9/11

lol hook line and sinker.

i dont care.

 

Wow, you're so cool, not caring and all. I'm so impressed. You're totally Melania. I bet you've got a great big gaping anus to fuck tonight while you eat Cheetos and stuff Cheetos into the anus because you just don't give a fuck.

 

12/13 seconds from when the penthouse gives way to the collapse reaches the ground. Freefall with air resistance would have been 6.227 seconds. Talk of free fall is irrelevant anyway, because all the building doesnt fall at once, its not even close to freefall, nor would a controlled demolition be anyway.

Freefall from 190m on Mars would be 10.1 seconds.

Semantics becuase you can do a controlled demolition where not every part of the building collapses at the same time, and its still a controlled demolition.You can do a controlled demolition that takes longer than a gravitational collapse

In a controlled demolition, gravity still does most of the work, you set off charges at key points, but its still gravity that tunes most of the structure into rubble

Why would any gravitational collapse NOT fall "into its own footprint"? Who said any controlled demolition does? and what does that mean, and by how much?

Freefall and into their own footprint have got nothing to do with any thing, thats semantics you just heard truthers repeat over and over



This is the view from I dont know how high on wtc 1, wtc 6 in between it and wtc 7. 1 and 7 are 300 ft apart. Freefall means constant accelaration, not constantly velocity, velocity increases. Anything falling outwards from wtc 1 hit 7 at 120 mph or so. And even though neither NIST or Fema didnt really go into the eefect of the actual collapse. Do you really think 500,000 tons of skyscraper collapsing had no effect on the structure of wtc 7. Something we will get into later, there are papers on it




WTC 3, they usually post the picture before wtc 1 collapses on truther websites, here is both pics together wtc 3 before wtc 1 collapses (top right), then after wtc 1 collapses (bottom right), with 40 mins in between, not enough time to see what fire would have done anyway. Another classic truther mistruth



Top: World Financial Center 3 (American Express), Bankers Trust, WTC 5, WTC 3 (Marriott Hotel) after WTC 2 destruction.
Middle: Verizon building, WTC 6, Fiterman Hall (30 West Broadway).
Bottom: 90 West Street, Bankers Trust, remaining half of WTC 4, WTC 3 (Marriott Hotel) after destruction of both towers.

 

Well, thats something I agree with you on, certainly something where America is the only first world country that has a problem to such a degree anyway

 

Semantics because now I suppose I should have said "a typical controlled demolition" i.e. not one where they slowly destroy a building over a span of five hours which would have made the entire thing completely obvious.

All of your pictures are supporting my position since all of those buildings, though heavily damaged, are still standing. Show me the videos where several hours later they collapse. Why wouldn't they collapse into their own footprint? Because different sections of structures get destroyed at different times. Things don't just all give way at once and fall straight down like Building 7 did. Like WTC 1 and 2 did no less. One floor after another with no resistance whatsoever.

I really do think that WTC 1's collapse did not have the impact that would have been sufficient to cause it to collapse at freefall speed into its own footprint seven hours later. If it had, I suppose NIST would have drawn that conclusion, but even they probably realized it was too bogus for anyone to believe.

 

Which puts the base of your antenna at the level of the 82nd floor, 10 floors into your intact core structure.

 

I didnt say cause it to collapse. But it didnt have any effect on any of joins in the steel frame of wtc 7?

The Fema report was 2002. The NIST report ends up being funded becuase many thought the Fema report was rushed, and to pretty much shut the truthers up.

You wont find anything on the truther sites becuase it not going to help with the case wtc 7 wasnt a gravitational collapse.....but on the flip side you are never going to hear the seismologists admit, meh, we had no clue how to work it out

Just like you were never going to get any original wtc architects or structural engineers to admit, meh, na, we had no clue at the time, or ten years later, how to work out what would happen if a 707 hit the building

 

That is simply not true in this case. As one floor collapsed onto the next, the falling mass would increase by the additional weight.

You cannot push a nail into a piece of wood with your thumb, but with with a similar effort you can drive it in with a hammer.

 

We'll do it again.

Is this:



a photo of the WTC under construction, or is it, as you have claimed, a photo of something from the 1930s?

You need to answer this so that everyone will be able to put your theory into context.

That theory being:

If there were a duplicate of the upper block sitting in the space right beside the actual upper block, and they both started to descend at the same time, the duplicate upper block--which is traveling through nothing but air--would be only 40 feet ahead of the actual block after 5 seconds, even though the actual upper block is having to overcome the resistance of the lower intact structure for that entire drop.

First you need to admit that your claim that the photo of the WTC structure in the pic above is from the 1930s is a claim based on nothing but your need to make shit up in order to detract from the reality of what the core consisted of. Then we can take an honest look at the likelihood of the upper block of the North Tower pushing through the structure below at virtual freefall speed. So, does the pic above depict the construction of a building from the 1930s, or not?
__________________________________________________________________________
And what's with your claim that this:



is not part of the WTC hat truss? What do you think it is?

