The Physics Of WTC 7

[KokomoJojo]

Who knows how you think you've owned anyone but yourself given your total lack of proof of any of your claims?

only people with a qualified physics background so sorry that it rules pretty much everyone on this board out, especially you, except ELC and he has the patience of a saint trying to teach dishonest tards how to tie their shoes. something I do not do since I like tards that operate on full stoopid.

carry on.

 

[Gamolon]

Actually, no, it didn't. A portion of the roof collapsed into the building about 7 seconds before the rest of the roof fell in. Something which has never happened in a controlled demolition.

Go to the 7:20 mark in this video...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=38Vsv0eve_U

I understand that. What these numbnuts are focusing on is one part of the graph. The middle part. That ENTIRE graph represents the descent of the roofline.

What I want E.L.C. to answer is what initiated the descent of the ENTIRE roofline. The canned trigger answer is simultaneous explosives going off blowing ALL the columns.

The focus is on the period of free fall, you clown. You can look at the period of free fall by it self....

As one of three Stages....

Hey jackass.

You debunked your own claim if you hadn't noticed.

The start point of stage one is where the roofline starts to descend. THAT is where you truther assholes claim all the simultaneous explosives were set off.

Get it yet?

Since you say explosives removing columns equals zero resistance, then why did the roofline not immediately start to descend at freefall?

That's because the structure started to fail and then reached a point where it was so overloaded, it went into freefall. ZERO RESISTANCE due to structural overload.



Thanks for proving me right.

 

[Gamolon]

I could see the building going into free fall for a few feet.

You could?

Did you just admit that a building could go into freefall due to a structural failure?!?!

 

[Gamolon]

The focus is on the period of free fall, you clown. You can look at the period of free fall by it self....

What is your explanation of what happened in the first 1.75 seconds? According to you and your fellow morons, all the explosives had to go off at the same time at zero of the graph to make the ENTIRE roofline come down. Since you seem to think that explosives removed all 8 floors worth of structure, why was the roofline not immediately in freefall? Did the remaining structure just hang in mid air like a Looney Tunes cartoon?

 

[Gamolon]

That's all goodbye.

See ya chickenshit.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I understand that. What these numbnuts are focusing on is one part of the graph. The middle part. That ENTIRE graph represents the descent of the roofline.

What I want E.L.C. to answer is what initiated the descent of the ENTIRE roofline. The canned trigger answer is simultaneous explosives going off blowing ALL the columns.

The focus is on the period of free fall, you clown. You can look at the period of free fall by it self....

As one of three Stages....

Hey jackass.

You debunked your own claim if you hadn't noticed.

The start point of stage one is where the roofline starts to descend. THAT is where you truther assholes claim all the simultaneous explosives were set off.

Get it yet?

Since you say explosives removing columns equals zero resistance, then why did the roofline not immediately start to descend at freefall?

That's because the structure started to fail and then reached a point where it was so overloaded, it went into freefall. ZERO RESISTANCE due to structural overload.



Thanks for proving me right.

Oh magoo you done it again!

There is a point where even I take pity on those suffering from official tardation.



Not that it will help much for what I foresee coming your way.

You can thank me later.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I could see the building going into free fall for a few feet.

You could?

Did you just admit that a building could go into freefall due to a structural failure?!?!

the purpose of explosive demolition is to cause structural failure, didnt you know that?

You want to play word charades now?

The focus is on the period of free fall, you clown. You can look at the period of free fall by it self....

What is your explanation of what happened in the first 1.75 seconds?

it wasnt in freefall, he is examining freefall not the day before or the day after.

I see your operating on full tard again today.

 

[legaleagle_45]

meaingless supposition.

Incorrect. My supposition is that you are assuming an event occurred that has in fact never occurred previously in the history of the universe. If such an event has occurred then you should be able to present evidence of same, you refuse to do so without being paid and expect the casual reader to accept that as a reasonable response. Quite ludicrous actually because without any proof that such an event is possible, your theory about WTC is in fact "meaningless supposition"

I accept your concession of defeat and admission that you are unwilling to prove your claims.

I already posted videos of a demolition preceded by fires,

Please post it again, as I have not seen it.

do you have proof there is no way to do it with existing materials

100% proof positive. All you need due is pay me $100,000 and I will provide the proof --- and until you do so you can consider your argument to be disproven anyway since you are unwilling to put your money where your mouth is.

