View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

9/11 debate on C2C I consulted on for Richard Gage

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 20 Jul 2010, 00:41

Edx wrote:Even if it did fall at free fall because of explosives or this mythical thermite according to people like Stundie and Anders Bjorkman it shouldnt have continued to collapse either, because they claim that the smaller part of a building physically cannot crush the rest of it.
There is no "even if it did fall at free fall speeds".....It did fall at free fall speeds. lol

And then use you fantastical imagination to claim that it shouldn't have collapse because the smaller part cannot crush the rest?? lol

What smaller part is there in the WTC7?? hahahahahahahahaha!! Your debunking is hilarious and pathetic to boot.
Edx wrote:Thats why they debunk themselves by tying themselves in so many of these knots.
HAHAHAHAHA!! How does free fall debunk a demolition?? Please tell us?? lol
Edx wrote:The same knots that get them into trouble by saying that they are not accusing the firefighters of anything and then they imply they are either lying or they are all incompetent or apart of some mass delusion for nearly 10 years because truthers say things that directly contradict the opinion of the firefighters there that day on subjects that the firefighters are experts in.
hahahahahaha!! You are going to have to do better than this Edx!!

And debunkers don't contradict firefighters who says it looked like a demolition?? hahahahahahahahaha!! Or the firefighters who said they heard bombs/explosions?? hahahahahahaha!!

Piss poor debunking, but then coming straight out JREF Groupthink, what else do I expect.....debunking?? lol
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17






Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 20 Jul 2010, 00:48

stundie wrote:And then use you fantastical imagination to claim that it shouldn't have collapse because the smaller part cannot crush the rest?? lol


No, thats what YOU claim. YOU claim that the top cant crush the bottom part. Thats why you (incorrectly) claim verinage only works when the top is at least the same ratio as the bottom


What smaller part is there in the WTC7?? hahahahahahahahaha!! Your debunking is hilarious and pathetic to boot.


If the first 8 stories are free fall from the roofline then it hit resistance, then you still have about 90/10 ratio of upper block to lower block. According to you the upper block should be resisted by the lower block. Why didnt that happen?

Edx wrote:And debunkers don't contradict firefighters who says it looked like a demolition??


How many firefighters can you find that believe the WTC1,2 and 7 were demolitions? Not just looked LIKE. It does resemble a demolition because thats what buildings look like when they collapse. I already told you this and you ignored it.

hahahahahahahahaha!! Or the firefighters who said they heard bombs/explosions?? hahahahahahaha!!


We've been over that over and over again Stundie, not my fault if you ignore all my responses to it. I remember when you said that none of them were misquoted or realised later what it was and you implied that just because they said explosion they meant bomb. I disproved you and you move the goal posts and dont admit you were wrong. I asked you to explain how to differentiate between the real explosive detonations reports and something else and you ignored it. Additionally I asked you to explain why we dont hear any of these gigantic explosive detonations when all this steel flinging and skyscraper pulverising is meant to be occurring. Simply restating the same thing as if I didnt say anything isnt a good argument.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 20 Jul 2010, 01:12

ProfWag wrote:According to the report, WTC7 fell at second stage for a near free fall for 8 stories, the remainder fell 40% slower than free fall.
BUZZ!! Wrong again .

The acceleration to free fall (Stage 1) accelerated 40% slower.
Then it achieved free fall speed (Stage 2)
Then it fell at near free fall speed as it gained a little resistance. (Stage 3)

So the remainder DIDN'T fall 40% slower.

