9/11 Fourteen Years Later

[TESLAMotors]

Really? In all your extensive research you don't understand the basics of the building construction?

To put it simple enough for you, floors were suspended between the core and the exterior so as soon as the fastenings failed, all that is left is gravity.

You don't like "youtube experts" and I don't like "terb engineering experts". Show me the experts that you learned of this design of the foundation of WTC 7.

Btw, nice to see you say that it fell "roughly in its own footprint".

"More scientifically though, it fell roughly in its footprint because of the way the building was designed. As soon as the elements holding the floor in place failed, it had nowhere to go but straight down. "
According to Fuji it didn't.
Do you two care to hash this out now?

Looks like we may have a bit of a problem here.
So who's right in this case, you or Fuji?

"roughly" good grey area word. Signs of the weakness in the Dark Force coming to the "light" ironically enough. lol

 

[basketcase]

...

Everyone has a price, ...

If the government can't keep the most basic secrets, what makes you think such an immoral act would be kept secret? Wouldn't Snowdon have leaked that story if it was true?

 

[TESLAMotors]

Wow. You might actually want to look into that.

To the SAME DEGREE as WTC7?
Please tell me, what other buildings had a complete failure? That WERE NOT part of the newly leased/insured Trade Center Complex.

 

[basketcase]

You don't ...

Typical conspiracy games. Instead of answering critical questions, just try and play word games.

Clearly the collapse started where the planes hit, not at the bottom. Clearly there were no explosives on the exterior structural members.

 

[basketcase]

To the SAME DEGREE as WTC7?
Please tell me, what other buildings had a complete failure? That WERE NOT part of the newly leased/insured Trade Center Complex.

Are you really arguing that debris caused more damage to some buildings so it must have been a demolition? Maybe the US government was able to calculate exactly where each piece was going to go and planned them to create serious damage to 7 start a massive fire?

Wow.

At least it seems you've given up on the idea that 1 and 2 were demolitions.

 

[TESLAMotors]

Typical conspiracy games. Instead of answering critical questions, just try and play word games.

Clearly the collapse started where the planes hit, not at the bottom. Clearly there were no explosives on the exterior structural members.

Dont mince words literally, here's the original reply I had and all you quote is "you don't"? lol

You don't like "youtube experts" and I don't like "terb engineering experts". Show me the experts that you learned of this design of the foundation of WTC 7.

Btw, nice to see you say that it fell "roughly in its own footprint".

"More scientifically though, it fell roughly in its footprint because of the way the building was designed. As soon as the elements holding the floor in place failed, it had nowhere to go but straight down. "
According to Fuji it didn't.
Do you two care to hash this out now?

Looks like we may have a bit of a problem here.
So who's right in this case, you or Fuji?

"roughly" good grey area word. Signs of the weakness in the Dark Force coming to the "light" ironically enough. lol

So, who's right, you or Fuji?
It did or didn't fall on its own footprint?

Or are you sticking with "roughly"? Meaning 50/50?
You're not sure?
You don't care to actually make the call on that now?
Cat got your tongue? lol

 

[TESLAMotors]

Are you really arguing

Yes. -took a page out of your how to reply book-

At least it seems you've given up on the idea that 1 and 2 were demolitions.

Never. I'm ready if/when you are.

But first, who's right, you or Fuji?
Did WTC 7 fall onto its own footprint or not? ................OOrrrr is that a "roughly"?

Take this up with the Fuji man. He disagrees.

 

[fuji]

lol angry? Name calling "youtube expert"? Didn't we clarify that YouTube is just a platform/medium?

Yes the top half collapses, sure, a few sticks and stones, debris from WTC 1/2 miraculously fall onto this particular building which happens to be WTC7 and which just happens to implode onto its own footprint, EXACTLY like a demolition building would.
Almost PERFECTLY in a symmetrical fashion, straight down.
No other buildings are compromised in such a way, hmmmm.....

It's AMAZING.

Again, thanks for showing the blatant dishonesty on your part.

In particular it did not fall into its foundations like any of the controlled demolition examples presented by your fake YouTube experts, proving that are clueless.

 

[fuji]

You simply are unable to read what you write yourself. Try to read it carefully:

floors were suspended between the core and the exterior so as soon as the fastenings failed, all that is left is gravity



Test: what will be left standing?

Answer: nothing. The building had enough mass, a COLOSSAL amount, to destroy everything once it was falling.

An answer you could have found for yourself in the report.

 

[TESLAMotors]

In particular it did not fall into its foundations like any of the controlled demolition examples presented by your fake YouTube experts, proving that are clueless.

Thanks for showing how intentionally dishonest you are.

Or maybe it's your eyes? Too much time in the basement.
Either way, enjoy.

