Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org

1235789

Comments

  • #122
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    meglome wrote: »
    The video makes general points about how the 'truth' movement is full of liars.


    Ohh agree a lot of them are


  • #123
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    And Wiesses does not "buy" the thermite theory.

    not ruling it out either
    King Mob wrote: »
    And Wiesses has already agreed that there were extensive fires in WTC7 which would compromise it's structure.

    wrong... post were i said that and beware ... use it in the right context this time
    King Mob wrote: »
    And Wiesses had already argeed that the building could fall the way it did

    wrong... post were i said that and beware ... use it in the right context this time
    King Mob wrote: »
    And Wiesses already argees that Gage is wrong about the time which it fell in, just doesn't want to admit that Gage is lying.

    never talked about the Gage video in such depth

    Show me where i said that
    man you are really loosing it are you
    King Mob wrote: »
    And yet Wiesses despite knowing all of the above, still thinks that the video has some merit.

    What video ??

    And BTW It is Weisses king mob

    Sad man that you have to bluntly lie to make your claim


  • #124
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob you quoted me as having said this
    A: Because then the only other explanation is the official one, which can't happen.

    Where do i say that line exactly ? still can't find it
    King Mob wrote: »
    You did not respond to the question. If you think you did please point out were. Or if you'd like to address it now...

    from what i have seen the fires were not intense enough through the whole building mostly the south and east were burning heavy .. if Im wrong fine ... give me some footage to change my mind
    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol grasping at straws now.
    Because I've seen the report on that collapse before which stated that it's steel framed.
    I'm not bothered to look it up because you don't seriously believe it's not true.

    Ahh and how do you expect me to give you a proper answer without telling me you have a report .. but instead try to trick me again ... can i see that report by the way ? or else don't claim you have it


    I asked you : No .. More assumptions Please point out me saying we should ignore the overpass

    and you gave me that non anwser below ... Can you please anwser the question ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Great, so we have an example of steel structures that both did and did not collapse due to a fire.
    So we can conclude that it is possible that WTC7 could have survived, andthat it could have collapsed, but we can't know for sure which because both examples have totally different designs to WTC7.

    King Mob wrote: »
    Which leads us back to the question: why do you think WTC7 could not fall the way the NIST said it did?

    Gave you my view on that ... look it up
    King Mob wrote: »
    Why is it unlikely? And watch you you going around and around the same circular logic...

    Also gave you my view on that ... again look it up
    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes. I've already answered this and explained why.
    King Mob wrote: »
    You are grasping at straws to find something to dismiss this video while ignoring blatant lies and untruth from the videos you posted.

    Where did i do that? i don't accept stuff from both sides as you must admit ... that makes my vulnerable in this discussion and man do you like that
    King Mob wrote: »
    How does that show that the video is dishonest exactly?
    What claim in the video is it disproving?

    sorry i thought you asked to show you a CT video with the whole collapse in it


  • #125
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    not ruling it out either
    So then do you agree with Gage's claims about molten steel being evidence of thermite?
    weisses wrote: »
    wrong... post were i said that and beware ... use it in the right context this time
    You claimed repeated that the fires could have caused a partial collapse, and the only reason it didn't cause a total collapse was because it wasn't on north side of the building.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74288510&postcount=263

    So are you now saying that none of the fires were at any point intense enough to collapse any part of the building??
    weisses wrote: »
    wrong... post were i said that and beware ... use it in the right context this time
    On several occasions you said that you could not point out anywhere in the simulation were it goes against physics or disagrees with the facts.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74288747&postcount=68

    And then when I outlined the official explanation about how the building fell you argued that it was possible and plausible.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74296807&postcount=265

    So are you saying different now? if so please point out the flaws in either the simulation or my explanation.
    weisses wrote: »
    never talked about the Gage video in such depth

    Show me where i said that
    man you are really loosing it are you
    Because Gage said that the building fell in 7 seconds. You've agreed that in fell in upwards of 14.
    So is Gage right or wrong about the time?

