineering degree they hold or even name the school they graduated from. On the other hand, engineers and experts both government and private sector, who were involved with the NIST report, provide names and credentials that may be confirmed by anyone at any time!! Why!
@Humantidote the yt account holder hasn't logged on for a year - did you not look?
Tell me how it fell and why - remember that fire has never brought a building down before 9/11 - and this one fell at free-fall for 2.25 seconds - free-fall means that gravity was the only force acting on the whole building - how can that be when there were 58 perimeter and 24 core columns ? Did they all vanish? The building collapses as one - as seen in the video - tell me how it happened
@mooners40 I was referring to all of them! the fact that he or she has not logged on is of no consequence! Besides, any message prompts a notification sent to their email address so it is not necessary to log on to see that. Your logic is so skewed! The fact that it was the first bldng to fall from fire is hardly evidence that it could not fall for that reason! NIST had many recommendations based on the design flaws that contributed to the fall. Once initiated, all bldgs free fall with collapse!
And for your information, this one says 2.25 seconds, another ytube vid says 3.2, and another one said 3.8. The one commonality to all of these was each narrator claims that was free fall speed!!
So how many freefall speeds are there?
Your problem is the same mistake that every truther makes. You read about the NIST and other reports only through the argument made by whoever happens to interpret the document.
You should be reading the official doc, not an interpretation by ????????
@Humantidote free-fall acceleration is the rate of gravity - in a vacuum - you should actually watch this and try and understand - Chandler's videos on it will explain it better perhaps ? - Griffin takes the nist report and points out the contradictions and outright lies - you would know this had you read it - and his being a theologian is irrelevant - his logic and deduction are impeccable and his source material is cited - nist is a politically appointed and motivated team of liars
@mooners40 The NIST REPORT is a cooperative of both public and private sector professional engineers. Not politically appointed! I can recall every physics formula we had to memorize for the exams when I was earning my science degree and can easily recall the freefall acceleration speed of gravity in the absence of air resistance! His being a theologian is irrelevant! What is relevant is his lack of a science degree! That same "impeccable" logic Griffin uses to prove the earth is 6500 yrs old!
@Humantidote you are attacking his character - ad hominem - can you prove that he thinks the earth is 6500 yrs old? The head of nist is a presidential appointee - and if yyou had read griffin's book , you liar, you would know all this . Try reading
and free-fall means zero resistance - how can such a huge building offer zero resistance and have a symmetrical roof-line as it free-falls? Where is the fire that caused this and why has there never been such a thing before or after 9/11?
Dr Arden Bement PhD Metallurgy was the appointed director during the bulk of time WTC was investigated along with the usual workload. Shyam Sunder (not appointed by pres) was the head of WTC investigation that included some of the 3000 Engineers and technicians and other scientists (none appointed politically) that make up main body of NIST. Significant input also came from engineers and other experts from outside NIST!! So far that is one person appointed and 3000 plus that were not!
Arlington, Va.—President Bush on Nov. 24 officially appointed Arden L. Bement, Jr., as the 12th director of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education across nearly all fields of science and engineering." nsf dot gov the one in charge calls the shots - understand? And Griffin's views on theology are not relevant to 9/11
@mooners40 The NSF appointment came after his overseeing of the NIST review of WTC collapse. Bement is an economist and his job with the NIST's WTC report was to keep it on budget! His new job was an appt but not the NIST job! So what "shots" is he calling from over there after the Report was done? And BTW you said called me a liar, that Grif does not believe in the god and the bible that said that god created the world and everything around it 6500 yrs ago (roughly) so I did. R U an IDIOT??
@Humantidote you did not prove that griffin thinks the world is 6500 years old - read what you wrote - an dyou attack what griffin;s books are about and the man himself - and said that you have read his book on wtc7 and you have not - so you are a liar and an idiot - as i asked you - show me the fire and show me a precedent in 100 years of steel framed buildings and fires - zero have fallen completely like wtc7 - even nist say that the diesel tanks had zero to do with the fire - ignoramus
@mooners40 Obviously, this whole 9/11 thing is about you! You have invested so much of your reason into the inside job theory that you can't even consider what's wrong with it just like religious fanatics who feel the slightest disruption to their faith will bring it all crashing down! So you call everyone liars and stupid as a last resort when you have nothing real for defense! It is funny to read how you combat invisible fires by claiming silent bombs! Who you are is defined by conspiracy now!
@Humantidote you have clearly zero idea about 9/11 and have looked at zero of the evidence and have been brainwashed by the media coverage of it - you need to check your reality and realise that the laws of physics , which are immutable , would have to change for what we are fed as truth about 9/11 to be true
fire cannot melt iron - buildings cannot free-fall because of invisible fires and the upper floors of the towers cannot destroy the lower floors - they are exploding
@mooners40 I thought of an experiment that will clear this thing up once and for all!!!
If we can gather up all the truthers and others who say that fires could not cause the collapse, we can finance the engineers for truth to set up some reasonably sized load, preferably concrete, and support it with iron rails built according to the load specifications similar to the design of WTC1/2. Then get all the people to stand under it while they hold torches to the steel until it reaches the same temp!
@Humantidote what happened to flight 93? all that was left was a hole in the ground, a whole plane and all its luggage and passengers disintegrated into soft earth! only in america!
@choclatesaltyballz That is one of the worst myths of 9/11! They recovered 95% of the wreckage and 100% of the victims!! All the passengers were identified including the highjackers!
Check the flight 93 video in my channel favourites!
@mooners40 That way, if you all live, you will have all the proof you need! And if not, well, there will be a lot more intelligent conversation on the internet and everywhere else! Plus, you will be famous for the Darwin Award you win!
Your names shall all be inscribed on some expensive, fancy, respectful plaque and we can mount it on the side of the concrete block under the epitaph, "Here Lie All The Stupid, But Brave Souls, Silenced Forever On MM/DD/YYYY".
@Humantidote tell me how wtc7 fell at free-fall acceleration - the rate of gravity - acted on by no other force other than gravity - a 47 storey building - with 24 core columns and 58 perimeter columns - you might say it was the organic process of a fire - none has done this before to a building - show me the fire - where is the fire ? show me and tell me how it fell - maybe bin laden made it free-fall eh?
@mooners40 I accept the NIST report on WTC7. The burden of proof is your business if you disagree with it you hypocrite! Besides, proof is not what you are interested in, you just need vindication that everything you think is right. You obviously did not watch the video, you just erased my comment so go away hypocrite and waste somebody else's time with your lack of knowledge about science and obvious lack of vision. Maybe someday you will start thinking for yourself rather than repeating others
@Humantidote reply to my post - he nist report is lies - and is unscientific and false - and you should be enraged and asking questions - yet you lie and say you've read it - you are part of the problem - try and be part of the solution -
reply to my post or you fail idiot - think about that
@mooners40 The following taken from Dr. Griffs theology books! Dr. G REJECTS the idea that there is NO theistic or directing influence in our universe! He rejects notion that natural selection was a lone force acting on evolution or done gradually, slowly, step by step! Dr. G believes god is internal, and the very soul of the universe! Or in plain terms, Dr. G believes we are here NOT by gradual natural selection but through direct manipulation BY the hand of God! And that is non-science!!!
@mooners40 So unless you consider one man out of 3000 enough to call the 109 year old NIST organization a "politically appointed and motivated team of liars" which during its history had 3 nobel prize winners among its staff, and Dr Griffins religious beliefs compatible with science, then you are the one who ought to read something. And yes, freefall continues once initiated! Gravity takes over after supporting structure weakened by fire or explosives! What do you think happens, moron?