I just posted a 1 week delayed demolition.

Now you are lying. What you posted was a failed demolition which only brought down part of the building, requiring a completely revised demolition of the structure... and because it was way too dangerous, the remainder of the demolition was conducted by a cranes and a wrecking ball. They did not do a partial demolition, wait a week without doing anything, then push a button which set off the remaining explosives that were already in the building at the time of the original demolition attempt. Far from supporting your position, it proves mine. Exhibit A that proves:

1.) you can not have a single explosive demolition which takes 5 hours; and,
2.) that you are a liar.

Northaird Point was one of seven tower blocks on the Trowbridge Estate in Hackney, London. 21 storeys tall, it was known for its failed blowdown, which left the top 11 floors standing, so the rest of the building was demolished by a wrecking ball.

Northaird Point - UK Housing Wiki

Why did you find it necessary to lie about this event?

show me in history where [/B]"the "cover up explosions" and "cover up fires" and "cover up structural damage" could possibly impact the capacity to carry out the controlled demolition"

Now you have the opportunity to make and see history. By paying me $100,000 I will provide 100% irrefutable evidence that cover up fires and explosions would necessarily impact the capacity to carry out the controlled demolition. if you turn it down that is not my problem and it is proof positive that you are not only a liar but that you do not even believe your own claims.

 

[KokomoJojo]

meaingless supposition.

Incorrect. My supposition is that you are assuming an event occurred that has in fact never occurred previously in the history of the universe. If such an event has occurred then you should be able to present evidence of same, you refuse to do so without being paid and expect the casual reader to accept that as a reasonable response. Quite ludicrous actually because without any proof that such an event is possible, your theory about WTC is in fact "meaningless supposition"

I accept your concession of defeat and admission that you are unwilling to prove your claims.

I already posted videos of a demolition preceded by fires,

Please post it again, as I have not seen it.




100% proof positive. All you need due is pay me $100,000 and I will provide the proof --- and until you do so you can consider your argument to be disproven anyway since you are unwilling to put your money where your mouth is.



Now you are lying. What you posted was a failed demolition which only brought down part of the building, requiring a completely revised demolition of the structure... and because it was way too dangerous, the remainder of the demolition was conducted by a cranes and a wrecking ball. They did not do a partial demolition, wait a week without doing anything, then push a button which set off the remaining explosives that were already in the building at the time of the original demolition attempt. Far from supporting your position, it proves mine. Exhibit A that proves:

1.) you can not have a single explosive demolition which takes 5 hours; and,
2.) that you are a liar.

Northaird Point was one of seven tower blocks on the Trowbridge Estate in Hackney, London. 21 storeys tall, it was known for its failed blowdown, which left the top 11 floors standing, so the rest of the building was demolished by a wrecking ball.

Northaird Point - UK Housing Wiki

Why did you find it necessary to lie about this event?

show me in history where [/B]"the "cover up explosions" and "cover up fires" and "cover up structural damage" could possibly impact the capacity to carry out the controlled demolition"

Now you have the opportunity to make and see history. By paying me $100,000 I will provide 100% irrefutable evidence that cover up fires and explosions would necessarily impact the capacity to carry out the controlled demolition. if you turn it down that is not my problem and it is proof positive that you are not only a liar but that you do not even believe your own claims.

meaingless supposition.

Incorrect. My supposition is that you are assuming an event occurred that has in fact never occurred previously in the history of the universe. If such an event has occurred then you should be able to present evidence of same, you refuse to do so without being paid and expect the casual reader to accept that as a reasonable response. Quite ludicrous actually because without any proof that such an event is possible, your theory about WTC is in fact "meaningless supposition"

I accept your concession of defeat and admission that you are unwilling to prove your claims.

a nuclear explosion never occurred in history until the day it was made to occur.

Those egglmacated in physics do not need a tard level demonstration to prove the grade school level fizix your tard question demands because for those educated in physics the proof is glowing in the dark obvious.

I offered to give you a full demonstration that you have all rights to put up on youtube to answer your tard question.

Educating tards costs money. Educating willfully negligent tards costs even more money.

You claim is parallel and paramount to "it is not possible for a nuclear explosion" ever to occur because it has never happened before in history.