    I'm not going to bother with the rest of your other post as it's pointless and somewhat incoherent.
    However there's one point I will address:
    weisses wrote: »
    from what i have seen the fires were not intense enough through the whole building mostly the south and east were burning heavy .. if Im wrong fine ... give me some footage to change my mind
    This is not an answer to the questions: How intense exactly were they and how exactly intense did they need to be.
    So I'm posing them these questions again, because if your answer is "I don't know" or you can't provide an answer, how can you then state with any confidence that they weren't intense enough?


  • #126
    Catsmokinpot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,622 ✭✭✭Catsmokinpot


    the full 2&abit hour video for anyone who's interested.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4

    Don't jump down my throat because i can't say i do or do not believe it all, i'm still undecided after reading many pages of this thread, the full video shows many experts with some serious qualifications, if one would like to debunk it all then go right ahead.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob you quoted me as having said this
    A: Because then the only other explanation is the official one, which can't happen.

    Where do i say that line exactly ? still can't find it

    Again King Mob where did i said that because you quoted me there

    Very important
    King Mob wrote: »
    Originally Posted by King Mob View Post
    And Wiesses already argees that Gage is wrong about the time which it fell in, just doesn't want to admit that Gage is lying.

    Where did i say this ... pleas quote me

    Explain this please because i cannot discuss openly with an apparent liar


    King Mob wrote: »
    You claimed repeated that the fires could have caused a partial collapse, and the only reason it didn't cause a total collapse was because it wasn't on north side of the building.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74288510&postcount=263

    So are you now saying that none of the fires were at any point intense enough to collapse any part of the building??

    No
    King Mob wrote: »
    On several occasions you said that you could not point out anywhere in the simulation were it goes against physics or disagrees with the facts.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74288747&postcount=68

    I gave my opinion on that simulation it was a good simulation well made ... nothing more
    King Mob wrote: »
    And then when I outlined the official explanation about how the building fell you argued that it was possible and plausible.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74296807&postcount=265

    I said as well but not as evidence its your opinion on how it fell and yes that could be possible ... COULD BE but nothing has convinced me yet


  • #128
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    Very important

    Where did i say this ... pleas quote me

    Explain this please because i cannot discuss openly with an apparent liar
    You agree that the building fell in upwards of 14 seconds.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74320607&postcount=103

    And Gage clearly states that he believes that in fell in 7 seconds.
    Comments which you want to distance yourself from:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74275548&postcount=45

    So do you agree with Richard Gage's claim that the building fell in 7 seconds? Is this claim true or not?
    weisses wrote: »
    No
    So then you agree that the fires were intense enough to comprimise section of the building?
    weisses wrote: »
    I gave my opinion on that simulation it was a good simulation well made ... nothing more
    So then you cannot point to anything in the simulation that goes against physics or the observed evidence and therefore shows how the building can plausibly fall without all the supports going at once?
    weisses wrote: »
    I said as well but not as evidence its your opinion on how it fell and yes that could be possible ... COULD BE but nothing has convinced me yet
    So then you you can't point out anything that is impossible in it and believe it's impossible.

    Looks like you've just agreed with everything I posted and making me go find you quotes was a massive waste of time.

    So maybe now you can answer the question:
    How intense exactly were the fires and how exactly intense did they need to be to cause the building to collapse.
    If you can't answer this question, at least admit it.


  • #129
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob you quoted me as having said this
    A: Because then the only other explanation is the official one, which can't happen.

    Where do i say that line exactly ? still can't find it

    Again King Mob where did i said that because you quoted me there

    Very important

    How many times do i need to ask you ??? you are lying .... proof me wrong


    I never mentioned gage in that context ... i watched it quickly and not agreeing with the way he is assuming things

    So stop quoting me about Gage ..because i never mentioned things about him

    So please answer me and stop lying and assuming
    weisses wrote: »
    I did watch this one ... I don't like him imo he is kinda misleading in some points to make it sound better what he is trying to say

    This is what i said about gage

    And this is your reply Post 114
    King Mob wrote: »
    And Wiesses does not "buy" the thermite theory.

    And Wiesses has already agreed that there were extensive fires in WTC7 which would compromise it's structure.