 

Yeah, you've described the pancake theory. But even the NIST has determined that that's not what happened.

Your hammer and nail analogy fails. You're trying to draw a parallel between a hammer driving a nail into a plank, and the upper block of the North Tower colliding with a mass of the same composition. You'd have been better off comparing one hammer slamming into another hammer.

 

My theory now? You are off your rocker

How was this thread ever going to not turn into anything other than nonsensical?

Your upper block? Tell me in what bizarro universe does this look intact?

 

Just think, the top of that building is about to pile drive down through that entire thing. A little far fetched. Just a little.

 

Uh huh . . .

You claimed that the FEMA report says that "the WHOLE structural intergrity of wtc 1, including all the columns in that " intact core structure" were compromised by the collapse of wtc 2." So far, that has proven to be a lie on your part. You seem to not understand what that did to your credibility.

You also claimed that the NIST report. confirms that "Theres no singular defined "upper block" once everything starts to give way." So far, that, too, has proved to be a lie on your part. And once again, you seem to not understand what that does to your credibility, which is compounded by your refusal to man up and admit that you were just making up whatever shit you thought would serve your purpose here.

And then you claimed that "There was no internal intact structure pushing upwards. The external steel columns were holding the load, once they gave way, KABOOM . . ." And when asked to provide the source for this claim, you offered nothing, meaning that, once again, you were making up whatever shit you thought would serve your purpose here. Even the NIST referred to the lower core structure as "intact."

But there was no stopping you! When shown the top of the hat truss here:



you said that it was not part of the WTC hat truss. And when asked what it is a photo of, if not the hat truss, you go into deaf mute mode, pretending that no one asked you to back up your claim--which so far has turned out to be another lie. And still you believe that you exude some kind of credibility.

And when shown the composition of the core structure in a photo here:



you claim that it is a photo from the 1930s. And when asked to prove your claim, you just go into deaf mute mode again and hope that no one will notice that you lied. You pulled that claim out of your ass, and like all such things, you couldn't keep it from stinking; especially with me pointing to it. Even now, you're not willing to admit that you were telling whatever lie was necessary to maintain your credibility and integrity, and in the process, you lost both.

 

No pile driver man, you are just going to look coocoo if they post pics or vids and you say that, building collapses in pieces.

Storchs little hat truss crumbles like a 5 day old apple pie, antenna breaks apart like a twig

 

So now are trying to claim its my theory

 

No. In case you missed it, I showed you to be a habitual liar. But I can see that rather than accept that fact, you're going into deaf mute mode again in the hope that everyone else will, too.

 

So that is not an attempt to try make it my theory now?

To try cover up that you went 50 pages screwing up, having your upper block fall 360ft, 29 stories, admitting it went into your intact core structure to prove it couldnt have

 

Even though you've destroyed your credibility by showing that you are more than willing to pass off lie after lie as the truth, and hoping that no one will check your work, I'll kick you one more time while you're down since you're still talking as if you have a leg to stand on.

The NIST referred to the structure below the impact zone as intact. You have offered nothing but a lie to refute that. Therefore, it stands that part of the official narrative is the idea that if there were a duplicate of the upper block sitting in the space right beside the actual upper block, and they both started to descend at the same time, the duplicate upper block--which is traveling through nothing but air--would be only 40 feet ahead of the actual block after 5 seconds, even though the actual upper block is having to overcome the resistance of the lower intact structure for that entire drop.

And this photo:



which you believe is a photo of something else from the 1930s shows just how ridiculous the official narrative is.

 

Oh......my....god!!!!



Your little imaginary horizontal line, at the top of the tower/ base of the antenna, the top of your "upper block". Antenna is 360 feet tall, you watch it drop for 5 seconds until top of the antenna reaches your imaginary line, its fallen 360 ft

But the bottom of that "upper block", the 98th/99th floor Where is that 360ft/5 seconds later !!!!!!?

 

Once again you start with a lie. The horizontal line of the top of the Tower is not imaginary. Anyone can place a straightedge across the screen that will line up with the roofline of the Tower, and then count the seconds it takes for 360 feet of antenna to reach that line. The camera never moves, so there is direct observation.



Also, the antenna was supported by the hat truss.



You remember this photo, right. It's a photo that you claimed showed something that was not a part of the WTC hat truss, but actually is. It now stands as a monument to your willingness to lie for your own ends.

Anyway, the hat truss was tied into both the core and perimeter columns. Now you want to claim that the upper block was being destroyed as it descended for that first 360 feet. But that lie leads you to now have to explain how something that was destroyed in 5 seconds went on to crush the rest of the Tower. This is what happens when you lie. You have to keep it up.

And just out of curiosity, are you ready to own up to your lie about the structure below being a photo of something from the 1930s, or would you like some more time to come to terms with being publicly found out?