What excitingly comedic twisted fairytale tard logic!

Its good to see tards are operating on full tard now days.

I accept your concession and note your willful negligence to educate yourself and perpetuate tardation.

I already posted videos of a demolition preceded by fires,

Please post it again, as I have not seen it.

go back a couple pages you shouldnt come in make absurd claims that were already disposed of only a few short posts ago.

100% proof positive. All you need due is pay me $100,000 and I will provide the proof --- and until you do so you can consider your argument to be disproven anyway since you are unwilling to put your money where your mouth is.

Lets not forget you are the tard who needs proof for the ridiculous that people with even a basic understanding of physics would not give a second thought, and if you want me to provide them to further your tard education just grab your wallet.

Now you are lying. What you posted was a failed demolition

Lying? Now now now, at least pull your head out of your ass long enough grasp the concept that a failed demolition causes a very long delay, but in the end the building is demolished nonetheless.

In fact what I said was "precisely" true and its not my fault that you dont like the facts and its not my fault that the facts mess up your little masterbation fantasy. again

which only brought down part of the building, requiring a completely revised demolition of the structure... and because it was way too dangerous, the remainder of the demolition was conducted by a cranes and a wrecking ball. They did not do a partial demolition, wait a week without doing anything, then push a button which set off the remaining explosives that were already in the building at the time of the original demolition attempt. Far from supporting your position, it proves mine. Exhibit A that proves:

1.) you can not have a single explosive demolition which takes 5 hours; and,
2.) that you are a liar.

Northaird Point was one of seven tower blocks on the Trowbridge Estate in Hackney, London. 21 storeys tall, it was known for its failed blowdown, which left the top 11 floors standing, so the rest of the building was demolished by a wrecking ball.

Northaird Point - UK Housing Wiki

Why did you find it necessary to lie about this event?

and the rest is irellevant grandstanding the demolition of the building was simply delayed as I said.

Only a die hard tard would demand a demonstration to show it can just as easily be planned, then set off the remaining charges a week later to finish the job.

show me in history where [/B]"the "cover up explosions" and "cover up fires" and "cover up structural damage" could possibly impact the capacity to carry out the controlled demolition"

Now you have the opportunity to make and see history. By paying me $100,000 I will provide 100% irrefutable evidence that cover up fires and explosions would necessarily impact the capacity to carry out the controlled demolition. if you turn it down that is not my problem and it is proof positive that you are not only a liar but that you do not even believe your own claims.

but thats not true so I guess you have to go hungry again.

 

[legaleagle_45]

a nuclear explosion never occurred in history until the day it was made to occur. Those egglmacated in fizix do not need a tard level demonstration because the proof is glowing in the dark obvious.

Nuclear explosions have occurred from the beginning of the universe, and preceded mankind by billions of years...and will continue to occur long after man is extinct.

So, it is your assertion that the event you are claiming occurred, has never been accomplished previously in the history of the universe, and that this is the sole and unique instance of such occurrence, and that it has never been duplicated either before of since. Is that your assertion?

I offered to give you a full demonstration that you have all rights to put up on youtube to answer your tard question.

And I offered to give you a full demonstration of my claims and that you have all rights to put up on youtube that answers your tard questions. Educating kookootards costs money. Educating willfully negligent kookootards costs even more money. So please provide me with $100,000 and I will proceed to demolish all of your kookootard claims.

However and noting your total unwillingness to put your money where your kookootard mouth is, I accept your concession by failing to agree to pay me $100,000 and note your willful negligence to educate yourself which failure perpetuates your kookootardation by. Lets not forget you are the kookootard who needs proof for the ridiculous proposition that fires and explosions preceding an explosive demolition would impact the success of an explosive demolition, which can safely and assuredly be accomplished 5 to 6 hours after intense fires and explosions occur in the building.. , and if you want me to provide proof of that obvious fact to further your kookootard education just grab your wallet and pay me $100,000.

go back a couple pages you shouldnt come in make absurd claims that were already disposed of only a few short posts ago

You are a proven liar All you need do is repost it. Obviously you can not.

Lying?