    And Wiesses had already argeed that the building could fall the way it did without all the supports failing all at once.


    And Wiesses already argees that Gage is wrong about the time which it fell in, just doesn't want to admit that Gage is lying.


    And yet Wiesses despite knowing all of the above, still thinks that the video has some merit.

    Do you even take yourself serious after reading this ?


  • #130
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    A: Because then the only other explanation is the official one, which can't happen.

    Where do i say that line exactly ? still can't find it

    Again King Mob where did i said that because you quoted me there

    Very important
    Well first, like the other points I wasn't directly quoting you, just making a shorthand for your argument.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74320099&postcount=101
    Originally Posted by King Mob View Post
    You can't honestly use your example as a basis to doubt the official story.
    Why not ? .. When the other theory is that parts of a building burning for 7 hours due to office fires can collapse on itself in under 20 seconds is the alternative ?
    weisses wrote: »
    How many times do i need to ask you ??? you are lying .... proof me wrong
    How many times must I ask you:
    How intense exactly were the fires and how exactly intense did they need to be to cause the building to collapse.
    If you can't answer this question, at least admit it.
    weisses wrote: »
    I never mentioned gage in that context ... i watched it quickly and not agreeing with the way he is assuming things

    So stop quoting me about Gage ..because i never mentioned things about him

    So please answer me and stop lying and assuming
    So even though you believe that the building fell at a different time to Gage yet you somehow don't think he's wrong?
    How does that work exactly?
    weisses wrote: »
    Do you even take yourself serious after reading this ?
    Well considering I just backed up every one of those points with you own quotes....

    So I'm going to bow out Weisses you're not only not able to honestly represent my posts you can't seem to keep you own straight anymore.
    Hell you can't even admit when a conspiracy theorist is wrong when it's blindingly obvious and you yourself admit you believe the opposite of him...


  • #131
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Catsmokinpot wrote: »
    the full 2&abit hour video for anyone who's interested.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4

    Don't jump down my throat because i can't say i do or do not believe it all, i'm still undecided after reading many pages of this thread, the full video shows many experts with some serious qualifications, if one would like to debunk it all then go right ahead.

    I'm not an engineer so all I can do is look at the claims that are made and see if they are accurate.
    • Most of the claims about WTC7 are based on how fast it fell, they say at free-fall speeds. However as we have discussed on this thread is didn't fall at free-fall speeds and that can be proven.
    • Many claim that it was a controlled demolition but by watching controlled demolition videos you can see the obvious problem that there are no sounds of the explosives needed. The sound of controlled demolition is very distinctive and very loud, but completely absent from the WTC.
    • They say there were very few fires in the buildings but again there is ample evidence that large parts of the building were on fire.
    • They say that only the central columns being cut at once could have caused it. Yet we can see from some of the video that the penthouses collapse from left to right, exactly as the NIST report says.

    My guess is many of the architects and engineers have been fed the bull from Gage and his buddies and taken it as fact.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Well first, like the other points I wasn't directly quoting you, just making a shorthand for your argument.
    King Mob wrote: »
    I ask you: why is it impossible for WTC7 to fall the way it did?
    You respond: because this building stayed standing .
    Which begs the question: Why does this building surviving show it is impossible for Wtc to fall the way it did?
    To which you reply: because otherwise you are left with the official explanation which is impossible.

    Is that quoting me yes or no

    You make up quotes and you are lying .... same with the gages story

    You want an Adult conversation ????? Grow up first then we talk further agree ?


  • #133
    Catsmokinpot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,622 ✭✭✭Catsmokinpot


    meglome wrote: »
    My guess is many of the architects and engineers have been fed the bull from Gage and his buddies and taken it as fact.
    I dunno, I watched the whole thing (I haven't watched a 9/11 video for many years and I had a bit of time to spare) I had been convinced by the evidence from the debunkers previously, but find myself asking questions once again.

    If you watch the full video the argument isn't entirely based on the footage, it goes further in depth than the 15 minute preview does and these people seem to have had their own doubts based on their own experience within their individual fields before hand.