ProfWag wrote:The building was 47 stories high, hence, according to the "official" report, WTC 7 free fell for 17% of the entire collapse.
I know! So when are you going to explain how fires and a single column caused this?? lol
ProfWag wrote:It did not free fall for 47 stories as you are wanting people to believe.
Now where did I say it fell at free fall for 47 stories?? lol

Oh thats right......I didn't. You just made it up too make it look like you had a point. lol
ProfWag wrote:Free fall for a 47 stories bulding would be 5.9 seconds. It took WTC7 over 13 seconds to collapse.
No it didn't and I know you are going to include the penthouse and claim that is how long it took to collapse, but we do not know how far the Penthouse collapsed.
ProfWag wrote:You are misrepresenting facts stundie.
I am misrepresenting them?? Even after I have to straighten your ass out above.....lol
ProfWag wrote:Get them straight and we'll talk again.
Evidently you are misrepresenting the fact and even though it has been pointed out to you, you can't talk because you haven't got any explanation other than get your knickers in a twist!! lol
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Chemist » 20 Jul 2010, 01:14

So you are finally admitting that it fell at free fall speed instead of desperately trying to debunk it by taking a quote out of context about the acceleration?? lol


You are either purposely being obtuse or you can't read. Freefall was for only eight stories. WTC 7 was 47 stories tall.

Unless you can demonstrate that it collapsed at free fall speed for the entire 47 stories then it did NOT collapse at free fall speed.

Now for a 47 story building (about 226 meters), a free fall collapse should take about six seconds. When I time the collapse on video, starting with the penthouse collapse, WTC 7 collapses in 14 seconds. So it collapses slower than freefall speed. Whatever couple seconds you saw on the velocity profile doesn't mean anything. You have to consider the whole profile of the collapse.
Chemist
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Jul 2010, 05:13

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 20 Jul 2010, 01:25

Edx wrote:No, thats what YOU claim. YOU claim that the top cant crush the bottom part.
Where is the top and bottom part of the WTC7 collapse??

I'm sorry but I never claimed to know where the initiation point was or that the building was in 2 parts because it came straight down.
Edx wrote:Thats why you (incorrectly) claim verinage only works when the top is at least the same ratio as the bottom
Sorry Edx, but verinage works on a 50/50 divide and even though it has been pointed out twice to you, you keep on fooling yourself that one portion is much larger than the other for it to be a comparator. lol
Edx wrote:If the first 8 stories are free fall from the roofline then it hit resistance, then you still have about 90/10 ratio of upper block to lower block.
I haven't got a clue what you are talking about seeing as the building fell straight down.
Edx wrote:According to you the upper block should be resisted by the lower block. Why didnt that happen?
What upper block and what lower block are you talking about?? lol

We are talking WTC7, not WTC 1 & 2 where there is a point of initiation and 2 separate blocks.

That is why you are so confused......lol
Edx wrote:How many firefighters can you find that believe the WTC1,2 and 7 were demolitions?Not just looked LIKE.
Isn't this a logical fallacy. Appeal to the masses?? lol

Of course it is, that is why you used it because you lack any explanation in your fire theory for the free fall speeds. lol
Edx wrote:It does resemble a demolition because thats what buildings look like when they collapse.
No, I've seen buildings collapse that do not look like a demolition and actuallu look like a building collapsing. lol
Edx wrote:I already told you this and you ignored it.
So if it looks like one, then why are you arguing?? lol
Edx wrote:We've been over that over and over again Stundie, not my fault if you ignore all my responses to it.
Sorry Edx but attributing quotes from firefighters to make out the building was a raging inferno when there is no video or photographic evidence to support this position is not ignoring it. lol
Edx wrote:I remember when you said that none of them were misquoted or realised later what it was and you implied that just because they said explosion they meant bomb.
Well they weren't as far as I'm aware but even if they think these explosions were the building collapsing, it still doesn't disprove the many other quotes of people who talk about explosions.
Edx wrote:I disproved you and you move the goal posts and dont admit you were wrong.
I haven't moved any goal posts. lol
Edx wrote:I asked you to explain how to differentiate between the real explosive detonations reports and something else and you ignored it.
I do not know how to differentiate between detonation and something else because I do not know what something else is suppose to be. lol
Edx wrote:Additionally I asked you to explain why we dont hear any of these gigantic explosive detonations when all this steel flinging and skyscraper pulverising is meant to be occurring.
There could be lots of reasons, the mic could have been overloaded with the sound of the collapse...lol
Edx wrote: Simply restating the same thing as if I didnt say anything isnt a good argument.
Neither is not addressing the question of how a fire caused the building to collapse at free fall speeds by bringing up any old shite to avoid answering it??

