LOLOL I caught you out lying and now you respond with this spectacular butthurt. You can't prove your point and this is your escape clause. How cute. You sound more like a sore loser than anything else. I suggest you go find some new logical fallacies to exploit that won't support Chandler's lies, as I'm having fun pointing out your erroneous reasoning, and exposing your treachery.
I know, it's always about making 9/11 about me. That way you don't need to address the facts and the evidence. That's really why you're here, to disrupt the discussion with name calling and insults. When you make an attempt at addressing the facts and evidence, besides the liberally sprinkled in names and insults, you make things up and try to confuse the issue. You must really be angry that WTC7 free fell just like any successfully planned and executed CD. The similarities are inescapable. (and the name calling and insults are at epic proportions). You can't show someone a duck and try to explain it's really a chicken. NIST tried but they had to cheat big time to try to make it look like a chicken. The gory details are being exposed in the other thread, which I noticed you lost interest in. You can't outcheat NIST, trust me on this.
this is where you lie. before every single CD, there are lots of bangs and booms before the building starts coming down. also, all CDs have the building fall on its footprint or inside the footprint of the building. no CD has tons of debris collapse way outside of the footprint, damaging neighboring structures, hundreds of feet away. I should know. I was there. I saw neighboring structures all over the WTC area that were damaged by collapsing debris from WTC 1, 2, and 7. controlled demolitions don't do that. you know what controlled demolitions also don't do? they aren't preceded by hours and hours of unfought fires, that destrengthen the steel inside the building to the point of failure at the weakest link.
I didn't even read that dreck, suffice it to say, I caught you lying. LOLOL You're a dishonest poster unworthy of a serious response. You've shown your slip and I will treat you with the contempt you deserve accordingly. Furthermore, you are deliberately circulating false information to make your hypothesis credible and I know it. Chandler's collapse time is wrong and to push any hypothesis based upon it is intellectually dishonest. - - - Updated - - - Get used to it.
I haven't lied about anything. You didn't understand the sentence you quoted. Read it again for comprehension. I specifically said: WTC7 free fell just like any successfully planned and executed CD I highlighted the keywords for you in case you still don't get it. The sentence says nothing about bangs, booms or even footprint. Of course they do: [video=youtube;D7Rm6ZFROmc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7Rm6ZFROmc[/video] Both buildings falling at virtually identical rates with no visible jolts/hesitation. The rate is free fall or near free fall. Yeah I know, these were special. Lucky Larry was really nervous I'm sure.
comparing the rate of collapse of buildings with different heights, not being able to see the entire building collapse, having one video in real time while the others are in slow motion, not showing the entire process, ignoring the fires that one building suffered for hours, is sad and desperate. shame on you. you claim to care about facts and knowledge.
There are two features that are totally inescapable and that being the fact of free fall acceleration and also the total destruction of the skyscraper. these two features are conclusive evidence that WTC7 did not just fall down because of OFFICE FIRES!
if you compared a video in real time to a slow-motion video in a courtroom, the judge would laugh at you.
Can U address the points I made in my post? I don't care if some other "truther" uses methods you don't like lets boil it down to the basic facts about the events.
buildings burning for hours. buildings heavily damaged by debris. buildings hit by airplanes. collapses that shower debris hundreds of feet from the buildings' footprint. only someone ignorant of a true CD, compares that to a CD.
You are quick to cite bits that may or may not be a product of CD but the fact remains, the real important feature of CD is the total destruction of the target building. The very serious question here is WHY did the towers continue to "collapse" straight down, when at any time if at one floor, the structure were to give way on one side before another, the whole action would become biased to that side, and as such, would shift more weight onto that side causing a progressive failure of the structure on one side ahead of the others and would imbalance the action causing the dumping of rubble over the side of the building and ending the action. WHY should it be considered that " total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation " ? Total destruction should be considered the LEAST likely outcome.
the purpose of a CD is to bring a building to the ground with ZERO damage to neighboring structures. that did not happen on 9-11. only a novice looks at 9-11, and sees a "classic" CD that's why you guys use slow-motion videos. that's why you guys use videos of WTC 7 that fail to show the collapse of the entire building. that's why you guys ignore the many hours of fires. that's why you guys ignore the structural damage done by the planes and debris. that's why you guys ignore the many neighboring buildings destroyed or damaged by these so-called "controlled demolitions". you know what the key word in "controlled demolition" is?? its CONTROLLED!!! nothing controlled about the collapses on 9-11. if they were, the Deutsche Bank building would still be there. the DC 37 building would not have been damaged. the CUNY building would not have been damaged. WTC 3,4,5,6 would still be there. the Greek Orthodox Church would still be there. this is why you guys fail.