  • #134
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Catsmokinpot wrote: »
    I dunno, I watched the whole thing (I haven't watched a 9/11 video for many years and I had a bit of time to spare) I had been convinced by the evidence from the debunkers previously, but find myself asking questions once again.

    If you watch the full video the argument isn't entirely based on the footage, it goes further in depth than the 15 minute preview does and these people seem to have had their own doubts based on their own experience within their individual fields before hand.

    Admittedly I didn't watch it all but I have just watched more of it, an hour and a half at this point. Several of the people say the fires were not extensive or long lasting. Both of these statements are provably false.

    NSIT say that a section of the facade falls for a time at free-fall speeds. This is because the internal structure has already collapsed so there's basically nothing holding it up. They don't say the entire building falls at free-fall speeds.

    They state on screen that the building took 7 seconds to fall. Several of them say this as well. Again provably not true. They use video of the building collapsing. They even have a guy timing it. But strangely even his video is missing the bit where the left mechanical penthouse collapses. See here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8 (annoying soundtrack and you can ignore the bit about the diesel generators). You can see from this there are several more seconds of the collapse that are completely ignored by the CT's.

    They talk about explosives a lot but so far I haven't seen anyone explain how these very loud explosives can be set off without sound. Unless these were Harry Potter brand explosives I think it's safe to say no sound means no explosives.
    Edit: Sorry I see they have footage of people talking about explosions, usual out of context stuff. This is interesting because there are quite a number of videos of 911 and not one of them has any explosions on it. Let's not forget controlled demolition explosions are loud and distinct. There is footage from a camera crew which is right below the towers at the time the first one collapsed and there isn't so much as the sound of fart beforehand. Or this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aytvSb04ins Someone should explain to these people that something being like an explosion is not the same as it being caused by explosives.

    You know it's actually shocking some of the things these people say as fact.


  • #135
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    meglome wrote: »
    NSIT say that a section of the facade falls for a time at free-fall speeds. This is because the internal structure has already collapsed so there's basically nothing holding it up. They don't say the entire building falls at free-fall speeds..

    You better back that up because some here are not buying that story ;)

    meglome wrote: »
    You know it's actually shocking some of the things these people say as fact.

    As long as you are willing to accept that works for both sides then you have a valid point imo


  • #136
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    meglome wrote: »
    Edit: Sorry I see they have footage of people talking about explosions, usual out of context stuff. This is interesting because there are quite a number of videos of 911 and not one of them has any explosions on it. Let's not forget controlled demolition explosions are loud and distinct.

    You know it's actually shocking some of the things these people say as fact.


    Am not putting this forth as evidence as such; it does seem though there were many many observers who heard secondary explosions. I honestly don't understand why NIST didn't test for explosives to put it to bed either way.





  • #137
    Squirrel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,374 ✭✭✭Squirrel


    Sorry for wading in here but I have one question for weisses.

    Can you, in one post, state exactly what your opinions are on WTC7?


  • #138
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Am not putting this forth as evidence as such; it does seem though there were many many observers who heard secondary explosions. I honestly don't understand why NIST didn't test for explosives to put it to bed either way.

    I have no issue with the fact people say they heard what sounded like explosions. But there's a massive difference between what sounds to some like explosions and those sounds being caused by explosives. I once witnessed a car crash, was only standing about ten meters away and it really sounded like an explosion. So do I assume it was caused by explosives? This is what the 'Architects for Truth' guys are doing.

    Explosive detonation for controlled demolition is very distinctive. I would say incredibly distinctive. There are literally hundreds of videos out there of controlled demolition and they all sound very very similar. But those sounds are not on any of the 911 videos. So my question is why do these 'truthers' need to use out of context quotes, many obviously filmed in the confusion of the events when these 'explosions' should be on all the video footage?

    Some very short videos
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZwIE2R-P_8&feature=related (he says explosion too but you can hear it's not from any explosives)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aytvSb04ins


  • #139
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    weisses wrote: »
    You better back that up because some here are not buying that story ;)

    It's actually in this thread or the other one, with direct quotes to the NIST report. Posted by King Mob.
    weisses wrote: »
    As long as you are willing to accept that works for both sides then you have a valid point imo

    I am looking at it with a balanced view. I never thought the buildings fell too easily or too hard as I had simply no frame of reference to make a judgement. But that's the point, no one has a frame of reference because no buildings like these have ever been hit by planes and left to burn. Yet all these people on that video sit there and say it couldn't have happened that way.


