Visible explosions in WTC7.The video you did not know exists...

That says nothing to the question he asked you...

 

You didn't address my point did you? What was the condition of the surrounding structural components?

See, this is where your structural engineering ignorance really shows. You parrot what other truthers have to say without any knowledge of how things operate in the structural engineering world.

Let me ask you this. What condition were the surrounding floor trusses in that helped stabilize column 79 laterally? How many floor trusses were affected?

 

Given that the building was not instrumented before demolition,
who knows how many columns failed or were about to fail or
anything of the sort, its speculation, the conclusion about
"column 79" was reached long after the site had been cleared
of any remnant of the "collapse" and without any detailed documentary
photos of the site, what do they have? speculation, complete & total
guesswork. and this is your tax dollars at work, a taxpayer funded
"report" that relies heavily on speculation.

 

Oh really?!

And what, pray tell, is your belief based on that it was controlled demolition that brought these towers down? Is it guesswork? Speculation?I find it humorous that you supply these as reasons why you think the "official story" evidence/data provided is faulty, yet your own controlled demolition belief is based on the same characteristics and you believe in that explanation hook, line, and sinker.

 

LOOK at the demolition of WTC1,2, & 7
and observe the way they fell and in the short
time it took to completely destroy the buildings.
You can tell by the way those buildings fell,
9/11 is a LIE!

 

No ... 9/11 is a fact. It happened.

 

I'm not arguing that it didn't happen, I'm arguing
the case for CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

 

You stated 9/11 was a lie.

It wasn't.

 

The official reporting on the subject alleges that suicidal Arabs hijacked airliners .... ( etc..... )
except that it really didn't happen like that.

 

So prove it.

 

The fact that you don't see the problem here
doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist.

The "collapse" of WTC1,2 & 7 = unnatural act.

 

So PROVE it already!

Your incredulity is NOT proof.

 

The facts are available, its just that you don't like the facts.
the towers descended at 2/3 the acceleration of gravity
and WTC7 spent 2.25 sec at free fall acceleration and
you really do not like these facts, but they completely
negate the idea that the towers & 7 "collapsed" because
of the fires & damage from a terrorist attack.

 

Assuming again?..You say 'the facts are available',Yet when pressed you resort to incredulity to support your claims......sorry,charlie.

Won't work.

 

Is it to be considered "incredulity"
or rather statement of fact that WTC7 descended for 2.25 sec
at free fall acceleration?

 

Not a statement of fact: it's a falsehood.

 

You made the assertion "falsehood" now support it,
what do you have?

 

Hence structural resistance is proven instead of explosives. Explosives equals ZERO resistance.

Another lie. You keep repeating this and it simple isn't true. As explained to you numerous times, that number is an AVERAGE. The data points in the graphs used to come up with that AVERAGE fall above and below the line for free fall acceleration.

 

That statement is entirely yours
I want no part of it.

Your interpretation of the data available
runs counter to not only the NIST admission about it
but the AE911TRUTH faction as well.

Question, if WTC7 did not drop at free fall acceleration
for 2.25 sec, what is YOUR interpretation of what happened
and why it happened?

 

The answer is in the part you deceptively cropped out of his original statement:

 

None of these claims negate the FACT that they collapsed from fire and impact damage.

Nor did WTC 7 fall at free fall acceleration. That repeated claim of yours has been proven false repeatedly

- - - Updated - - -

One cannot prove a negative the burden is on you to prove it did and you have failed MISERABLY to prove your claim.

 

RE: the 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration by WTC7

Note that to say it in totally proper terms, the rate of
descent of WTC7 during that 2.25 sec was indistinguishable
from the acceleration of gravity. The implications of this are
that the falling mass had NO resistance under it, and as the
video clearly indicates the falling mass was the full width of
the North side of WTC7 and included the West side of the
building also. This mass fell in unison and descended at a
rate of acceleration indistinguishable from free fall for 2.25 sec.

The fall very clearly indicates that ALL of the resistance had
to be removed and all at the same time.

The different data points that do not match up perfectly with
the mathematically derived curve are the product of camera
vibration, and other anomalies that can be expected to impose
on data collection of this sort.

 

genericBob, it is quite tiring when one has to repeat themselves because the person on the other side blatantly ignores the information given.

Here is the problem with your statement that has been repeatedly brought to your attention.

WTC7 did not fall at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds. It was an AVERAGE. Do you know what "average" means and how it is derived? If you look at both David Chandler's graph and NIST's graph, you will find that the data points fall both ABOVE the free fall line, and below it. You have been asked numerous times to explain what this means, yet you continue to play games.

 

Is it really genericBob? My statement that explosives equals zero resistance is entirely mine?

You make this too easy.

 

my post #272