Yes, lying... Now now now, at least pull your head out of your kookootard ass long enough grasp the concept that a failed explosive demolition does not lead to a successful explosive demolition 5 hours latter with no one entering the structure to place additional explosive charges... does not happen and if you pay me $100,000 I will raise the level of your kookootardation from your current level "megatard". The fact is what I claimed was precisely true and you had to present lies and misrepresentations in a vain and clumsy attempt to refute it Here is the original assertion:

Well, I have never heard of a controlled demolition that took 5 hours to take down a building from the initial explosions.... So if this was a controlled demolition and unless someone can point to such a long interval in controlled demolition explosions, Barry must have been "shitting out of his mouth".

Emphasis supplied..

Proving beyond a shadow of a doubt you are a liar.

LOL

 

[KokomoJojo]

a nuclear explosion never occurred in history until the day it was made to occur. Those egglmacated in fizix do not need a tard level demonstration because the proof is glowing in the dark obvious.

Nuclear explosions have occurred from the beginning of the universe, and preceded mankind by billions of years...and will continue to occur long after man is extinct.

So, it is your assertion that the event you are claiming occurred, has never been accomplished previously in the history of the universe, and that this is the sole and unique instance of such occurrence, and that it has never been duplicated either before of since. Is that your assertion?

I offered to give you a full demonstration that you have all rights to put up on youtube to answer your tard question.

And I offered to give you a full demonstration of my claims and that you have all rights to put up on youtube that answers your tard questions. Educating kookootards costs money. Educating willfully negligent kookootards costs even more money. So please provide me with $100,000 and I will proceed to demolish all of your kookootard claims.

However and noting your total unwillingness to put your money where your kookootard mouth is, I accept your concession by failing to agree to pay me $100,000 and note your willful negligence to educate yourself which failure perpetuates your kookootardation by. Lets not forget you are the kookootard who needs proof for the ridiculous proposition that fires and explosions preceding an explosive demolition would impact the success of an explosive demolition, which can safely and assuredly be accomplished 5 to 6 hours after intense fires and explosions occur in the building.. , and if you want me to provide proof of that obvious fact to further your kookootard education just grab your wallet and pay me $100,000.

go back a couple pages you shouldnt come in make absurd claims that were already disposed of only a few short posts ago

You are a proven liar All you need do is repost it. Obviously you can not.

Lying?

Yes, lying... Now now now, at least pull your head out of your kookootard ass long enough grasp the concept that a failed explosive demolition does not lead to a successful explosive demolition 5 hours latter with no one entering the structure to place additional explosive charges... does not happen and if you pay me $100,000 I will raise the level of your kookootardation from your current level "megatard". The fact is what I claimed was precisely true and you had to present lies and misrepresentations in a vain and clumsy attempt to refute it

FAIL! LOL

a nuclear explosion never occurred in history until the day it was made to occur. Those egglmacated in fizix do not need a tard level demonstration because the proof is glowing in the dark obvious.

Nuclear explosions have occurred from the beginning of the universe, and preceded mankind by billions of years...and will continue to occur long after man is extinct.

Oh so now that you look like a total fool all of a sudden you find a brain cell is that it!

So, it is your assertion that the event you are claiming occurred, has never been accomplished previously in the history of the universe, and that this is the sole and unique instance of such occurrence, and that it has never been duplicated either before of since. Is that your assertion?

Yeh I posted it. The building demolition was completely controlled first by explosives later by wrecking ball.

So now you resort to willful stoopid despite the fact it has already been proven.

What? Well then prove that nuclear explosions o

I offered to give you a full demonstration that you have all rights to put up on youtube to answer your tard question.

And I offered to give you a full demonstration of my claims and that you have all rights to put up on youtube that answers your tard questions. Educating kookootards costs money. Educating willfully negligent kookootards costs even more money. So please provide me with $100,000 and I will proceed to demolish all of your kookootard claims.

I am not demanding anything of you and if I did it would be to educate a tard so you would wind up paying me because I certainly dont need it. Your twisted logic is so entertaining though LOL

However and noting your total unwillingness to put your money where your kookootard mouth is, I accept your concession by failing to agree to pay me $100,000 and note your willful negligence to educate yourself which failure perpetuates your kookootardation by. Lets not forget you are the kookootard who needs proof for the ridiculous proposition that fires and explosions preceding an explosive demolition would impact the success of an explosive demolition, which can safely and assuredly be accomplished 5 to 6 hours after intense fires and explosions occur in the building.. , and if you want me to provide proof of that obvious fact to further your kookootard education just grab your wallet and pay me $100,000.