@Humantidote gravity cannot be the only force acting on a 47 storey building - the structure has to be taken away for free-fall to occur - this is very simple - like you -
"free-fall continues once initiated? " What can initiate free-fall? Even known demolitions don't free-fall - Fire is an organic process that moves from fuel to fuel - do you see any fire when it falls? Can you post a vid of wtc7 on fire ?- remember smoke is not fire - how can fire initiate free-fall? Tell me
@Obacoomb I'm saying that it was such a good controlled demo that it was in free-fall - an implosion that sucked it down - the free-fall is observable and measurable
watch?v=GlCyDlFE5nU this the most likely scenario - and it is backed up by physical evidence and news reports - and eye witness-
the conspirators put nano-thermite in the towers and made buildings defy physics - and told everyone they were falling as they exploded all over Manhattan - yes the conspirators did it - not obl
@Obacoomb my age has nothing to with anything - do you think invisible fires make buildings free-fall? check your reality and look into 9/11 - and read - if you can
@Obacoomb even nist states that damage from debris from the towers did nothing to initiate collapse - there was no missing facade - take your jokes elsewhere
@mooners40 so, you cite the same organization you say that is lying?? but i guess you're right; placing "nano-thermite" inside the buildings is must more plausible than damage from a 110 story building collapsing on top of it
@Obacoomb nist says a lot - when it contradicts itself a lie can be found - when it is forced to make a statement that can be corroborated and checked out then it must be the truth - nist does not lie all the time - can you understand that ? And if i quote someone to show where the lie is it doesn't mean that that person or body is someone i fully endorse or that the person or body always lies - it means that i am pointing out that lie - got it?
@mooners40 you cannot selectively use the NIST as being both credible and not credible. Do you have any credentials at all related to physics, applied science or structural engineering? or do you just repeat the things you have read on websites created by "professionals"
@Obacoomb you haven't even watched the chandler free-fall videos have you ? go watch them - the laws of physics are freely available to those who can understand them - and free-fall is impossible without the structure being taken away at almost exactly the same time - can you understand that ? can you go watch that series of vids and try and understand? And as per Nist , i reserve the right to point out inconsistencies and lies in what they say - they purport to tell truth
@Obacoomb And if i quote someone to show where the lie is it doesn't mean that that person or body is someone i fully endorse or that the person or body always lies - it means that i am pointing out that lie - got it?
@mooners40 i'll ask you again because you ignored it the first time: Do you have any experience with Physics, Applied Sciences or Structural Engineering? I suspect you are blindly quoting the "laws of physics" without even understanding them
@Obacoomb lol - why do you talk shit? tell me how this building fell - you can't even watch a series of videos to inform yourself or read anything and you want to attack me and the message that buildings cannot free-fall without the support being taken away ? - lol - you know fuck all about physics moron
@mooners40 all I saw from that post was a bunch of nonsense from a guy preaching way above his understanding of what really happened. You quote people with no expertise on anything and attempt to refute what the actual professionals say. No matter what I say you will include some form of assumptive evidence to further your fabricated story of what you think happened. you do not know what you are talking about. you do not understand physics (the mathematical derivations) you are an ignorant fool
@Obacoomb you replied to no points - you're really shit at this - tell me why this building was in free-fall - do you even know that it entered free-fall for 2,25 seconds?
This is a fact whether I'm a physicist or a teddy bear - can you understand this?
@Obacoomb why do ignore my questions? When you fail to answer you exhibit failure - and capitol letters aren't scaring anyone doltboy - what made this building free-fall ? Bin Laden?
@Obacoomb debris damage did nothing to initiate collapse - and even if it had damage on one side would make the building fall to that side - wtc7 falls as seen in this video - with a symmetrical flat roof-line - to achieve this all support must fail at the same time - this can only be done with explosives - a fire cannot cause such a failure - do you see a fire in this video ? Show me the fire and a precedent for such a collapse - after 100 years of steel framed buildings not one did this
@mooners40 Either you blow the main supporting structure out in the lowest part of it so that the weight brings it down, or a fire weakens the same supporting structure and reaches point where weight brings building down! You think that fire would make a building like 7 come down by turning beams into spagetti, while building falls slowly like a melting candle! Explosive demolitions only need to weaken the lowest part of the bldg! The bigger the bldg, the easier!!
@mooners40 Whether fire or explosives in the lower basement supports do the weakening, it is gravity that brings it crashing down after the critical weakening point allows it, the straw that breaks the backbone of the building! Then it free falls! You keep looking at vids of relatively smaller buildings or tall skinny ones with not much wieght, so more explosives needed on higher floors to do the same thing. The org process in 7 literally moved from diesel FUEL tank to FUEL tank in basement!!
@mooners40 Everything you keep coming up with goes fucking nowhere! Are you not at least beginning to see that? I explain things and you keep dodging around with pretty naive questions and accusations that are unfounded. All you can say for proof is "oh but Dr G says" , "you haven't read this by Dr G", and "Dr G proved it", a man with a layman's unde
Thanks
abeldanger(dot)net
OttoLund 1 week ago
More info than the totally unpeer reviewed nist official report.
zenoist2 2 months ago
things are gonna get mighty rough ... here in Gomorrah-By-The-Sea
ryanshaunkelly 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Muslims did it!
/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o /watch?v=5qFsjdymqSk /watch?v=KhdppHwUJ9k /watch?v=zhnNy5EsebA /watch?v=iGqjzFQvfdI /watch?v=WxqoChniKVU /watch?v=9QWvkAgyIY4 /watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY /watch?v=HfmliaqIRBE /watch?v=HSjDCwN2i3w /watch?v=8XRMrMdn0NQ /watch?v=wKuLUu7SQU4
megamogx 4 months ago
anyone ever notice how often truthtards dramatically and with such indignation declare their intent to stop responding to a reality-based person giving them fits and then, without fail, fail to live up to that declaration?
I've seen this about 5000 times. it is almost as common as the popular truther use of strawman arguments, quote mining, assumptions, and all the other silly antics they take part in to maintain their disassociation to reality.
remember: jared loughner was a truthtard, too.
unclesamsnephew666 5 months ago
@jumpinhowlin
Didnt meet such ppl, and i disagree with them.
Aerensiniac 6 months ago
@jumpinhowlin
There is a difference between calling someone stupid and "paying to choke someone". The first suggests that you are annoyed with the guy for whatever reason, the second suggests that you are some sort of redneck with an IQ of 70 at best, unable to gasp wtf is wrong with choking someone.
Just sayin.
Aerensiniac 6 months ago
@jumpinhowlin
My point is that its a pretty interesting way to fix yourself a moral high ground this way. For all everybody knows and cares, you could be any sort of human trash, but hey. You are still better than "truthers", right?
This is an interesting human feature tho. No matter how much of a fagot one is, he/she always tends to pick on someone he/she perceives as weaker in any form. Kudos bro. You would make an excellent dick warmer in a jail. You have all the personality traits for it
Aerensiniac 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aerensiniac
you're the jerkoff who at one point says "Truly a model human arent ya son?" and then you show your ignorant inhumanity with multiple uses of "fagot"
this is why you need to kill yourself as soon as possible. do it now, truthtard.
unclesamsnephew666 6 months ago
@jumpinhowlin
That suggests you already are done with rape, pedophilia, animal abuse and god knows what ever else.
Truly a model human arent ya son?
Aerensiniac 6 months ago
Remember Building 7 dot org?! What a joke. It's lies and misstatements and false evidence and illogical conclusions and denial of physics and delusions. Stupid paranoid Truthers.
oriolesfan61 7 months ago
.FBI and Osama? This is typical of you conspiracy theory believers. The issue is the collapse of WTC 7, which is no mystery and which is proven to be well explained by the massive structural damage and raging fires. But Osama was involved in 911, that is proven as well. Americans look stupid and naive when we believe this paranoid delusion that you propose. It's proven by the evidence that there was no controlled demolition, no explosives, no free fall of Bldg 7.
oriolesfan61 7 months ago
And I did watch the video. Ridiculous! Stupid! Unscientific! You dishonor those who died that day. Nineteen Islamist terrorists did this and you are letting them off the hook. At least the comment thread for your ridiculous conspiracy theories shows many others see how wrong you are.
oriolesfan61 7 months ago
@oriolesfan61
rememberbuilding7(dot)org On the contrary it's family members themselves who are pushing for a new investigation.
You do realize that In 2006 the FBI admitted they had "no hard evidence linking OBL to the September 11th attacks"? I'm sure you're also aware that the majority of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, so why are we in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya again?