I'm still waiting?? hahahahahahahahahahaha!!
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 20 Jul 2010, 01:30

Chemist wrote:You are either purposely being obtuse or you can't read. Freefall was for only eight stories. WTC 7 was 47 stories tall.
Well considering I pointed this out to ProfWag, I think you are being obtuse and obviously can't read. lol
Chemist wrote:Unless you can demonstrate that it collapsed at free fall speed for the entire 47 stories then it did NOT collapse at free fall speed.
Oh please find me a quote where I claim that the entire building fell at free fall speeds?? lol

Oh thats right, you can't can you?? lol

Walking, talking failure!! lol
Chemist wrote:Now for a 47 story building (about 226 meters), a free fall collapse should take about six seconds.
ANd the WTC7 fell in just a little over 6 seconds. lol
Chemist wrote:When I time the collapse on video, starting with the penthouse collapse, WTC 7 collapses in 14 seconds.
You do not know how far the Penthouse fell. But even if it did fall all the way down, it still doesn't disprove the fact that it fell at free fall speed for over 2 seconds!! lol
Chemist wrote: So it collapses slower than freefall speed.
I know, that is why I use the term "Near" free fall speeds. lol
Chemist wrote:Whatever couple seconds you saw on the velocity profile doesn't mean anything. You have to consider the whole profile of the collapse.
Yeah I am and that is why I'm waiting for one ofyou debunkers to explain how your fire/single columns failure explains this....

Now get to it debunker boy and stop your crying!! lol
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 20 Jul 2010, 01:32

Now that we have FINALLY established that the WTC 7 fell for over 2 seconds at free fall speeds. i.e. With no resistance whatsoever!!

Are you debunkers going to explain how this happens??

Or continue in your piss poor attempts at misrepresenting my views because it's much easier than actually having to answer the question??
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Chemist » 20 Jul 2010, 01:33

The acceleration to free fall (Stage 1) accelerated 40% slower.
Then it achieved free fall speed (Stage 2)
Then it fell at near free fall speed as it gained a little resistance. (Stage 3)

So the remainder DIDN'T fall 40% slower.


It didn't collapse at free fall speed, studie...period!

Try to wrap your head around that.

ProfWag wrote:It did not free fall for 47 stories as you are wanting people to believe.
Now where did I say it fell at free fall for 47 stories?? lol


Looks like it's time for a history lesson:

AE911Truth claimed a free fall collapse initially until they were exposed as misrepresented the collapse through heavy handed editing of video.

Now they are focusing on a 2 second window on the velocity profile that shows free fall veocities and pretending that this is what they meant all along.

It's back-peddling.

No it didn't and I know you are going to include the penthouse and claim that is how long it took to collapse, but we do not know how far the Penthouse collapsed.


This is like arguing that a nail couldn't have flattened your tire because we don't know how far it penetrated

That's irrelevant.

The penthouse isn't going to collapse unless there was a structural failure in at least one of the support collumns. Once that happens, loads will be shifted to remaining support collumns that weren't designed to carry such enormous loads and they will start to fail in sequence.

So you can't time a collapse without including the penthouse, it was actually what brought the whole building down.

And if your whole argument is going to revolve around what you can see from the exterior of the building, then you aren't going to get a very good picture of the collapse. The individual floors could be collapsing before anything noticable happens on the outside. I can understand truthers wanting to ignore that because it illustrates that the collapse was gradual due to fire. But that's how it happened.