Do you realize how incredibly stoopid you sound? Do you have any idea what so ever?

BTW what is an "intense" fire? Thats another one of the tards famous last drama words as their titanic hits the deck.

go back a couple pages you shouldnt come in make absurd claims that were already disposed of only a few short posts ago

You are a proven liar All you need do is repost it. Obviously you can not.

I told you where to find it, if you want more open an account. I accept paypal.

Lying?

Yes, lying... Now now now, at least pull your head out of your kookootard ass long enough grasp the concept that a failed explosive demolition does not lead to a successful explosive demolition 5 hours latter with no one entering the structure to place additional explosive charges... does not happen and if you pay me $100,000 I will raise the level of your kookootardation from your current level "megatard". The fact is what I claimed was precisely true and you had to present lies and misrepresentations in a vain and clumsy attempt to refute it

FAIL! LOL


is the building still there yes or no?
NO

well I know you are truly fucked but since the building is no longer there the ends match the means and here you are still tooting out your ass.

Again I told you and your tard friends that if you pull all the required permits I would put together a demolition to take place the very exact same way, that is how you demonstrate tard stoopidity to a tard.

Double your money back guarantee.

Only a total asswipe could turn that down.


Oh and btw I have no evidence that it has never been done in history, apparently you do, so you dont mind proving that do you? I should know better than to take anything a tard says at face value.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Yeh I posted it. The building demolition was completely controlled first by explosives later by wrecking ball.

Yeah you did and it supports my assertion, that a an explosive demolition would not be COMPLETED over such a long time frame. It required physical intervention of a wrecking ball several days later to complete the task..... so now that you look like a total fool all of a sudden do you now wish to now claim that WTC 7 was brought down by a wrecking ball and crane? Perhaps an INVISIBLE wrecking ball and crane? LOL, what a kookootard.

What? Well then prove that nuclear explosions o

Be glad to, first pay me $100,000. Put your money where your mouth is. and I will be more than happy to educate a kookootard ... however I do recognize your total fear to look at the facts as they exist and which I would be willing, at a small cost, to prove beyond a shadow of doubt but you are to afraid of paying me because I certainly don't need it. Your twisted logic is so entertaining though LOL Do you realize how incredibly stoopid you sound? Do you have any ideas what so ever?

BTW what is an "intense" fire?

This one... please pay attention.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U]WTC 7 fires and south side hole - YouTube[/ame]

Or perhaps you think the conspirators were in the building and set several campfires to roast marshmallows while they waited for the controlled demotion to occur? Perhaps singing "koombaya" and lighting firecrackers to simulate the sound of explosions?

go back a couple pages you

Not going to waste my time looking any further based upon the claims of a proven liar.
All you need do is repost it. Obviously you can not. Obviously you are desperately trying to divert attention from your continuous stream of lies and misrepresentations.

well I know you are truly fucked but since the building is no longer there the ends match the means and here you are still tooting out your ass.

You acknowledge that it was a failed explosive demolition followed days latter by a wrecking ball ... such concession established beyond a shadow of a doubt that a controlled explosive demolition can not be COMPLETED over an extended period without the physical intervention onto the site to complete the demolition. In trying to disprove my assertion, you end up proving it, which further establishes that you are a megatard first class without an active brain cell in your kookootard noggin.

Again I told you and your tard friends that if you pull all the required permits I would put together a demolition to take place the very exact same way, that is how you demonstrate tard stoopidity to a tard.

Again I told your kookootard self if you paid me $100,000 I would demonstrate that it could not possibly occur as you claim thereby proving your megatard stoopidity beyond and question or doubt. Double your money back guarantee. Only a total asswipe could turn that down. But obviously, you are a total asswipe who does not even believe his own claims.

Oh and btw I have no evidence that it has never been done in history, apparently you do, so you dont mind proving that do you? I should know better than to take anything a tard says at face value.

No problem at all, merely pay me $100,000 first and all of your kookootard claims will be totally refuted. Double your money back guarantee. Only a total asswipe could turn that down. But obviously, you are a total asswipe who does not even believe his own claims.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Yeh I posted it. The building demolition was completely controlled first by explosives later by wrecking ball.