The blind and ignorant continue to hide behind faux patriotism. USA sold itself out years ago...
HKmaroLS1 7 months ago
How deluded do you have to be to say we who are stating the facts are making it up? Well, we can see, very deluded like you. You are using quotes out of context from the NIST report. Stage Two... that means that what you are calling the free fall is not the complete collapse! Deluded? No, that term is too kind for you. Stop this unscientific conglomeration of irrelevant and misleading ideas to justify your refusal to accept the facts.
oriolesfan61 7 months ago
MsCormik place: "At the time of the fire, the building contained highly combustible exhibits"
The Sight and Sound theater: The fire was caused by WELDING. Figure out how the "brand new" building wasnt even completed.
As for the rest:
Look bro, youtube is FULL with videos UNRELATED to 9/11 approving of the free fall theory. Controlled demolition is like that. Dont know where you got your experience from, but as long you arent on par with reality, i cant really add anything to it.
Aerensiniac 7 months ago
@Aerensiniac
WTC bldngs were all full of combustibles.
S&S Theater...what was complete, collapsed
"Look bro, youtube is FULL with videos UNRELATED to 9/11 approving of the free fall theory. Controlled demolition is like that"
what does this nonsense even mean? none of the 3 buildings fell at free fall acceleration, other than 2.25 sec of it at WTC 7.
in CD, FFA does not occur. FACT.
btw, you got crushed in 3 EZ lessons. you're in way over your head, my little hungarian truther nitwit.
unclesamsnephew666 7 months ago
@unclesamsnephew666
"none of the 3 buildings fell at free fall acceleration, other than 2.25 sec of it at WTC 7"
To me it seems you are making shit up. No offense.
Aerensiniac 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aerensiniac
"To me it seems you are making shit up."
coming from a truthtard, that makes me feel great!
if you know of any other instance of free fall acceleration, I'm open to the inevitable hilarity.
2.25 sec at WTC 7, nothing else.
what have YOU got to counter that, truther?
unclesamsnephew666 7 months ago
@unclesamsnephew666
The lack of evidence cant be counted as evidence bro.
So technically if you cant/dont want to look for videos that undermine what you say, its your problem.
The expansion of explosions is never vertical in the case of the buildings, which (if you had anything at all to do with engieering) you would know.
So jingle jingle, i dont really give a fuck about the opinion of a fagot that claims to be god knows what but is too retarded to hit the search button on youtube.
Aerensiniac 6 months ago
@Aerensiniac
seen all the videos, truthtard.
FFA does not occur in controlled demo. no matter how much you dont want that to be true, it is.
"...of a fagot that claims..." - another truthtard bigot stuck in childhood.
kill yourself.
unclesamsnephew666 6 months ago
@unclesamsnephew666
Congratulations on the double negative bro. So since WTC went down in near free fall speed and controlled demolitions dont have that effect, im sure we are talking about a completely natural phenomena.
As for stuck in childhood. Yes im completely sure that i will place my judgment on the opinion of a homosexual redneck with the nick of uncleasamsnephew666 that has some sort of inferiority complex and enjoy claiming shit over youtube.
I Respect your trolling skills fagot.
Aerensiniac 6 months ago
@Aerensiniac
"Congratulations on the double negative bro." - care to point it out, truthtard?
"So since WTC went down in near free fall speed and controlled demolitions dont have that effect, im sure we are talking about a completely natural phenomena." - wrong, we are talking about an anomaly with no connection to CD, truthtard.
"fagot" - nice combination of illiteracy and bigotry, truthtard.
so when are you going to kill yourself, jerkoff?
unclesamsnephew666 6 months ago
@unclesamsnephew666
"We are talking about an anomaly with no connection to CD"
Actually its quite interesting to watch you counterargument yourself several times within 1 sentence. You just fucked up your own argument about demolition's vertical expanse and raised the whole thing into brand new heights, calling it an "anomaly".
So go on then. Elaborate this "anomaly" for the readers my dear redneck 70 iq friend.
Aerensiniac 6 months ago
@Aerensiniac
the 2.25 sec of free fall is the anomaly, truthtard. are you this easily confused? no wonder you're a truthtard, truthtard.
now what is the double negative you keep babbling about?
also, truther irony is something to behold. for example, a truthtard who uses the word "fagot" calling someone else a redneck. too funny.
you should tattoo clown makeup to your face, truthtard.
unclesamsnephew666 6 months ago
@unclesamsnephew666
I stated the double negative son. Are you easily confused? You first dissed my argument by saying that CD causes vertical expansion, preventing free fall (which is bullshit on its own) and then you call what happened at WTC a free fall anomaly.
You change your opinion and arguments a bit too much to be considered coherent or mentally healthy for all it matters. Alas your nursery style name calling leaves me cold. Hard to take anything serious from some redneck in puberty
Aerensiniac 5 months ago
@Aerensiniac
"I stated the double negative son."
that must be why you said "Congratulations on the double negative" dummy
"...by saying that CD causes vertical expansion" - I never said that, truthtard.
I said the 2.25 sec is an anomaly and FFA does not occur in CD. if this makes you so upset you read things that aren't there and can't figure out what you said and how it makes no sense, get a new hobby
"nursery style name calling" from the jerkoff who calls everyone "fagot" -truthtard irony.
unclesamsnephew666 5 months ago
@unclesamsnephew666
"FFA does not occur in CD"
Oh look you are talking in the comments section of a video that contradicts your statement. Maybe you should actually watch it?
In before "everything on youtube is manipulated". And then im the paranoid conspiracy theorist "truthtard" right? See, now thats irony. which reminds me... why are you riding the word fagot so hard in every each of your comments? Could it be that i was actually right with it?
You are still too underage for this convo son
Aerensiniac 5 months ago
@Aerensiniac
"you are talking in the comments section of a video that contradicts your statement"
yes, and as everyone knows, a you tube video is the last word on everything.
...as long as it is what a truthtard wants to believe, of course. then the accuracy cannot be questioned. how convenient.
now, what is it that I didn't say in this post that you'll whine like a cunt about in the response?
you really don't understand the irony of using "fagot" and then calling me a redneck? haha!
unclesamsnephew666 5 months ago
@unclesamsnephew666
I see.
I thought you are someone who is placing his belief on arguments and logic.
Seems you are nothing but an anti-truthtard. Same conspiracy theorist, ignorant shit head, but in the opposing direction.
I wonder what made me think that you are logical person in the first line... hmm. Maybe im in the wrong channel.
Well either way.
With you openly admitting that the source of your opinion is rooted in bias this talk has no base anymore.
Call me when you managed to grow up
Aerensiniac 5 months ago
@Aerensiniac
"Same conspiracy theorist, ignorant shit head, but..."
looks like I just tricked you into admitting you are a conspiritard, ignorant shithead.
HAHAHA!!! too easy.
remember when I said "now, what is it that I didn't say in this post that you'll whine like a cunt about in the response?"
like a champ, you never disappoint: "With you openly admitting that the source of your opinion is rooted in bias"
your self-deceit is stronger than most, twoofy-boy. thx for the laughs.
unclesamsnephew666 5 months ago
@unclesamsnephew666
"i tricked you into"
Thank you for creating me an excuse within the same sentence.
As for self deceit. Was a good joke bro. I wasnt the one who claimed all videos on youtube are fake so can be ignored, but you do deserve a pat on the shoulder for trying to turn around the table.
I stay by my statement. grow the fuck up and then give me a call. I cba to argue with someone who has double standards and sucks at trolling at the same time.
Aerensiniac 5 months ago
@Aerensiniac
"Thank you for creating me an excuse within the same sentence."
no, thank you for making me laugh out loud with yet another meaningless, hopelessly confused thought of yours. they are like gems of unintentional comic brilliance.
"I wasnt the one who claimed all videos on youtube are fake so can be ignored" - nor did I, but why let that stop you from implying I did?
"I stay by my statement" - you have one? how adorable.
mine is that FFA does not occur in CD. what's yours?
unclesamsnephew666 5 months ago
@unclesamsnephew666
"nor did I, but why let that stop you from implying I did?"