I am misrepresenting them?? Even after I have to straighten your ass out above.....lol


Strange that supposedly with all those witnesses standing around WTC 7, nobody sees anybody running in and out of the building setting charges and running wires for demolition charges. Why is that?

Maybe instead of crying about how nobody has their facts straight, you should get some of your own first.
Chemist
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Jul 2010, 05:13

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 20 Jul 2010, 01:37

It fell at free fall for 2.25 seconds Chemist.

So instead of talking about who said what etc etc....

When are you going to address this period of no resistance for 2.25 seconds in your fire/single column failure theory??

Bitching does not equal debunking.
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Chemist » 20 Jul 2010, 01:42

Chemist wrote:Unless you can demonstrate that it collapsed at free fall speed for the entire 47 stories then it did NOT collapse at free fall speed.
Oh please find me a quote where I claim that the entire building fell at free fall speeds?? lol


You're not going to focus on a 2 second window unless you're going to use it to establish your theory that the building fell too fast.

The rest of us are saying that you actually need to look at the whole velocity profile.

Chemist wrote:Now for a 47 story building (about 226 meters), a free fall collapse should take about six seconds.
ANd the WTC7 fell in just a little over 6 seconds. lol


No it didn't.
Chemist wrote:When I time the collapse on video, starting with the penthouse collapse, WTC 7 collapses in 14 seconds.
You do not know how far the Penthouse fell.


Doesn't mattter how far the penthouse fell. That's how the collapse started.

But even if it did fall all the way down, it still doesn't disprove the fact that it fell at free fall speed for over 2 seconds!! lol


Once again, it doesn't matter what happened in two seconds. It took 14 seconds.

Chemist wrote: So it collapses slower than freefall speed.
I know, that is why I use the term "Near" free fall speeds. lol


No, you used the term "near" free fall speeds because you wanted some wiggle room.

Chemist wrote:Whatever couple seconds you saw on the velocity profile doesn't mean anything. You have to consider the whole profile of the collapse.
Yeah I am and that is why I'm waiting for one ofyou debunkers to explain how your fire/single columns failure explains this....


We did explain it. We're waiting for you to prove that it was a controlled demolition.
Chemist
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Jul 2010, 05:13

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 20 Jul 2010, 02:00

stundie wrote:
Edx wrote:Thats why you (incorrectly) claim verinage only works when the top is at least the same ratio as the bottom
Sorry Edx, but verinage works on a 50/50 divide and even though it has been pointed out twice to you, you keep on fooling yourself that one portion is much larger than the other for it to be a comparator. lol


No it doesnt, you didnt watch to the end of the video I gave you. You can clearly see that there's about 3 to 4 floors crushing at least 13 with ease and falls in "near free fall speeds". Why didnt the bottom resist the top half?

You still havent explained why you think one floor can hold up the entire weight of the upper block once the weight has misaligned and is no longer being supported by load bearing connections.

Edx wrote:If the first 8 stories are free fall from the roofline then it hit resistance, then you still have about 90/10 ratio of upper block to lower block.
I haven't got a clue what you are talking about seeing as the building fell straight down.


Forget it, others can understand.

Edx wrote:How many firefighters can you find that believe the WTC1,2 and 7 were demolitions?Not just looked LIKE.
Isn't this a logical fallacy. Appeal to the masses?? lol


Find any firefighter on 911, the only example you could give is Schroeder who didnt even know that the South Tower collapsed first.

Of course it is, that is why you used it because you lack any explanation in your fire theory for the free fall speeds. lol


You pick a small fraction of the collapse time and then claim the entire thing fell in free fall, you are dishonest. They did not fall in free fall, only a small fraction fell in free fall.

Why do you think free fall matters? Does that mean WTC 1 and 2 arent demolitions because they didnt collapse in free fall? You are so set on free fall here claiming it proves explosives, but then you also claim WTC1 and 2 were demolitions so where is the free fall there?