Yeah you did and it supports my assertion, that a an explosive demolition would not be COMPLETED over such a long time frame. It required physical intervention of a wrecking ball several days later to complete the task..... so now that you look like a total fool all of a sudden do you now wish to now claim that WTC 7 was brought down by a wrecking ball and crane? Perhaps an INVISIBLE wrecking ball and crane? LOL, what a kookootard.

What? Well then prove that nuclear explosions o

Be glad to, first pay me $100,000. Put your money where your mouth is. and I will be more than happy to educate a kookootard ... however I do recognize your total fear to look at the facts as they exist and which I would be willing, at a small cost, to prove beyond a shadow of doubt but you are to afraid of paying me because I certainly don't need it. Your twisted logic is so entertaining though LOL Do you realize how incredibly stoopid you sound? Do you have any ideas what so ever?



This one... please pay attention.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U"]WTC 7 fires and south side hole - YouTube[/ame]

Or perhaps you think the conspirators were in the building and set several campfires to roast marshmallows while they waited for the controlled demotion to occur? Perhaps singing "koombaya" and lighting firecrackers to simulate the sound of explosions?



Not going to waste my time looking any further based upon the claims of a proven liar.
All you need do is repost it. Obviously you can not. Obviously you are desperately trying to divert attention from your continuous stream of lies and misrepresentations.



You acknowledge that it was a failed explosive demolition followed days latter by a wrecking ball ... such concession established beyond a shadow of a doubt that a controlled explosive demolition can not be COMPLETED over an extended period without the physical intervention onto the site to complete the demolition. In trying to disprove my assertion, you end up proving it, which further establishes that you are a megatard first class without an active brain cell in your kookootard noggin.

Again I told you and your tard friends that if you pull all the required permits I would put together a demolition to take place the very exact same way, that is how you demonstrate tard stoopidity to a tard.

Again I told your kookootard self if you paid me $100,000 I would demonstrate that it could not possibly occur as you claim thereby proving your megatard stoopidity beyond and question or doubt. Double your money back guarantee. Only a total asswipe could turn that down. But obviously, you are a total asswipe who does not even believe his own claims.

Oh and btw I have no evidence that it has never been done in history, apparently you do, so you dont mind proving that do you? I should know better than to take anything a tard says at face value.

No problem at all, merely pay me $100,000 first and all of your kookootard claims will be totally refuted. Double your money back guarantee. Only a total asswipe could turn that down. But obviously, you are a total asswipe who does not even believe his own claims.

Yeh I posted it. The building demolition was completely controlled first by explosives later by wrecking ball.

Yeah you did and it supports my assertion, that a an explosive demolition would not be COMPLETED over such a long time frame.

I gave you the opportunity to prove it would not if you did not want to take up my offer. You decline to put up any proof and nothing that I put up supports your fantasy. You seem to have the warped idea that a criminal demolition would be pulled off the same way a legitimate demolition would go down. Death by firing squad and death by murder are 2 different animals, one by procedure the other any possible way it can be done.

It required physical intervention of a wrecking ball several days later to complete the task.....

so now that you look like a total fool all of a sudden do you now wish to now claim that WTC 7 was brought down by a wrecking ball and crane? Perhaps an INVISIBLE wrecking ball and crane? LOL, what a kookootard.

It could just as easily been done by not firing off the remaining explosives, waiting a week a month a year then firing them off, once again you prove what a braindead tard you really are.

What? Well then prove that nuclear explosions o

Be glad to, first pay me $100,000. Put your money where your mouth is. and I will be more than happy to educate a kookootard ... however I do recognize your total fear to look at the facts as they exist and which I would be willing, at a small cost, to prove beyond a shadow of doubt but you are to afraid of paying me because I certainly don't need it. Your twisted logic is so entertaining though LOL Do you realize how incredibly stoopid you sound? Do you have any ideas what so ever?

you are the one making grandious assumptions as a result of your ignorance not me.
more copy cat.

This one... please pay attention.

Or perhaps you think the conspirators were in the building and set several campfires to roast marshmallows while they waited for the controlled demotion to occur? Perhaps singing "koombaya" and lighting firecrackers to simulate the sound of explosions?

Again I already posted the video where you could hear the explosions taking out wtc7. That is not the one. Too lazy to read too bad.

Not going to waste my time looking any further based upon the claims of a proven liar.

well dont lie then.