 

[fuji]

Thanks for showing how intentionally dishonest you are.

Or maybe it's your eyes? Too much time in the basement.
Either way, enjoy.

Great, now go find a video that shows the whole WTC and not just the part above the impact site and you will be ready to apologize for believing that garbage.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[fuji]

Dont mince words literally, here's the original reply I had and all you quote is "you don't"? lol

You don't like "youtube experts" and I don't like "terb engineering experts". Show me the experts that you learned of this design of the foundation of WTC 7.

Btw, nice to see you say that it fell "roughly in its own footprint".

"More scientifically though, it fell roughly in its footprint because of the way the building was designed. As soon as the elements holding the floor in place failed, it had nowhere to go but straight down. "
According to Fuji it didn't.
Do you two care to hash this out now?

Looks like we may have a bit of a problem here.
So who's right in this case, you or Fuji?

"roughly" good grey area word. Signs of the weakness in the Dark Force coming to the "light" ironically enough. lol

So, who's right, you or Fuji?
It did or didn't fall on its own footprint?

Or are you sticking with "roughly"? Meaning 50/50?
You're not sure?
You don't care to actually make the call on that now?
Cat got your tongue? lol

Footprint != foundation twit. A controlled demolition falls into its foundation, meaning the bottom floor starts moving downwards and the rest follows. That is not what happened with the WTC. The top half started moving downwards while the bottom half stayed stationary, until the falling part crushed it.

Falling into its footprint us a statement about where debris ems up when it's over.

 

[destillat]

Yeah, as can be clearly seen in all the videos.

yep... freefall... caused by demolition. buildings don't just collapse into freefall... thanks for disqualifying your biased opinion.

 

[destillat]

Footprint != foundation twit. A controlled demolition falls into its foundation, meaning the bottom floor starts moving downwards and the rest follows. That is not what happened with the WTC. The top half started moving downwards while the bottom half stayed stationary, until the falling part crushed it.

Falling into its footprint us a statement about where debris ems up when it's over.

falling into it's footprint... doesn't matter where the collapse starts... top or bottom... if, at the end, it is a pile of rubble within the confines of the original structure, then it has fallen into it's footprint.
you are welcome for clarifying that unusually difficult piece of controversy.

 

[Titalian]

What do you guys make of this ?? BBC news announces the collapse of WTC 7, Yet the building is still standing as the correspondent explains the situation, The building actually collapsed 20 min later.

 

[fuji]

yep... freefall... caused by demolition. buildings don't just collapse into freefall... thanks for disqualifying your biased opinion.

Maybe you should learn more about how the building was built. There were less than five buildings built that way worldwide. With respect to most buildings you would be right but in this case you are just wrong.

Unlike most buildings in which the floors are supported by internal columns the floors in the WTC were hung from a frame, like a suspension bridge.

When one floor finally broke free from the frame it fell, damaging the frame further and knocking the next floor off, which then both fell. Before long the frame itself was destroyed by the falling floors and then the entire building above the failure point was falling and crushing ("pancaking ") the rest of the building below.

But hey no need to take my word for it because add I have said a dozen times now on this thread YOU CAN GO SEE THAT FOR YOURSELF by looking at any video of the collapse that shows the building both above and below the impact site. You can SEE that the bottom of the building is motionless as the top collapsed on to it.

You don't need to be a scientist to go to YouTube and just fucking look.

 

[fuji]

falling into it's footprint... doesn't matter where the collapse starts... top or bottom... if, at the end, it is a pile of rubble within the confines of the original structure, then it has fallen into it's footprint.
you are welcome for clarifying that unusually difficult piece of controversy.

There is no controversy about that. Aside from the very large pieces that crashed into surrounding buildings it did largely fall into its own footprint.

Where you fucked up is in thinking it fell from and into its foundation as a controlled demolition would, whereas it fell from the impact site crushing the lower part of the building below.

As anyone can go verify in two minutes on YouTube....

(And as described in detail in the report.)

 

[Titalian]

(And as described in detail in the report.)

You should bring that report to the washroom with you.

 

[Titalian]

When one floor finally broke free from the frame it fell, damaging the frame further and knocking the next floor off, which then both fell. Before long the frame itself was destroyed by the falling floors and then the entire building above the failure point was falling and crushing ("pancaking ") the rest of the building below.

Where'd you get this cockamyme story from. There is is no way these floors could have damaged the massive cores on these buildings, let alone bring the both buildings down at free fall speed. DO you even understand what free fall means - NO RESISTANCE !! It means that everything was conveniently destroyed underneath that falling mass = NO resistance = Free Fall.

 

[fuji]

You should bring that report to the washroom with you.

If you did, you might know something about 9/11 by now.