Edx wrote:It does resemble a demolition because thats what buildings look like when they collapse.
No, I've seen buildings collapse that do not look like a demolition and actuallu look like a building collapsing. lol


Verinage fits exactly with those firefighter descriptions of the collapses describing pancaking floors. What we dont see on any videos anywhere on 911 are any sounds of all these steel flinging and pulverising that is meant to be occurring in the collapses yet such things can easily be heard on any ACTUAL explosive demolition. Do you care if any of these firefighters think it was actually a demolition? If they actually believe there really were explosives in the towers? Since you clearly dont, why not?

Edx wrote:I already told you this and you ignored it.
So if it looks like one, then why are you arguing?? lol


See, you're being dishonest. I never said it looked exactly like one, I said thats what a building resembles when it collapses. But if you look any closer its clearly very very different. One of the main characteristics of an explosives demolition is that of HUGE earth shaking explosive detonations. Yet, you claim that there was even more intense explosives on 911 flinging steel around which isnt even used in normal demolitions, yet we cant hear these detonations in any videos of the collapses.

Edx wrote:We've been over that over and over again Stundie, not my fault if you ignore all my responses to it.
Sorry Edx but attributing quotes from firefighters to make out the building was a raging inferno when there is no video or photographic evidence to support this position is not ignoring it. lol


The firefighters SAID it was a raging inferno, again this means they are stupid, incompetent, delusional or liars. Take your pick.

Edx wrote:I remember when you said that none of them were misquoted or realised later what it was and you implied that just because they said explosion they meant bomb.
Well they weren't as far as I'm aware but even if they think these explosions were the building collapsing, it still doesn't disprove the many other quotes of people who talk about explosions.


And once again explosions doesnt necessarily mean bomb. And since you seemed to accept there were plenty of others sources for "explosions" that people could have heard, then its your burden to prove that these were - specifically - explosIVES rather than anything else. The fact that no one had any blast injuries at all and the fact that truthers dont give a crap about even trying to find out says it all.

Edx wrote:I disproved you and you move the goal posts and dont admit you were wrong.
I haven't moved any goal posts. lol


You said that no one said they were misquoted, you said no one was taken out of context and you said no one realised later what it was. You were wrong, I showed you where.

Edx wrote:I asked you to explain how to differentiate between the real explosive detonations reports and something else and you ignored it.
I do not know how to differentiate between detonation and something else because I do not know what something else is suppose to be. lol


You dont need to know that. There's plenty of things that could cause someone to describe it as an explosion, Ive given you loads of examples. People in the Empire State Building described a elevator cable snapped as "like gunfire", does that mean gun fire should be looked into? Or how about that giant crane collapsing being described as "like two explosions?" If you had ANYONE that has blast injuries that would go a long way to proving your point and yet no one sustained any blast injuries, no one found any explosive damage to the columns, no one found any explosive remains. If you want to say that what people experienced was specifically an explosive rather than the multitude of other things it could be then the burden of proof is yours.





Edx wrote:Additionally I asked you to explain why we dont hear any of these gigantic explosive detonations when all this steel flinging and skyscraper pulverising is meant to be occurring.
There could be lots of reasons, the mic could have been overloaded with the sound of the collapse...lol


Just because you put "lol" at the end of all your comments doesnt make you look smart it makes you look stupid. :lol:

Firstly no other video of controlled demolitions seem to have this problem of the mic "overloading" to the point where you cant hear anything. Secondly, if these explosions start from above then you should be able to hear the explosions 110 stories up quite easily in the videos of the collapses before it gets so loud that, according to you, it overloads this mic. Again, this never happened either. Thirdly, you have multiple cameras in multiple positions all over the place and no one caught any such explosive detonations on tape. Lastly, these explosives are meant to be much more intense that a normal demolition, normal demolitions aren't trying to fling steel around. So that means they should be even louder.
Last edited by Edx on 20 Jul 2010, 02:09, edited 4 times in total.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 20 Jul 2010, 02:02

Chemist wrote:No it didn't.
Chemist wrote:When I time the collapse on video, starting with the penthouse collapse, WTC 7 collapses in 14 seconds.
You do not know how far the Penthouse fell.