All you need do is repost it. Obviously you can not. Obviously you are desperately trying to divert attention from your continuous stream of lies and misrepresentations.

If you bothered to read the previous posts I would not need to repost it. so dance.

You acknowledge that it was a failed explosive demolition followed days latter by a wrecking ball ... such concession established beyond a shadow of a doubt that a controlled explosive demolition can not be COMPLETED over an extended period without the physical intervention onto the site to complete the demolition. In trying to disprove my assertion, you end up proving it, which further establishes that you are a megatard first class without an active brain cell in your kookootard noggin.

Dumb ass a wrecking ball is used for a controlled demolition.

Again I told you and your tard friends that if you pull all the required permits I would put together a demolition to take place the very exact same way, that is how you demonstrate tard stoopidity to a tard.

Again I told your kookootard self if you paid me $100,000 I would demonstrate that it could not possibly occur as you claim thereby proving your megatard stoopidity beyond and question or doubt. Double your money back guarantee. Only a total asswipe could turn that down. But obviously, you are a total asswipe who does not even believe his own claims.

You are the one making dumb assed unvalidated statements here, go figure out that fizix problem I posted and show everyone how smart you are by coming up with the correct answer like the high school kids did! No one here has been able to do it but theink they are qualified to evaluate the wtc matters. Tards always think they have a clue though even after they are owned the laughs are done and discarded in the garbage disposal.

more copy cat.

Oh and btw I have no evidence that it has never been done in history, apparently you do, so you dont mind proving that do you? I should know better than to take anything a tard says at face value.

No problem at all, merely pay me $100,000 first and all of your kookootard claims will be totally refuted. Double your money back guarantee. Only a total asswipe could turn that down. But obviously, you are a total asswipe who does not even believe his own claims.


TARD! I get all the tard lessons I need right here everytime one of you braindead idjits post something.

more copy cat.





thats ok carry on

Very good!

its entertaining

 

[legaleagle_45]

I gave you the opportunity to prove it would not if you did not want to take up my offer.

Au contraire. I gave you the opportunity to prove it and you did not take up my offer. You decline to put up any proof and provide nothing to support your fantasy. You seem to have the warped idea that a criminal demolition could avoid the hazards of an intense fire consuming the entire building for at least 6 hours and a series of explosions which began at least 5-6 hours prior to the collapse.

It could just as easily been done by not firing off the remaining explosives, waiting a week a month a year then firing them off,

If you believe that the remaining wiring and explosives necessary to complete such a delayed explosive demolition would survive an intense fire and explosion for 5-6 hours beforehand is even probable, you have just won the award as braindead kookootard of the century. LOL

Or perhaps you believe an invisible wrecking ball and crane completed the demolition?

you are the one making grandious assumptions as a result of your ignorance not me.

Nope, you are the one making grandiose assumptions that, following an intense fire and explosions covering a period of at least 5-6 hours, the previously planted explosives and wiring to set off such a delayed explosive demolition into action would necessarily remain intact without being impacted to even a minute degree... not just that there might be a slight possibility of this occurring, but a degree of certainty so overwhelming , that a mass conspiracy would rely upon the ability to complete the demolition in spite of the risk of interference from such events which would lead inevitably to the revelation of the conspiracy. .

Again I already posted the video where you could hear the explosions taking out wtc7.

No you did not.

If you bothered to read the previous posts I would not need to repost it.

So you claim, but still are unwilling to repost it for some strange reason, LOL

Dumb ass a wrecking ball is used for a controlled demolition.

I said delayed explosive demolition, dumbass.

You are the one making dumb assed unvalidated statements here,

Just because you make a dumb assed unvalidated statement claiming I have made unvalidated statements is not proof of that, it is merely another one of your dumb assed unvalidated statements here.

I get all the tard lessons I need right here everytime one of you braindead idjits post something.

Yep, and you graduated with a PhD in megatardia.... which is the only thing you are capable of posting.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I gave you the opportunity to prove it would not if you did not want to take up my offer.

Au contraire. I gave you the opportunity to prove it and you did not take up my offer.

I did prove it. You are not educated enough to understand it or you a nothing more than a fucking TROLL.

you clearly fall into this catagory

Extreme irrationality of those who attack “CT's” is exposed by Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State Univ. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: CTst as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion.

at least you have plenty of socks for the winter.

