WTC 7 fell in relative silence, no detonation capable of cutting steel.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Funny conspiracists never talk about the other WTC 7 studies. Studies as sworn deposition?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
It's ironic that you call anyone that questions a narrative a "conspiracist" and accuse them of name-calling.

Then you on to describe your theory as a matter of fact.

Priceless

Then cite evidence of CD at the WTC 7. Then state a credible theory with evidence to supersede impact/fire/thermal stress damage. Or will you choose to rant instead?

Posting a wack theory that can easily be challenged doesn't give credence to yours.

It is the same # in every thread with you people. If someone doesn't agree with the official negative you demand that they give one to replace it. That is a B.S. argument and doesn't prove anything.

You label anything that doesn't agree with you to be part of the truth movement, then take the weakest parts of that movement like thermite or no plane and throw it anyone that you dictated is part of that movement.

I have said it dozens of times. I have NO theory as to what happened. All I know is we had already invaded 2 countries before anything scientific came back and by that time there is no way in hell anyone is going to say " oh sorry we murdered a couple hundred thousand Muslims by accident"

We stick to the story. That s how we get through this. But don't think for a second your going to run MY nose it.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

This thread is about WTC7 limit your discussion to that building.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Funny conspiracists never talk about the other WTC 7 studies. Studies as sworn deposition?

I've been hit in the head a lot. need a visual to really wrap my mind around this...



Is this what you mean?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Then what is your point to even posting in a thread about WTC 7 if you don’t care? Just to derail?

You chose to rant?

Care to state a credible theory with evidence to supersede the three studies that prove fire related collapse at WTC 7?

The truth is all evidence supports fire related collapse at WTC 7.

A quick guide to studies that prove fire related collapse at WTC 7 (Please do tell how there is no proof WTC 7 collapsed from fire related issues? Or how it is my BS. False arguments by you)

By: benthamitemetric
www.metabunk.org...

Thread: ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-31

www.metabunk.org...

Each of the the NIST, Arup, and WAI studies were conducted by multiple PhDs with expertise in forensic engineering, tall building engineering or fire science, and the NIST WTC7 report was also independently peer reviewed by the Journal of Structural Engineering (whose editors and peer reviewers have similar levels of expertise), while not a single expert on forensic engineering, tall building engineering or fire science worked on Hulsey's study.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Funny you keep posting about something you don’t care about.

There is no proof of CD at the WTC, no proof of fizzle no flash explosives, and the proof of thermite is fraudulent. Are you enabling the con of the truth movement? What have you done to fight false narratives concerning WTC 7.

a reply to: neutronflux


Ok Ok, just calm down.

Do you believe the video above depicts a silote of what occurred to bring down wtc7?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Sorry there is no proof of CD at WTC 7. If it wasn’t demolitions, and you think fire related collapse is BS ( which is contradicted by at least three studies), then state what caused WTC 7 to collapse.

I personally think it very much has to do with building damage, fire, thermal stress, being built over the electrical substation, the WTC fire insulation found deficient by per 9/11 studies, the floor connection angles of WTC 7 that were not common practice, and the minimization of concrete to reduce cost beyond common practice.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
a reply to: neutronflux


Ok Ok, just calm down.

Do you believe the video above depicts a silote of what occurred to bring down wtc7?

Claim down? Your the one that goes off topic, rants, name calls, and tries to state fie collapse backed by at least three studies and peer review is BS in the absence of any other credible explanation?

I just ask and try to stick to actual facts. Innuendo is not evidence.

And after 15 years plus, there is no audio, video, physical, seismic evidence of CD at WTC 7.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Sorry there is no proof of CD at WTC 7. If it wasn’t demolitions, and you think fire related collapse is BS ( which is contradicted by at least three studies), then state what caused WTC 7 to collapse.

I personally think it very much has to do with building damage, fire, thermal stress, being built over the electrical substation, the WTC fire insulation found deficient by per 9/11 studies, the floor connection angles of WTC 7 that were not common practice, and the minimization of concrete to reduce cost beyond common practice.

Ok. You have established that.


Is this a good visualization of how the building came apart?