Your exact words were:
"yes, and as everyone knows, a you tube video is the last word on everything"
So then care to explain with what logic did you reject the very video you are commenting on again?
Aerensiniac 5 months ago
@Aerensiniac
correct, I did say "yes, and as everyone knows, a you tube video is the last word on everything"
but only someone dumb, desperate and hysterical enough to be a truthtard would equate that with:
"all videos on youtube are fake so can be ignored"
(key word in your erroneous nonsense being "all")
so it's clear you desperately need to get your emotions under control and stop reacting like a broad on the rag.
unclesamsnephew666 5 months ago
@unclesamsnephew666
"stop reacting like a broad on the rag."
What for? In the end you arrived at a point where you willingly accept the content of the video as information source.
Half the struggle, five times the success.
Now at least you can elaborate it for me why this clip needs to be excluded from any sort of reasoning and why WTC didnt FF.
Aerensiniac 5 months ago
@Aerensiniac
"you arrived at a point where you willingly accept the content of the video as information source"
don't you mean you finally got over the typical truthtard all-or-nothing binary thinking and arrived at a point (however briefly) where you recognized where your all-or-nothing assumptions are wrong?
no FFA in CD.
2.25 sec of FFA is accepted by most on both sides.
at 4:05 in this vid, supporting evidence point 1 is a laughable lie.
this vid is worthless.
unclesamsnephew666 5 months ago
@Aerensiniac
what was heard 9.5 sec before collapse was visible was the internal collapse that led to the east penthouse collapse. since that event, plus the pause the preceded the rest of the building came down took about 9.5 seconds, that explains it.
the "shockwave" was the internal collapse.
truthers leave out the east penthouse factor all the time. now it seems they are simply pretending it never happened.
do you know about the east penthouse?
unclesamsnephew666 5 months ago
@unclesamsnephew666
No, however what you are saying is that the complete internal structure of the building vanished within 10 seconds without any outside sign except for a few broken windows. Then, after 10 seconds the building came down at nearly ff speed.
So how... "common" is such an occurrence?
Aerensiniac 5 months ago
@Aerensiniac
"No" - no what? no you don't know about the east penthouse? if not, what?
"what you are saying is that the complete internal structure of the building vanished within 10 seconds..." - no I'm not.
you realize you can ask if I am saying something rather than assume it, don't you?
if you don't know about the east penthouse, not only does that prove the failure of truther "info," it shows why you are so confused about this. look it up. vids on my homepage show its collapse.
unclesamsnephew666 5 months ago
@Aerensiniac
here, look at this: watch?v=1bjrAJVp4ds&feature=channel_video_title
the collapse of the building begins at the start of this video. the "main part" of the building does not start to collapse until 8 or 9 seconds into it.
be honest, have you ever seen this before? the vast majority of truther sites leave it out completely.
unclesamsnephew666 5 months ago
@unclesamsnephew666
That is certainly interesting, but you can also see that whatever collapsed in the top left corner, the structure of the building was still intact enough to stop it from collapsing further, and then like at a magic touch, the structure that was solid a moment ago crumbled to dust and didnt stop till the very base of the building.
If you ask my opinion about the video, that very first moment where top left collapsed seemed like a natural collapse. Then stand still and leveled
Aerensiniac 5 months ago
@Aerensiniac
"That is certainly interesting" - does this mean you've never seen the east penthouse collapse?
I've asked this once already and you didn't answer it. I'd like to address the rest of the points you make in response to the video of the east penthouse, because you raise a good point.
but can you tell me if you've ever seen the east penthouse collapse before? a simple yes or no. this is not a gotcha question, I am legitimately curious if you've seen this before.
unclesamsnephew666 5 months ago
@Aerensiniac I agree, unclesamsnephew666 is a joke.
DesmoRob 5 months ago
Oh, by the way, why don't you ask the engineers in YOUR country?
I don't remember THEM endorsing a controlled demolition.
I don't remember THEM suggesting a giant secret NWO whatever.
MAYBE it's because they can add and subtract,
and you obviously can't.
Merlin5by5 7 months ago
The laws of physics made the building collapse from the damage and fires. You believe it was a demolition and you reject all the evidence that proves it was not. You only accept erroneous data and irrational conclusions. As Bill Clinton said, how stupid you are to believe anyone other than those terrorists in those airliners were responsible.
oriolesfan61 7 months ago
You blather on about the lads of physics but you deny the applications of those in the analysis of the experts. There was no free fall. There was no evidence of explosives and no hallmarks of a controlled demolition. You lie about the NIST report. You deny its conclusions. I watched your video and it proves nothing. Bldg 7 fell because it was weakened by falling debris and fire. Ten floors burned for hours! The collapse was atypical, yes. And architects and fire engineers learned from it.
oriolesfan61 7 months ago
Don't repeat those erroneous physics quotes that you don't understand yourself. The creator of this video said less than seven seconds which WOULD be free fall but is FALSE, and you say eleven secondary which would NOT be free fall.
oriolesfan61 7 months ago
@oriolesfan61 i understand them - you clearly do not - and cannot even find the 'reply' button lol
did you watcvh the video I posted? errr no - idiot - nist even admitted free-fall for 2.25 seconds - in stage two as they call it - don't be retarded all your life
mooners40 7 months ago
@mooners40
They (NIST) also posted that WTC 7 was a "Hollow Shell" on page 22 of
NCSTAR 1A, before general collapse began, and noted three kinds of
evidence to support it. Do you remember that?
1. The Debris pile, where the exterior walls sat on TOP of the internal columns
2. The collapse of the East Penthouse into the Building.
3. They zoomed into a window ON DavidRChandler's VIDEO,
THAT went sky blue 6 seconds before general collapse began.
David got his ass handed to him here 3 years ago.
Merlin5by5 7 months ago
@Merlin5by5 post this magic video of yours you keep talking about blue sky - where is this video? lol - is it in space with your black holes and shit? Chandler got nist to admit that free-fall occurred after Sunder had said that free-fall would occur when there were no structural components below - which as any rational person understands , is impossible for a 47 storey buildign with 58 perimeter columns and 24 core columns and 8 floors of beams and connections- newton says no - moron lol
mooners40 7 months ago
@mooners40
It's a composite of videos, Dumbshit. Several Videos were the source, and
it starts with Figure 1-40 in NCSTAR 1-9, The first 2006 report on WTC 7.
You know, the basic report that your INCREDIBLE research didn't involve
reading? SHAYAM SUNDER was TRYING to point out how stupid the
claim was, NOT that he believed it, super-genius. Typical of a truther
to twist that into SUNDER testifying on YOUR behalf, LOL.
SUNDER's Report CHARTED the WTC 7 collapse 4 years before
DavidRChandler.
Merlin5by5 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Again, How stupid do you have to believe that
oriolesfan61 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"NIST zeroed in on a window just behind the NorthWest parapet DavidRChandler focused on.
That went SKY BLUE, about 6 seconds Before General Collapse started." post your video of this mr 7 seconds of freefall-
mooners40 7 months ago
Again, how deluded are you? Not impossible, not mysterious. It's about science and engineering and physics. Read the Popular Mechanics articles, too. You are pathetic, repeating the lies of others, dishonoring those who died that day.
oriolesfan61 7 months ago
@oriolesfan61 science engineering and physics prove an inside job - and popular mechanics are full of shit
mooners40 7 months ago
NIST report did NOT admit free fall. Stop repeating the lies of others without verifying their truthfulness yourself. I read the NIST report, all of it. How deluded are you? Two airliners full of fuel hit the Twin Towers on live TV! The fires burned for hours and they collapsed! The debris from the collapses caused fires on almost a dozen floors burning for seven hours. No evidence of exploexplosions.
oriolesfan61 7 months ago
@oriolesfan61 "NIST report did NOT admit free fall. Stop repeating the lies of others without verifying their truthfulness yourself. I read the NIST report, all of it." then you are more of an idiot than I thought - you cannot derive meaning from written text try watching this series of videos then watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA lol - idiot
mooners40 7 months ago
Was NOT free fall! Took 12 seconds. Stop repeating the lies of others without verifying their truthfulness yourself.
oriolesfan61 8 months ago
@oriolesfan61 don't talk shit - nist even admitted free-fall - and it's impossible
mooners40 7 months ago
@mooners40
NIST admitted free fall for just a portion of the outside wall/parapet, and only for 2.3 seconds, after which the falling parapet wall fell on top of the collapsed inner core columns of WTC 7. The debris pile showed that much, the core columns were on the bottom of the pile. BUT, just to put the steel toes BOOT to your ass, NIST zeroed in on a window just behind the NorthWest parapet DavidRChandler focused on.