NOT my problem in either case!

 

[legaleagle_45]

I did prove it. You are not educated enough to understand it or you a nothing more than a fucking TROLL.

No you did not, you are just not educated enough to understand why you did not prove a darn thing and in fact unwittingly disproved your central contention... or you are nothing more than a fuc#ing troll.

you clearly fall into this catagory

Clinical psychologist Dr. Dathan Paterno finds irony in such conspiracy research.

“Ultimately, these data raise more questions and only serve to breed cynicism – the primary ingredient of conspiracy theory. In the end, it seems that the conspiracy of conspiracy theories is really a conspiracy against the conspirators … or perhaps a conspiracy by those who would conspire against conspirators.”

LOL.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I did prove it. You are not educated enough to understand it or you a nothing more than a fucking TROLL.

I dont waste my time explaining a color exists to a color blind fucktard.

 

[E.L.C.]

So, just to remind everyone, I'm not a conspiracy guy and haven't said I believe anything one way or the other. If I've said anything that gave that impression, I take it back. I'm just pointing things out and asking questions.

Personally, I couldn't care less about eyewitness reports of bombs going off, count downs, time travelling jihadists, melting plutonium, raging fires, UFO's, holographic government agents or any of the rest of it, and I'm not interested in explaining any of it either. The possible who, what and why of it isn't the focus of the topic. It's just the the how of it and Newtonian physical principles, that's all it is....

For gravitational acceleration to occur, there can be nothing below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance. If there is anything below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance, then not all of the potential energy of the object would be converted to motion and so would not be found falling at gravitional acceleration. There's no exception to that rule, those are the conditions that must exist for gravitational acceleration to occur for the entirety of the duration of the time it occurs.

Ultimately, both Shyam Sunder, of the NIST, and David Chandler, the Physics Teacher, agreed that free fall gravitational acceleration, just as described above, occurred for a period of 2.25 seconds, 8 stories/105 feet. I won't argue that since it would mean going up against David and Goliath (a little joke).

David Chandler (illustration below left) says that an external force, namely explosives, would have to be introduced to remove the substantial mass/structural support occupying the intervening space between the falling portion of the building and the ground in order for free fall to occur in accordance with physical principles.... His theory (though repugnant for obvious reasons) is therefore complete as to the mechanism of operation and is consistent with both observations and physical principles.

Shyam Sunder (illustration below right) says that free fall occurred despite the existence of substantial mass/structural support occupying the intervening space between the falling portion of the building and the ground, but that it was nevertheless consistent with physical principles (without elaboration). His theory therefore remains incomplete as to the mechanism of operation and is inconsistent with both observations and physical principles.

What I find really interesting here is the blind support for the Sunder theory which remains incomplete and is inconsistent with both observations and physical principles, compared to the Chandler theory which is complete and is consistent with both observations and physical principles.

How the hell are nutty supporters of a theory that remains incomplete and is inconsistent with observations and physical principles demanding proof from supporters of a complete theory that is consistent with observations and physical principles? It's supposed to be the other way around isn't it?

It's not up to supporters of a complete, physically consistent theory to prove well known scientific principles and why they should apply, it's up to supporters of an incomplete, physically inconsistent theory to prove an exception to well known scientific principles and why they shouldn't apply.

 

[Gamolon]

How the hell are nutty supporters of a theory that remains incomplete and is inconsistent with observations and physical principles demanding proof from supporters of a complete theory that is consistent with observations and physical principles? It's supposed to be the other way around isn't it?

So explain how you think Chandler's explanation fits what we saw that day. Explain stage one of the following graph.


The entire roofline started descending at zero (Time). This is where truthers say the supposed explosives went off simultaneously. Since you and every other truther thinks explosives going off equals zero resistance, please explain why, in stage one, freefall acceleration does not immediately begin?

This graph AGREES with the increased load, propagating to the remaining structure AND overloading it AFTER the interior of the structure failed. The first stage is when the remaining structure started to buckle. The next stage is the structure globally failing.

Your problem is that you have no clue about structures and structural engineering. Your arguing abour things you know nothing about.

 

[Gamolon]

Your above animated gif does not match this graph.



It would be fine if the supposed explosives went off simultaneously at the beginning of stage two, but that's not the case is it?