It's a pretty good match for what was seen in reality. The distortion moving down the building and the smoke being sucked into the building are seen clearly here

a reply to: MALBOSIA

A good detailed analysis of NIST and their modeling at the link: (a good debate over the pros and cons of the NIST model)
ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-31
www.metabunk.org...


You tell me?

And what does this have to do with you not stating a more credible explanation than fire related collapse for WTC 7? And there are two studies other than NUST that proves Fire related collapse. You stating fire related collapse is BS? There is no physical, seismic, audio, and video evidence of CD at WTC 7.

The truth movement concerning thermite, fizzle no flash explosives, and WTC CD are a bunch of charlatans! That every dollar donated to AE 9/11 Truth, and every thumbs up on their social media enables their con!

a reply to: MALBOSIA

In fact, is it false to say this thread is about no proof of detonations powerful enough at WTC 7 to cut steel columns.

The NIST model might make a good thread for you to author?

a reply to: neutronflux

You never commented on the video I posted.

How come you let Mrthumpy answer for you?

ETA:

I ask you this because Mrhumpy posted a cherry picked 1 second loop and is making you look like an idiot.

Are you going take that dry?

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
a reply to: neutronflux

You never commented on the video I posted.

How come you let Mrthumpy answer for you?

ETA:

I ask you this because Mrhumpy posted a cherry picked 1 second loop and is making you look like an idiot.

Are you going take that dry?

What does the video have to do with the topic of this thread?

The video might be a good thread topic.

You can start by answering.....

Is it false the structure called the pentagon fell completely through the roof, and disappeared completely from view before WTC 7 facade started to fall.

Is it false the interior of WTC 7 was collapsing before the WTC 7 facade began to collapse.

Would you like to quote from this thread evidence of CD at WTC 7.

I only see people claiming it looked like an implosion, while ignoring that WTC 7 was nothing like an implosion.

No audio to indicate a detonation powerful enough to cut steel columns.

No audio of enough explosions to create the implosion of WTC 7.

No seismic record by seismic equipment recording in Manhattan on 9/11 of detonations powerful enough to cut steel.

No flashes, no windows blown out, no evidence of pressure waves.

The collapse started in the interior. It was progressive from east to west as indicated by the large structures on WTC 7’s roof. The items on the roof shows the interior of WTC 7 failed. Only after the interior of WTC 7 could not hold up the facade did the facade fall.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

The argument the WTC 7 collapse looked like a classic CD is a false narrative.

How does the video relate to the above statement?

You're wasting your time. I once had a truther claim that the reason you can't hear explosions on any of the videos of the buildings collapsing is because the buildings collapsing is too loud.

Because apparently the explosions that are supposedly causing the building to collapse didn't begin until after the building started collapsing and generating that noise that makes it impossible to hear the explosions?

These people have no brain.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
a reply to: neutronflux

You never commented on the video I posted.

How come you let Mrthumpy answer for you?

ETA:

I ask you this because Mrhumpy posted a cherry picked 1 second loop and is making you look like an idiot.

Are you going take that dry?

The collapse started in the interior. It was progressive from east to west as indicated by the large structures on WTC 7’s roof. The items on the roof shows the interior of WTC 7 failed. Only after the interior of WTC 7 could not hold up the facade did the facade fall.

Where did the interior go?

The video simulation depicts the interior fell into a black hole or just disappearing all together. Why is That?

a reply to: face23785

I wonder if it’s like the flat earth movement. I think many people partaking in the flat earth movement don’t really believe the earth is flat. They just want to see who will jump on the wagon.

Now substitute flat earth with architectures and engineers. Then substitute wagon with donations.

I think Architects and Engineers really drove many away when they claimed the Tehran high rise Plasco building collapse couldn’t be fire related. I would think that killed AE’s credibility with anyone with a little knowledge and discernment concerning BS.

originally posted by: face23785
You're wasting your time. I once had a truther claim that the reason you can't hear explosions on any of the videos of the buildings collapsing is because the buildings collapsing is too loud.

Because apparently the explosions that are supposedly causing the building to collapse didn't begin until after the building started collapsing and generating that noise that makes it impossible to hear the explosions?

These people have no brain.

Is anyone that questions the official narrative a "truther" and do they all "have no brain" ?