Controlled Demolition and Freefall WTC7

Investigation into the link between CD and freefall, using WTC7 and the Landmark Building.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• WTC7
• inside job
• david chandler
• richard gage
• 9/11
• alienentity1
• alienentity

[AlienEntity1]

@ninjamojo711 OMG what a hypocrite. Here is the heart of your problem. You have zero respect for one of America's top engineers, you have no engineering argument to make, so you call it a 'bogus paper', and you attack me for 'blindly referring' to it.

Wow, what an asshole. Now you've pissed me off. You are a disrespectful jerk. Goodbye.

[ninjamojo711]

@AlienEntity1 I'm not pretending to be an engineer. I am a rational being that uses common sense, logic and critical thinking. Why are you trying to come across as if you are so intelligent but you can't answer any of my questions? Your argument from authority does not over rule the laws of gravity nor the laws of motion.

Try an experiment yourself and make up your own mind instead of blindly referring to bogus papers.

[AlienEntity1]

@ninjamojo711 I suppose you're also going to tell me that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand rocket science?

Because you're trying to argue that it doesn't take a qualified structural engineer to understand structural engineering. You're arguing that education is irrelevant and unnecessary, that the layman knows better than the trained PhD in science.

That's exactly what your claim is. Ludicrous

[AlienEntity1]

@ninjamojo711 Don't pretend to be an engineer. At least have the humility to realize you REALLY DON'T KNOW some things in life.

You want an answer? Read this peer-reviewed engineering paper, published in the journal of the ASCE. Real science, real math from one of America's top structural engineers. Think u know better than him? Really???

'Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions'

Zdenek P. Bažant, F.ASCE and Mathieu Verdure

[ninjamojo711]

@AlienEntity1 Nice try. It doesn't take a "rocket scientist" to see that the twin towers and wtc7 came down in a deliberate preplanned demolition. Your not my science teacher. You don't get to make the rules of how I respond. I'm using logic and common sense along with rudimentary scientific observation. It's not hard. Try it.

If you're the expert, you tell me; how does 15 floors force it's way through 95 floors by way of gravity?

The WTC buildings were built to bear the load above it.

[AlienEntity1]

@ninjamojo711 OK, I see what your argument is. You are hung up about 'pancaking'. Can u please give a reference, in the NIST report, where this hypothesis is put forward as a mechanism for the cause of collapse?

I'm concerned that all you have to offer is your inexpert opinion, which really isn't worth much. Please back up

a) Your depiction of the mainstream hypothesis, with proper reference

b) Your alternative hypothesis, with journal references in peer-reviewed engineering publications.

[ninjamojo711]

@AlienEntity1 What force pulverized the concrete. Sure there may have been chunks left over at the bottom, but as you watch any of the videos of 1&2, pulverized concrete is being spewed up and out as the building collapses.

What force is forcing the concrete to pulverize up and out? Dust in the air does not collapse a floor below.

[ninjamojo711]

@AlienEntity1 OK, let me rephrase it. WTC 1&2 came down with little resistance. Not the kind of resistance it should have if it wasn't aided in any way. Resistance was removed. What force aided the collapse?

Both buildings could not have come down the same way if what just chance.

Your video explains that controlled demolition uses gravity to bring down a building by removing the resistance.

You deny this, but it proves WTCx3 came down in a planned way.

[AlienEntity1]

@ninjamojo711 Further to that last post, several hundred thousand tons of structural steel were recovered and taken to Freshkills for examination and sorting. They were then sold as scrap, etc.

You are pretending that this didn't exist by falsely asserting that there was no solid mass to fall on structure below.

Besides, what on earth do you think caused the pulverization of office contents? Please elaborate on the mechanism. Use math if you can.

[AlienEntity1]

@ninjamojo711

2) You are asserting that ALL the concrete was pulverized. This assertion is not based on fact, is not supported by any evidence. I assert that your claim is incorrect. I reject this assumption. Youmust provide evidence.

3) The question which follows is a strawman based on an incorrect assumption. It can easily be falsified by simply pointing to the fact that 100's of thousands of tons of debris were removed from GZ.

Solid material, not dust.