  • #140
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    Squirrel wrote: »
    Sorry for wading in here but I have one question for weisses.

    Can you, in one post, state exactly what your opinions are on WTC7?


    Post 7 on page 1

    I find the findings in the Full video regarding wtc7 very valid and deserves a further investigation

    If you want me to link the video with the particulair part tell me .... Its almost all in line with my opinion only explained clearer i think


  • #141
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    weisses wrote: »
    Post 7 on page 1

    I find the findings in the Full video regarding wtc7 very valid and deserves a further investigation

    If you want me to link the video with the particulair part tell me .... Its almost all in line with my opinion only explained clearer i think
    weisses wrote: »
    Because i believe that not the whole building got the same structual damage and fires at the same time so you would expect damaged and weaker parts to collapse first .... maybe even creating a domino effect .. but not in the perfect way that building came down

    I'm confused. You've been shown clear evidence that the building doesn't all collapse at the same time. You can see the video from 'Architects for 911 truth' has got the whole first half of the collapse cut out. None of the video of the day has any sounds of explosions on them. With this info alone it makes that video full of crap.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Here's another one for you. I originally posted this info on a previous thread.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7ehAI9cUkM


    The fire-fighters says 'all the windows were blown out', often quoted to prove there were explosives. But that's not what the footage shows.
    So there appears to be a handful of broken windows. The broken glass is lying directly outside the windows, not all the glass is even knocked out. A lot of the glass is lying directly inside the building too. Otherwise the lobby looks perfect, the plant pots aren't even moved or the plants damaged. I have no idea what broke those windows but it doesn't look like an explosion of any kind. (Though if i had to guess I'd say the plane impact caused these very big windows to shatter). Unless I'm supposed to believe an explosion broke heavy plate glass windows, lightly dropped the glass both inside and outside the building, didn't knock leaves off the plants or do any other damage whatsoever in the lobby. Magic explosives again obviously.
    But you know I discovered something in the meantime completely by accident. I was looking at the Naudet bothers documentary the one which was narrated by Robert De Niro. In part two (two or three anyway) there's some shots of the firemen arriving at the WTC. In the shot they appear to be breaking the windows with their axes to get access the lobby in numbers. So using the evidence I can surmise that these huge plate glass windows were broken by the plane impact and/or the fire-fighters gaining access.

    So I could easily check that the damage in the lobby was not caused by explosives but 'Architects for 911 truth' couldn't. Bunch of liars.


  • #143
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    meglome wrote: »
    It's actually in this thread or the other one, with direct quotes to the NIST report. Posted by King Mob.

    Part of the facade ? when I view all the footage the building falls in one piece (leaving out the penthouse)

    So according to you what did free fall en what didn't ... based on the footage

    meglome wrote: »
    I'm confused. You've been shown clear evidence that the building doesn't all collapse at the same time. You can see the video from 'Architects for 911 truth' has got the whole first half of the collapse cut out. None of the video of the day has any sounds of explosions on them. With this info alone it makes that video full of crap.

    Leaving the penthouse out ... what part of the building doesn't collapse at the same time

    There are demolition experts claiming that the penthouse collapsing early is a typical controlled demolition .. are the talking rubbish? .. i don't know

    I just want to know that we are not talking about different things adding more confusion

    meglome wrote: »
    Here's another one for you. I originally posted this info on a previous thread.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7ehAI9cUkM


    The fire-fighters says 'all the windows were blown out'. But that's not what the footage shows.





    So I could easily check that the damage in the lobby was not caused by explosives but 'Architects for 911 truth' couldn't. Bunch of liars.


    I have no trouble with the official view on wtc 1&2 ... not focussing on that atm ... although there seem to be loads of questions remaining



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4

    First 52 minutes


  • #144
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    Part of the facade ? when I view all the footage the building falls in one piece (leaving out the penthouse)

    Leaving the penthouse out ... what part of the building doesn't collapse at the same time

    So as long as you ignore the first half of the collapse, the rest of the collapse was at the same time and therefore suspicious, even though it's explained by the first half of the collapse.

