how about that, a nice troll post. your frivolous claims are best answered and disposed of by attending a high school physics course instead of reading poser websites.
Indeed, 7WTC had to be designed around the substation. 7WTC never fell at free fall-that is just an ignorant claim by amateurs. 9/11 truth (Chandler) calculated the collapse from the beginning of the descent of the curtain wall, therefore their calculations have the collapse at approx. 6 seconds. When one factors the collapse time from when the eastern penthouse collapses, one gets a vastly different figure. Here is a view of the collapse that one rarely sees: [video]https://youtu.be/AsJQKpnkZ10[/video] Here is a link to gif model of the collapse (the image won't upload to this site for some reason) https://www.metabunk.org//files/WTC7-NIST-Simulation-with-Impact-damage.gif As you can see, the collapse is well underway BEFORE we can see the penthouse fall. - - - Updated - - -
Yes and posers wonder why they have lost all credibility out here. the irony of course is that even the gubmint as in NIST agrees with the truthers that it free fell and measure it the very same way. I guess the whole world is doing it wrong but the posers. In fact NIST even made a graph of its freefalling descent in their report. Stage 2 is pure freefall verified by the gubmint, of course posers could care less about facts. There is no significant movement of the building prior to freefall before the majority of the penthouse caved in, just like any other classic demolition. What I enjoy watching is the timing sequence of the charges as the drop it: I guess they forgot to make these videos blurry enough LOL as we can see the above poster really screwed up and cant tell the difference between camera movement and building movement. Then of all things post a model that doesnt even look like the real event. I about lost it I was laughing so hard. and then they cut the model off early so you cant compare it to the real building. thats how it looks if it goes just a bit further LMAO! Beware of the posers they will try to get you to believe anything by sleight of hand, they love noobs and hate us old timers who heard all the bs before. Ok ready for the next round of disinformation;
Wait a minute sir. I never said it did not fall at free fall speed for a second or two and that aint the claim the people made who posted the video I linked either. YOU might want to learn how to read and understand what it is that you read. Now I wouldn't call myself an explosives expert but I would tend to believe that I made a living with explosives for a longer period than you have.
Jonathon Cole.. that name rings a bell... isn't he the guy who did an experiment where he dropped a solid block of wood on a solid block of wood and he claimed that because the block of wood did not collapse that it proved that the Towers could not have collapsed as was claimed? Oh yes actually he is that guy... Unless you believe that those Towers and WTC 7 would behave as if they were solid chunks how could you even entertain any idea he had? Is that in fact what you believe?
Note the above comparison of four different smoothing techniques employed in the modelling process. At the 12.5 second mark free-fall is crossed and exceeded for 2.25 seconds. That alone suggests for that short period late in the sequence, that other forces were at work (i.e. the curtain wall being pulled down by the collapsing interior).
Indeed sir. Indeed. In my opinion what makes some see an explosive demolition is because those experts use explosives to cause similar structural failures and the appearance is the same. If an explosives guy went in and set explosives on a few key columns some just to weaken them and some to cause total failure he could collapse a building in the same fashion. He would have no control over the timing of that collapse but it would collapse due to gravitational forces. Somehow the conspiracy guys think that explosives "engineers" either went into a burning building and set explosives while standing in the fire or they believe that someone set explosives and then aircraft impacted the buildings and some how these explosives survived the fires or aircraft impacts. The chances of that are probably the same as you getting struck by lightning on a clear day while sitting inside a faraday cage on an isolated chair. One group claims that some guys went into the buildings with explosives simply in boxes and just left those boxes in the floor next to the walls in the central core of the towers and somehow the people (including firemen and police officers) getting on and off elevators didn't notice all those boxes sitting next to the walls. They claim this explains how a group could set the building up to collapse within a certain time frame. .
they had all day to rig 7. jennings and hess were in there till afternoon and they didnt burn up despite posers pretending there was more of the same invisible fire like the claim took out wtc2 LOL Real loaders know it only takes 30 seconds to tape cutters to a beam. That is why I continue to say, you boyz need to upgrade your material to a higher level of academics instead of the continual shuck n jive nonsense that posers push.
yeh I need for you to put your finger on the visible fire in the core area in wtc 2, and even nist points out the dires were nearly extinguished in wtc7 when they pulled it. That means post your pic for all of us to see.
Excise me sir. You claim the govt has lied to me but then you want to use something the lying govt said as proof of your claims? Why would I believe what you believe is a lie is proof of anything? I can find photos of WTC 7 on fire, and so can you. Fire doesn't need to be in the core or even that close to cause a collapse of the floor trusses which stretch from the core to the outer wall. The fire department stopped fighting the fire due to lack of water pressure. The sprinklers in at least a portion of the building were not functioning due to lack of water pressure. Pulled was a term used by the fire department in reference to evacuating their teams.