Doesn't mattter how far the penthouse fell. That's how the collapse started.



In fact it started even earlier than that because you can see internal collapses proceeding up the east side below the penthouse before the penthouse collapses, indicating massive internal collapse of floors.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Chemist » 20 Jul 2010, 02:10

Sorry Edx, but verinage works on a 50/50 divide and even though it has been pointed out twice to you, you keep on fooling yourself that one portion is much larger than the other for it to be a comparator. lol


Sigh!

Looks like we need a math lesson since stundie doesn't understand the difference between dynamic load and static load:

Consider the average height of a story to be about 4 meters.

Therefore it takes about 0.9 seconds for any falling object from rest to fall 4 meters using the free fall equation:

d = 0.5 g · t^2

At which time, the velocity will be about 9m/s
according to the equation:

v=g·t

Now how much force is involved to crush a story to about half a meter into dust?

Well, while it's crushing the floor and being resisted, velocity must decrease. We go from 9 m/s to zero in half a meter, or 1/18 of a second.

During this time average velocity turns out to be half of the initial velocity, so the crunch time is 1/9 second. So the acceleration is -9 m/sec divided by 1/9 sec = -81 m/sec2, which works out to be 8 g's of force if you know your physics.

That means every story above the collapse zone is going to feel like 8 stories when it's moving. So in the case of the North tower, with ten stories above the impact zone, it will feel like 80 stories. Which is very close to the height of the entire building. And things look even worse for the south tower. 25 stories will feel like 200 stories, or the force of almost two towers!

Do you think the lower structure can resist those forces? If you do, stundie, I have some ocean-front property in Iowa to sell you.

And this is on the conservative side (assuming a one-story drop). The impact zones seem to be a few stories in height. Why don't you plug 12 meters into those equations and let me know what you get, eh?

And let's keep in mind that you don't need to "crush" the stories underneath, the building is mostly air. You just need to stress them until the rivets and welds break (which should be only a few millimeters deformation) and then THAT floor turns into a free falling object adding it's mass to the collapsing floors and bearing down on the remaining stories.

By the time you get to ground level, you are feeling forces 100's of times larger than a free standing building.

So no, you DON'T need a 50/50 divide.

Stay in school, kids!
Chemist
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Jul 2010, 05:13

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Chemist » 20 Jul 2010, 02:12

In fact it started even earlier than that because you can see internal collapses proceeding up the east side below the penthouse before the penthouse collapses, indicating massive internal collapse of floors.


Agreed.

But truthers can't even get the times right. Discussing anything that may be happening INSIDE the building might be going over their heads!
Chemist
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Jul 2010, 05:13

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby ProfWag » 20 Jul 2010, 02:31

stundie wrote:Oh please find me a quote where I claim that the entire building fell at free fall speeds?? lol
Oh thats right, you can't can you?? lol

Here is one:
stundie wrote:But you haven't debunked anything, you certainly haven't debunked the fact the WTC 7 fell at free fall speeds.

Here is another:
stundie wrote:If it's so crystal clear, then how did WTC 7 manage to fall without any resistance??

Oh yea, and this is one of your misrepresentations:
stundie wrote:
WTC 7 collapsed at near free fall speeds and achieved free fall speeds during it's collapse. The other did not.

And, yes, another one:
stundie wrote:WTC 7 - Steel Framed Building - Burned for 7 hours - collapsed at free fall and then continued at near free falls speeds.

Please note that free fall speed for this building is just under 6 seconds. WTC7 fell at almost 14 seconds. This is not even remote to “near free fall” speeds. This is a gross misrepresentation of facts in a vain attempt to convince people of your propaganda.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 3 guests