That went SKY BLUE, about 6 seconds Before General Collapse started.
Merlin5by5 7 months ago
@Merlin5by5 a portion? lol - fell off by itself? we can all see the video - are you blind? or just stupid? try watching the video you are talking shit on - and nist zeroed in on nothing - "NIST zeroed in on a window just behind the NorthWest parapet DavidRChandler focused on.
That went SKY BLUE, about 6 seconds Before General Collapse started." post your video of this mr 7 seconds of freefall- the roofline drops as the whole building drops in free-fall - inside job - muppet lol
mooners40 7 months ago
@mooners40
Oh yeah, dumbshit. Just the northwest parapet wall. The front of the building,
and the external walls had started collapsing earlier, forming the KINK in
the roofline. The Timeline for WTC 7 collapse and the data points used
for that analysis, are in NCSTAR 1A, page 46, Figure 3-15,
charted in 2004, it patiently explains that the building was falling
for EIGHT seconds before DavidRChandler even begins his timer.
Simple, Huh?
Merlin5by5 7 months ago
@Merlin5by5 "Just the northwest parapet wall. The front of the building,
and the external walls had started collapsing earlier, forming the KINK in
the roofline." this desire of your for this to happen does not reflect what occurs in the video we can all see - the whole building drops - the roofline drops as one - you can say that the building was collapsing for as long as you like internally - as per a cd - but the free-fall is measured as the roofline drops - simple - unavoidable -lol
mooners40 7 months ago
@mooners40
LMAO, The Fall chart in NCSTAR 1A is from the roofline, MORON.
Quote, "The computed fall time calculated from VIDEO evidence is about 40%
longer than free fall for the first 18 floors.", page 45 in NCSTAR 1A
Merlin5by5 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@oriolesfan61 Was NOT free fall! Took 12 seconds. Stop repeating the lies of others without verifying their truthfulness yourself.
newton's third law precludes the free-fall of a building - try and understand - and wtach the video on which you are commenting - try it
mooners40 7 months ago
It's cause we're so good at denial - it's one of our best developed survival instincts.
jpenneyatyahoodotcom 8 months ago
I cant really gasp what makes a person discard all physical facts.
Is it THAT appealing to believe that your life means something to your government?
EVEN IF 9/11 wasnt an inside job, America justified 3'000 deaths with 2'000'000 in Iraq, and then secretly and quickly disposed of Bin Laden's body presenting a 2 year old photo shopped image as proof of his death.
And then people say the nazi germany was terror incarnate...
Ridiculous... you are mass murderers and nothing more
Aerensiniac 8 months ago
@Aerensiniac
As usual, you pile a whole truckload of HORSECRAP together and expect us NOT to challenge it.
1. It appeals to us that WE know physics better than you know George Bush Hatred politics.
2. America didn't need to justify a thing, SADDAM had already attempted to assasinate TWO american presidents, Clinton and Bush, senior, and thats an act of war, all by itself.
3. Assholes have been claiming that OBL was dead long ago,
but it turns out he was watching PORN just like you do.
Merlin5by5 7 months ago
what faster than free fall is Bush #lol
superiornetworkinfo 9 months ago
it was FIRE and debris damage. i was an eye witness from the liberty street footbridge. there was noises of floors crashing into eachother - like thunder - over and over and over - then the building fell. get it? first steel then facade on video. no bombs. the fire was UNREAL - damage UNREAL - but all on S side. the cams were from the north so u couldnt see.
InsaneDebt 10 months ago
@InsaneDebt
UNREAL was an early first person shooter for the PC.
A 500'000t building wont collapse in free fall cause a 80t plane hit it.
IF you were right and a plane had such a force of impact that it crashed the entire tower, then it would have happened at impact. Yet what happened at the impact? Nothing. The building swallowed up the plane.
Kerosene burns at 200-250°c whilst construction steel starts to melt at 600°c
Belief is a nice thing. Too bad it has nothing to do with science.
Aerensiniac 8 months ago
@Aerensiniac
Kerosine burns at 200-250C? You better inform the Oil Industry.
They plan for 1000 C fires at oil refineries, and those fires will OFTEN turn
huge steel installations, and 1000 TON Oil Storage tanks to slag on the ground.
strata. com/ tabid/ 434/ contentid/ 278/ Default. aspx
"In petrochemical facilities, fires when they occur, develop quickly into "pool fires", rapidly reaching 2,000oF (1,100oC) in a matter of minutes..."
Merlin5by5 7 months ago
@Merlin5by5
Yes and i bet they all free fall to the ground as they melt.
You can turn this around like a rubic cube as long and as many times you want. Melting and crumbling are two concepts that had nothing to do with the way wtc "free fell" into its own foundations.
Even the idea of melting the entire of the fucking wtc's inside away with no out side sign is as far fetched as fuck, but when you put everything together its a joke and nothing more.
Aerensiniac 7 months ago
@Aerensiniac
Actually, I am not turning jack shit around at all. Melting never happened,
and Nobody has ever turned up a giant pool of molten steel, a missile
casing, a NWO NINJA willing to testify, or a single ounce of burned,
or unburned explosive. Why don't you try producing one first?
Then we will talk?
Merlin5by5 7 months ago
@Merlin5by5
Thing is that all of this was disclosed long ago in "9/11: Blueprint For Truth" which handles about nothing else but scientific evidence.
Conclusively, i throw it right back at ya: It is me who will not give a shit about you living in a dream world, claiming that where the government wont fund an investigation and tell you what to think, the rules of physics wont apply.
NIST and other investigators officially admit that they never even looked for explosives. Thats that.
Aerensiniac 7 months ago
@Aerensiniac
LMAO, quoting a conspiracy video to prove, a conspiracy video, is hardly rocket science, is it?
The table for your evidence is right here, please put it down in front of me.
Evidencia En Tabulae, Evidence on the table. It's the legal principle you don't know about.
SO, Basically, I don't have to CONVERT YOU, I don't care about some little TWIT.
Call me when you learn the rules of physics, because you and truthers don't have a clue yet.
Merlin5by5 7 months ago
@Aerensiniac
Oh, and just to leave you with a POISON PILL. The laws of physics apply to Controlled Demolitions also, Junior Woodchuck.
The Building fell according to every known law of physics because its NOT a worthless piece of shit human like you, its a building, dumbass, and it CAN'T break the laws of physics.
IF the building fell as it did from Controlled Demolition, then it broke those same laws of physics you so DUMBLY throw out there.
The INITIATION of the fall is what's in question.duh
Merlin5by5 7 months ago
@Merlin5by5
So what you imply is that controlled demolition and any other form of building destruction are the same.
Nice job hero.
Then lets leave it at that. It seems one of us cannot afford to get his brain involed and its not me.
Aerensiniac 7 months ago
@Aerensiniac
NO, JERKWAD, I implied that Buildings Collapse the same way whether human demolition, or Arab Terrorist attack. Once movement downward is initiated, all things fall the same.
And it is a nice job, because unless you had a downward pointed Rocket Engine on the roof of WTC plaza buildings, they would fall just like NIST explains.
EXPLOSIVES expand in 3 dimensions, super-genius.
Their expansion would SLOW, the WTC collapse.
Merlin5by5 7 months ago
@Merlin5by5
Look bro, i aint gonna argue with you. Use google or youtube to find out for yourself whether a building collapses the same way under natural and controlled demolition and dont forget to check whether explosives slow down the process or not.
At this point i cant even believe you made it past pre-school, but combat and industrial engineer? My ass.