So you think free fall is significantly different at different heights (within building heights)? Are the 2 buildings dropping at extremely similar rates or not to your own eyes? Why is it I don't hear you complaining about NIST stopping their animations abruptly? Can you back up that claim with anything? There's no need to, there's more than enough in the video to be able to see the similarities. It's not even just about the rate of collapse. Irrelevant, the issue is about visually comparing the collapse of the two buildings. No it's reality. There's no shame in exposing the facts and my knowledge. What's shameful is swallowing everything one is fed by the US government as fact and even more shameful is defending it.
strawman. i didn't believe there were WMDs in Iraq, and I was right. i dont believe the govt. story about 9-11 cause the govt. says so, i believe it cause its confirmed by all principles of physics, engineering, and architecture.
Talk about strawman, your response is irrelevant. You didn't answer one single question or address any of the facts regarding the inescapable similarities between a known CD and the collapse of WTC7, which the subject of this particular discussion. The cause of the collapse requires a legitimate investigation, something that was never done. A scam is not a legitimate investigation. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/458597-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-all-its-glory.html
there have been multiples investivations of all collapses. just cause they fail to confirm your pre-conceived paranoid notions of truth, doesn't mean they are a "scam". Let's be frank: you will not believe ANY engineer, ANY architect, and study or investigation, that doesn't confirm your demolition idea. doesn't matter how professionally it was done, doesn't matter how educated the personnel involved. You made your decision about what happened long ago, and NOTHING will change your mind.
I was talking about LEGITIMATE investigations, not scams masquerading as investigations. The official ones are scams according to the facts. What was preconceived is the official narrative. For example, NIST eliminated the most likely cause of the collapses in favor of the least likely under false pretenses in order to concoct a theory that supports the official narrative and refused to release the data they used, despite FOIA law, citing the inane excuse that it would jeopardize public safety. That is the truth, I didn't make that up. If that's not a scam to you then you are clearly in denial of reality and common sense. I will also never be as gullible as you. But you and I are not the issue, the facts are. Diverting the issue to me is your way of avoiding the reality about the "investigations". I've studied many technical reports, including the 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST reports, self proclaimed "debunking" sites, videos, eyewitness claims, listened to many experts credible and not so much and more, as well as used common sense. I've also posted quite a bit of what I learned. I'm currently devoting an entire thread to the NIST scam for example. I don't see you tackling any of the details I posted, likely because you don't have the standing/expertise to do so. Apparently so did you, it's exactly what you were fed and you have no questions or concerns about it. Defending it every day is what you do. I made my decision that the official narrative is a scam about 12 years ago based on all the facts. I made that decision because I questioned everything and the answers and non-answers did not match the official narrative, common sense or reality. You made your decision by failing to ask any questions and accepted what you were fed on faith.
no matter who the investigators are, how thorough they are, how comprehensive their research is, you will call any study into the 9-11 collapses a "scam" if they don't confirm your pre-conceived conspiratorial notions of truth. admit it. You think 9-11 was an inside job and NOTHING could ever convince you otherwise.
Completely irrelevant to the issue, as usual. I had no "preconceived notions", ever. I'm embarrassed to say I even accepted what I was fed on faith for the first 3 years just like you still do, mostly because I didn't have anything other than what I was fed to go on. I should have questioned everything from day one, I did not, even though the twin towers collapses did not sit well with me from the moment I watched them. I did not know about WTC7 until 3 years later. Back to the real issue though. Oh, never mind you don't want to discuss that, you just want to discuss me. I'm not 9/11 and never will be, sorry, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Why do you even think that is an issue? It stopped abruptly because that is where the footage ended. Try to think before you post garbage.