    Huh.. I guess I can see why Gage et al like to leave out that inconvenient part of reality.


  • #145
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So as long as you ignore the first half of the collapse, the rest of the collapse was at the same time and therefore suspicious, even though it's explained by the first half of the collapse.

    Huh.. I guess I can see why Gage et al like to leave out that inconvenient part of reality.

    You should have asked the question earlier in the thread if you are really interested .. I am confused by what he meant by facade

    and stop quoting out of context
    meglome wrote: »
    NSIT say that a section of the facade falls for a time at free-fall speeds. This is because the internal structure has already collapsed so there's basically nothing holding it up. They don't say the entire building falls at free-fall speeds.
    weisses wrote: »
    I just want to know that we are not talking about different things adding more confusion

    your not helping King Mob ...

    Ready for an apology regarding your attempt to fabricate quotes allegedly from me ??

    If not i just put your on ignore ..Because i don't want to waste my time with someone who does that


  • #146
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    I am confused by what he meant by facade

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facade
    The façade is pretty much the outside of the building. Particularly, here meglome and I are using the word to describe the outside shell of WTC7.

    As the interior of the building progressively collapsed, dragging the east penthouse down into the building followed by the rest of the penthouse soon after, the outside of the building was left standing for a few seconds before it was dragged down with the rest of the building.
    This is apparent in the total, unedited footage and by including the half of the collapse you are saying we should not pay attention to.
    And it is demonstrated by the NIST which you admit is plausible and does not contain flaws or contradictions you can point out.

    The NIST report says that a section of the façade of the building feel for about 2 seconds at free fall acceleration, the same section experiencing less acceleration both before and after this tiny period of free fall. And it's important to not that this would have been after the interior had already collapse, hence the report does not say that the building fell at free fall, despite some lies your are being constantly told.

    Now I'd love to see the twisted, non nonsensical reasoning you are using that lets you totally ignore half of the collapse.


  • #147
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob you just showed all the tactics you loath from the "truthers"

    I am happy that i could expose you as the person i thought you to be

    Please Keep falsifying quotes if they can prove your points

    I will maybe talk to you again when your adult enough to have a fair discussion


  • #148
    whatstherush
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 669 ✭✭✭whatstherush


    weisses wrote: »
    King Mob you just showed all the tactics you loath from the "truthers"

    I am happy that i could expose you as the person i thought you to be

    Please Keep falsifying quotes if they can prove your points

    I will maybe talk to you again when your adult enough to have a fair discussion

    Adult discussion, are you having a laugh. You go around saying I'm not a truther, I'm not a CT'er, I'm just say'in there's no way that building 7 came down according to the official explanation. When people ask you what the alternative explanation for it coming down is, you hide behind the original vid saying it raises questions, because you can't logically defend any of the alternatives.

    P.S.You can stick me on ignore as well, that echo chamber must be lovely.


  • #149
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    King Mob you just showed all the tactics you loath from the "truthers"

    I am happy that i could expose you as the person i thought you to be

    Please Keep falsifying quotes if they can prove your points

    I will maybe talk to you again when your adult enough to have a fair discussion
    It's a good thing too, soon you might have started to question what you're told...


  • #150
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,526 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Calm it down, people. If you want to stick someone on ignore, there's no need to announce it. If someone is sticking you on ignore, there's no need to respond to them.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    whatstherush wrote: »
    Adult discussion, are you having a laugh. You go around saying I'm not a truther, I'm not a CT'er, I'm just say'in there's no way that building 7 came down according to the official explanation. When people ask you what the alternative explanation for it coming down is, you hide behind the original vid saying it raises questions, because you can't logically defend any of the alternatives.

    P.S.You can stick me on ignore as well, that echo chamber must be lovely.

    Why is that video false .... No one has debunked it yet .. The wtc7 part anyway, and if you agree with the tactics and lies used fine by me


Advertisement