If engineers are THIS retarded in your country its a wonder that there are buildings at all.
Aerensiniac 7 months ago
@Aerensiniac
Don't have to Junior. I can name two or three steel buildings built similar to the WTC towers that collapsed due to fire alone, without the damages done by the 160 Ton Airliners.
McCormick Place in Chicago didn't even last as long as the WTC towers, and it fell in it's own footprint also.
The Sight and Sound theater in Pennsylvania was brand new, newer than the WTC Plaza, and it burned to the ground, in it's own footprint, just prior to the WTC!
How does that sit with your fantasy?
Merlin5by5 7 months ago
@Aerensiniac
Now, let's conduct class number 2. Steel expands on a curve based on the
length of the piece. WTC 7 had LONG SPAN Trusses. I know you don't read,
so that's basically COLUMNS built on top of a table type structure that
spanned the CON ED power station below it. The heat expansion of that
table structure "Walked" the horizontal beams OUT of their Knife edge
connections. That discovery DEPENDED on the Long Spans.
The International Building Code MODIFIED it's standards based on it.
Merlin5by5 7 months ago
@Aerensiniac
Lastly, Lesson Number 3. Controlled Demolition doesn't happen with voodoo.
Every demolition in the world leaves TONS of debris, that stands out.
Batteries, radios, wiring nests you can lose a worker inside, detonators, det cord,
Baffles, angle irons, containment vessels, even failed demo charges.
Where are these? Can Hungary do a controlled demoliton over 110 floors,
without a radio, battery, or wire nest? Show me how that's possible.
That's when Hungary stops being a joke.
Merlin5by5 7 months ago
@Aerensiniac
Seriously, if you can't understand ALL THINGS FALL THE SAME,
at least on earth, you should go get your money back from high school.
You were gypped.
Merlin5by5 7 months ago
@Merlin5by5
Right back at ya bro.
If you have issues with concepts involving resistance then you should re-roll school or at least watch some documentary to educate yourself. Collapses follow the path of least resistance which (believe it or not) is NOT through 500'000 ton of reinforced steel and concrete.
Im seriously not going to argue about the laws of physics with someone who seemingly skipped school.
If all of this makes no sense to you then simply assume im trolling and then gtfo.
Aerensiniac 7 months ago
@Aerensiniac
No, Sonny boy, collapses fall down, they don't stop at go, and they don't collect $200.
It's NOT a game, there is NO horizontal component to Gravity, or collapse.
Collapse moves STRAIGHT down, to the ground, or it stops, but it never moves sideways.
UNLIKE YOU, I actually completed college as an Industrial Technologist, and was
an Army Combat Engineer. Why don't you ask a college professor?
Assuming you know the correct answer won't get you a booby prize.
Merlin5by5 7 months ago
@Merlin5by5
Good job and grats on the college and army sir.
If i may sir, could i ask a question though?
If buildings always go down straight as you claim, why the fuck is there any need for a job like controlled demolitionist?
I get the part where you say that every documentation, photo and video on the internet about buildings not falling straight into their base is fake and manipulated, but why do demolitionists exist?
I wonder how the heck your country survives on "educated" ppl like you
Aerensiniac 7 months ago
@Aerensiniac
Did you ask a college professor yet?
For the life of me, I will never understand why conspiracy nutjobs don't just ask?
Why is there a need for controlled demolition?
SPEED, CD is faster than conventional demolition, which actually DOES need
room around the buildings for MONTHS of trucks transiting the site to haul
away debris. The controlled demolitioners actually spends a LOT OF EFFORT
to make a building fall to one side. In fact, to do so usually involves months
of preparation
Merlin5by5 7 months ago
@Aerensiniac
Oh, and by the way, the US establishment has survived for 240 years
without "dumb-ucated" assholes like yourself. I can point out for instance,
that almost every fire produces a debris pile INSIDE it's foundations in
almost every case from Homes to convention arenas. Virtually the
entire engineering community in the US thinks you are an IDIOT.
That's around 1.5 million people better educated than you.
Do you think we are all wrong?
Merlin5by5 7 months ago
@Merlin5by5 watch?v=lDnbfXLUyI4 - here's leslie robertson saying there was molten steel - and he built the towers - watch?v=dBNkw2Vvi28 and here the fdny saying that they saw molten steel - of course you have to believe that they are all lying , when they have no reason to - ha - dickhead
mooners40 7 months ago
@mooners40
MOLTEN METALS can be had from your kitchen oven, put some tin or aluminum
in there and turn it up. Molten steel is 1500 C, and white hot. The IRON burners
on your stove get RED HOT and stay solid, get a clue. Molten steel is SO HOT,
at 1500 C, that it will burn your CORNEAS to look at it directly, and forgers have
been putting smoked glass in front of their eyes to protect them since the dark ages.
They are NOT LYING, but they haven't seen Molten STEEL also.
Have you?
Merlin5by5 7 months ago
@Humantidote Or the fact that Giuliani sent the evidence to China. The reports of foundry like rivers of molten steel? Or Marvin Bush connection? Reports of the planes having no windows or being military. Or the recovered passport from the so called hijackers? Or the scientist, celebrity or public testimony not paid by governments who only have truth, love and questions in there hart? The news reports of building 7 collapsing BEFORE it fell BBC, Reuters?
Adds up to a conspiracy!
fresh75 10 months ago
@fresh75 You sound incredibly stupid.
tlages 9 months ago
@tlages thanks for being such a helpful human. You sound like a asshole. Look at Bush for stupid. Go on tell me whats so stupid about my comments.
fresh75 9 months ago
@fresh75 Be silent. You're babble is unnecessary.
tlages 9 months ago
@tlages because my babble is unnecessary, I have too do the opposite and babble unnecessarily. Master Yoda
I want very much to unnecessarily babble silently in light of your wise council. But a follower I am not. Thank
you for enlightening my babble with stupid sound.
It Obi-Wan takes 1, to know 1 Kenobi
fresh75 9 months ago
Respond to this video... Your uploads are stupid, blimey Well done for 40 yrs!
fresh75 9 months ago
@Humantidote What about the "put options on United Airlines and American Airlines." Or the lame video footage from the Pentagon? Or CNN, ABC, CBS live coverage and the sky looking like smog on a clear day in NY? Or the testimony from firefighters? or reports of explosions? Or the FACT that NO steel building as EVER COLLAPSED before or since 9/11.01. Or Larry Silverstein's omission that they pulled the building. Or the fact that there is no mention of building 7 in the 9/11 commission report?
fresh75 10 months ago
Opps, wrong vid. My previous question was referring to a video that says WTC7 was suppose to be hit by plane, but that plane is destroyed by US aircraft that disobey the Government rule by entering air space to combat any lethal enemies. What doesn't make sense, is that is highly confirmed that Missiles is the one hit WTC1 and 2. But why suddenly there's a plane?
sephirothrikusora 11 months ago
Huh? Impossible. The plane was computer graphic according to my solid research. It was missiles that hit WTC 1 and 2. How can they be suddenly a plane? Argh, damnit, is so confusing this matter.....
sephirothrikusora 11 months ago
Wow these theorists have some balls to just straight up lie and say it took 7 seconds when you can watch from the first point it starts to fall to the end and it takes way longer. It doesnt take a genius to know that if there was real evidence u wouldnt need to make up lies.
EARTH51087 1 year ago
@EARTH51087 You would eat dog shit if the Government told you it cures cancer.
junglemike72 1 year ago
More Twoofer Bullshit! All 911 "Truthers" Should be executed!
911TruthersAreLiars 1 year ago
@911TruthersAreLiars Durp de durp!! They took yar job!! Damn redkneck, just go away. The rest of us are trying to examine evidence that doesn't make sense to us so that we may get some real justice for the thousands of innocent people that lost their lives.
zebbedi 1 year ago
@911TruthersAreLiars Go have sex with your sister and get off the upload.
junglemike72 1 year ago
Unfortunately, this general lack of science literacy allows misunderstanding and paranoia to flourish, especially when substantiated by ill conceived factoids found all over the internet. We live in an unprecedented age of access to information but it has been hijacked by fools with theories. No wonder our faith in humanity slides when we surf the internet and get the false impression that such thinking is prevalent. Madness is not reality just cause its advocators are sincere!!
Humantidote 1 year ago
@Humantidote you are so uninformed it is very sad - adn your point about access to info is right - you have the web at your fingertips but choose to be ignorant
mooners40 1 year ago
@Humantidote Your comment is just vapid and meaningless. You talk about lack of science literacy but don't point to any examples. Then you start talking about the internet in general which is even less relevant. Followed by some illogical theory about access to information causing a sliding faith in humanity.
If you take your head out of the ideological clouds and start looking at the facts you may too have some questions.
zebbedi 1 year ago
@zebbedi And you accuse me of making "vapid and meaningless" comments? lol.
Humantidote 1 year ago
@Humantidote Huh?
zebbedi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
9/11 - inside job!
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
What is interesting about this video and others like it is that when asked, the ytube account holder hosting the video never provides proof of his or her authority to make these claims. They never respond to inquiries about the engineering degree they hold or even name the school they graduated from. On the other hand, engineers and experts both government and private sector, who were involved with the NIST report, provide names and credentials that may be confirmed by anyone at any time!! Why!
Humantidote 1 year ago
@Humantidote the yt account holder hasn't logged on for a year - did you not look?
Tell me how it fell and why - remember that fire has never brought a building down before 9/11 - and this one fell at free-fall for 2.25 seconds - free-fall means that gravity was the only force acting on the whole building - how can that be when there were 58 perimeter and 24 core columns ? Did they all vanish? The building collapses as one - as seen in the video - tell me how it happened
mooners40 1 year ago
@mooners40 I was referring to all of them! the fact that he or she has not logged on is of no consequence! Besides, any message prompts a notification sent to their email address so it is not necessary to log on to see that. Your logic is so skewed! The fact that it was the first bldng to fall from fire is hardly evidence that it could not fall for that reason! NIST had many recommendations based on the design flaws that contributed to the fall. Once initiated, all bldgs free fall with collapse!
Humantidote 1 year ago
And for your information, this one says 2.25 seconds, another ytube vid says 3.2, and another one said 3.8. The one commonality to all of these was each narrator claims that was free fall speed!!
So how many freefall speeds are there?
Your problem is the same mistake that every truther makes. You read about the NIST and other reports only through the argument made by whoever happens to interpret the document.
You should be reading the official doc, not an interpretation by ????????
Humantidote 1 year ago
@Humantidote free-fall acceleration is the rate of gravity - in a vacuum - you should actually watch this and try and understand - Chandler's videos on it will explain it better perhaps ? - Griffin takes the nist report and points out the contradictions and outright lies - you would know this had you read it - and his being a theologian is irrelevant - his logic and deduction are impeccable and his source material is cited - nist is a politically appointed and motivated team of liars
mooners40 1 year ago
@mooners40 The NIST REPORT is a cooperative of both public and private sector professional engineers. Not politically appointed! I can recall every physics formula we had to memorize for the exams when I was earning my science degree and can easily recall the freefall acceleration speed of gravity in the absence of air resistance! His being a theologian is irrelevant! What is relevant is his lack of a science degree! That same "impeccable" logic Griffin uses to prove the earth is 6500 yrs old!
Humantidote 1 year ago
@Humantidote you are attacking his character - ad hominem - can you prove that he thinks the earth is 6500 yrs old? The head of nist is a presidential appointee - and if yyou had read griffin's book , you liar, you would know all this . Try reading
and free-fall means zero resistance - how can such a huge building offer zero resistance and have a symmetrical roof-line as it free-falls? Where is the fire that caused this and why has there never been such a thing before or after 9/11?
mooners40 1 year ago
Dr Arden Bement PhD Metallurgy was the appointed director during the bulk of time WTC was investigated along with the usual workload. Shyam Sunder (not appointed by pres) was the head of WTC investigation that included some of the 3000 Engineers and technicians and other scientists (none appointed politically) that make up main body of NIST. Significant input also came from engineers and other experts from outside NIST!! So far that is one person appointed and 3000 plus that were not!
Humantidote 1 year ago
@Humantidote NSF Director Arden L. Bement
Credit and Larger Version
"November 29, 2004
Arlington, Va.—President Bush on Nov. 24 officially appointed Arden L. Bement, Jr., as the 12th director of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education across nearly all fields of science and engineering." nsf dot gov the one in charge calls the shots - understand? And Griffin's views on theology are not relevant to 9/11
mooners40 1 year ago
@mooners40 The NSF appointment came after his overseeing of the NIST review of WTC collapse. Bement is an economist and his job with the NIST's WTC report was to keep it on budget! His new job was an appt but not the NIST job! So what "shots" is he calling from over there after the Report was done? And BTW you said called me a liar, that Grif does not believe in the god and the bible that said that god created the world and everything around it 6500 yrs ago (roughly) so I did. R U an IDIOT??
Humantidote 1 year ago
@Humantidote you did not prove that griffin thinks the world is 6500 years old - read what you wrote - an dyou attack what griffin;s books are about and the man himself - and said that you have read his book on wtc7 and you have not - so you are a liar and an idiot - as i asked you - show me the fire and show me a precedent in 100 years of steel framed buildings and fires - zero have fallen completely like wtc7 - even nist say that the diesel tanks had zero to do with the fire - ignoramus
mooners40 1 year ago
@mooners40 Obviously, this whole 9/11 thing is about you! You have invested so much of your reason into the inside job theory that you can't even consider what's wrong with it just like religious fanatics who feel the slightest disruption to their faith will bring it all crashing down! So you call everyone liars and stupid as a last resort when you have nothing real for defense! It is funny to read how you combat invisible fires by claiming silent bombs! Who you are is defined by conspiracy now!
Humantidote 1 year ago
@Humantidote you have clearly zero idea about 9/11 and have looked at zero of the evidence and have been brainwashed by the media coverage of it - you need to check your reality and realise that the laws of physics , which are immutable , would have to change for what we are fed as truth about 9/11 to be true
fire cannot melt iron - buildings cannot free-fall because of invisible fires and the upper floors of the towers cannot destroy the lower floors - they are exploding
mooners40 1 year ago
@mooners40 I thought of an experiment that will clear this thing up once and for all!!!
If we can gather up all the truthers and others who say that fires could not cause the collapse, we can finance the engineers for truth to set up some reasonably sized load, preferably concrete, and support it with iron rails built according to the load specifications similar to the design of WTC1/2. Then get all the people to stand under it while they hold torches to the steel until it reaches the same temp!
Humantidote 1 year ago
@Humantidote what happened to flight 93? all that was left was a hole in the ground, a whole plane and all its luggage and passengers disintegrated into soft earth! only in america!
choclatesaltyballz 1 year ago
@choclatesaltyballz That is one of the worst myths of 9/11! They recovered 95% of the wreckage and 100% of the victims!! All the passengers were identified including the highjackers!
Check the flight 93 video in my channel favourites!
Humantidote 1 year ago
@Humantidote bullshit!!!
choclatesaltyballz 1 year ago
@Humantidote What about the fact that they planted a passport of a supposed hijacker? He was still alive.........
Ignorant people will go first. That's all I'm gonna say.
cbbatista 1 year ago
@Humantidote And Lord of the Rings is a true story. If you believe that bullshit then you are a real moron.
junglemike72 1 year ago
@mooners40 That way, if you all live, you will have all the proof you need! And if not, well, there will be a lot more intelligent conversation on the internet and everywhere else! Plus, you will be famous for the Darwin Award you win!
Your names shall all be inscribed on some expensive, fancy, respectful plaque and we can mount it on the side of the concrete block under the epitaph, "Here Lie All The Stupid, But Brave Souls, Silenced Forever On MM/DD/YYYY".
Humantidote 1 year ago
@Humantidote tell me how wtc7 fell at free-fall acceleration - the rate of gravity - acted on by no other force other than gravity - a 47 storey building - with 24 core columns and 58 perimeter columns - you might say it was the organic process of a fire - none has done this before to a building - show me the fire - where is the fire ? show me and tell me how it fell - maybe bin laden made it free-fall eh?
mooners40 1 year ago
@mooners40 I accept the NIST report on WTC7. The burden of proof is your business if you disagree with it you hypocrite! Besides, proof is not what you are interested in, you just need vindication that everything you think is right. You obviously did not watch the video, you just erased my comment so go away hypocrite and waste somebody else's time with your lack of knowledge about science and obvious lack of vision. Maybe someday you will start thinking for yourself rather than repeating others
Humantidote 1 year ago
@Humantidote reply to my post - he nist report is lies - and is unscientific and false - and you should be enraged and asking questions - yet you lie and say you've read it - you are part of the problem - try and be part of the solution -
reply to my post or you fail idiot - think about that
mooners40 1 year ago
@mooners40 The following taken from Dr. Griffs theology books! Dr. G REJECTS the idea that there is NO theistic or directing influence in our universe! He rejects notion that natural selection was a lone force acting on evolution or done gradually, slowly, step by step! Dr. G believes god is internal, and the very soul of the universe! Or in plain terms, Dr. G believes we are here NOT by gradual natural selection but through direct manipulation BY the hand of God! And that is non-science!!!
Humantidote 1 year ago
@mooners40 So unless you consider one man out of 3000 enough to call the 109 year old NIST organization a "politically appointed and motivated team of liars" which during its history had 3 nobel prize winners among its staff, and Dr Griffins religious beliefs compatible with science, then you are the one who ought to read something. And yes, freefall continues once initiated! Gravity takes over after supporting structure weakened by fire or explosives! What do you think happens, moron?
Humantidote 1 year ago
@Humantidote gravity cannot be the only force acting on a 47 storey building - the structure has to be taken away for free-fall to occur - this is very simple - like you -
"free-fall continues once initiated? " What can initiate free-fall? Even known demolitions don't free-fall - Fire is an organic process that moves from fuel to fuel - do you see any fire when it falls? Can you post a vid of wtc7 on fire ?- remember smoke is not fire - how can fire initiate free-fall? Tell me
mooners40 1 year ago
@mooners40 Are you implying that the conspirators managed to figure out how to demolish a building at freefall speeds?
Obacoomb 1 year ago
@Obacoomb I'm saying that it was such a good controlled demo that it was in free-fall - an implosion that sucked it down - the free-fall is observable and measurable
watch?v=GlCyDlFE5nU this the most likely scenario - and it is backed up by physical evidence and news reports - and eye witness-
the conspirators put nano-thermite in the towers and made buildings defy physics - and told everyone they were falling as they exploded all over Manhattan - yes the conspirators did it - not obl
mooners40 1 year ago
@mooners40 lol, how old are you?
Obacoomb 1 year ago
@Obacoomb my age has nothing to with anything - do you think invisible fires make buildings free-fall? check your reality and look into 9/11 - and read - if you can
mooners40 1 year ago
@mooners40 i think the missing southern facade made the building collapse,
Obacoomb 1 year ago
@Obacoomb even nist states that damage from debris from the towers did nothing to initiate collapse - there was no missing facade - take your jokes elsewhere
mooners40 1 year ago
@mooners40 so, you cite the same organization you say that is lying?? but i guess you're right; placing "nano-thermite" inside the buildings is must more plausible than damage from a 110 story building collapsing on top of it
Obacoomb 1 year ago
@Obacoomb nist says a lot - when it contradicts itself a lie can be found - when it is forced to make a statement that can be corroborated and checked out then it must be the truth - nist does not lie all the time - can you understand that ? And if i quote someone to show where the lie is it doesn't mean that that person or body is someone i fully endorse or that the person or body always lies - it means that i am pointing out that lie - got it?
mooners40 1 year ago
@mooners40 you cannot selectively use the NIST as being both credible and not credible. Do you have any credentials at all related to physics, applied science or structural engineering? or do you just repeat the things you have read on websites created by "professionals"
Obacoomb 1 year ago
@Obacoomb you haven't even watched the chandler free-fall videos have you ? go watch them - the laws of physics are freely available to those who can understand them - and free-fall is impossible without the structure being taken away at almost exactly the same time - can you understand that ? can you go watch that series of vids and try and understand? And as per Nist , i reserve the right to point out inconsistencies and lies in what they say - they purport to tell truth
mooners40 1 year ago
@Obacoomb And if i quote someone to show where the lie is it doesn't mean that that person or body is someone i fully endorse or that the person or body always lies - it means that i am pointing out that lie - got it?
mooners40 1 year ago
@mooners40 i'll ask you again because you ignored it the first time: Do you have any experience with Physics, Applied Sciences or Structural Engineering? I suspect you are blindly quoting the "laws of physics" without even understanding them
Obacoomb 1 year ago
@Obacoomb i understand basic physics - do you ?
mooners40 1 year ago
@mooners40 DO YOU HAVE A DEGREE IN ANY KIND OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE?
Obacoomb 1 year ago
@Obacoomb i do not - and the laws of physics do not change because of our opinions
mooners40 1 year ago
@mooners40 so it's safe to say that you do not really understand the extent of the physics involved in the collapse of a building.
Obacoomb 1 year ago
@Obacoomb lol - why do you talk shit? tell me how this building fell - you can't even watch a series of videos to inform yourself or read anything and you want to attack me and the message that buildings cannot free-fall without the support being taken away ? - lol - you know fuck all about physics moron
mooners40 1 year ago
@mooners40 all I saw from that post was a bunch of nonsense from a guy preaching way above his understanding of what really happened. You quote people with no expertise on anything and attempt to refute what the actual professionals say. No matter what I say you will include some form of assumptive evidence to further your fabricated story of what you think happened. you do not know what you are talking about. you do not understand physics (the mathematical derivations) you are an ignorant fool
Obacoomb 1 year ago
@Obacoomb you replied to no points - you're really shit at this - tell me why this building was in free-fall - do you even know that it entered free-fall for 2,25 seconds?
This is a fact whether I'm a physicist or a teddy bear - can you understand this?
mooners40 1 year ago
@Obacoomb ignorant and fool sum you up - try answering lmao etc
mooners40 1 year ago
@Obacoomb why do ignore my questions? When you fail to answer you exhibit failure - and capitol letters aren't scaring anyone doltboy - what made this building free-fall ? Bin Laden?
mooners40 1 year ago
@Obacoomb I ignored it? you ignore everything i write - can you read?
mooners40 1 year ago
@Obacoomb debris damage did nothing to initiate collapse - and even if it had damage on one side would make the building fall to that side - wtc7 falls as seen in this video - with a symmetrical flat roof-line - to achieve this all support must fail at the same time - this can only be done with explosives - a fire cannot cause such a failure - do you see a fire in this video ? Show me the fire and a precedent for such a collapse - after 100 years of steel framed buildings not one did this
mooners40 1 year ago
@Obacoomb watch the videos i linked to you on your vid
mooners40 1 year ago
@mooners40 Either you blow the main supporting structure out in the lowest part of it so that the weight brings it down, or a fire weakens the same supporting structure and reaches point where weight brings building down! You think that fire would make a building like 7 come down by turning beams into spagetti, while building falls slowly like a melting candle! Explosive demolitions only need to weaken the lowest part of the bldg! The bigger the bldg, the easier!!
Humantidote 1 year ago
@mooners40 Whether fire or explosives in the lower basement supports do the weakening, it is gravity that brings it crashing down after the critical weakening point allows it, the straw that breaks the backbone of the building! Then it free falls! You keep looking at vids of relatively smaller buildings or tall skinny ones with not much wieght, so more explosives needed on higher floors to do the same thing. The org process in 7 literally moved from diesel FUEL tank to FUEL tank in basement!!
Humantidote 1 year ago
@mooners40 Everything you keep coming up with goes fucking nowhere! Are you not at least beginning to see that? I explain things and you keep dodging around with pretty naive questions and accusations that are unfounded. All you can say for proof is "oh but Dr G says" , "you haven't read this by Dr G", and "Dr G proved it", a man with a layman's unde