'What about building 7'?

[dadeets]

Please address our questions about your "pyroclastic flow" comment.

I should have said "pyroclastic-like flow."

At the time I made the statement, 3 years ago, it was an important distinguishing feature in my mind.

Since that time, other things have become more compelling to me. Thus, it has fallen off my list of things I stress.

I prefer to ask you -- how can there be 2.25 seconds of free fall at Building 7 without some additional energy source removing 8 stories of structure abruptly from beneath the upper structure?

 

[beachnut]

I should have said "pyroclastic-like flow."

At the time I made the statement, 3 years ago, it was an important distinguishing feature in my mind.

Since that time, other things have become more compelling to me. Thus, it has fallen off my list of things I stress.

I prefer to ask you -- how can there be 2.25 seconds of free fall at Building 7 without some additional energy source removing 8 stories of structure abruptly from beneath the upper structure?

The penthouse fell through WTC 7 before the facade began falling, leaving no interior supports for the facade. The entire collapse was over 15 seconds, not even close to free-fall.


Wow, 12 seconds of collapsing ignored by 911 truth and you. Why did it take so long to collapse with all your fantasy thermite at work?

Did 911 truth keep you from seeing the penthouse falling through WTC 7, meaning the interior was collapsing seconds before the penthouse making the entire collapse more than 15 seconds maybe longer. The interior collapsed well before your 911 truth liars can comprehend.

There was nothing left to hold up the facade, it fell. Gravity, something 911 truth has to ignore.

Care to discuss your endorsement of CIT?

 

[carlitos]

I prefer to ask you -- how can there be 2.25 seconds of free fall at Building 7 without some additional energy source removing 8 stories of structure abruptly from beneath the upper structure?

More argument from incredulity. Really, can't you do better than this?

 

[Pardalis]

I prefer to ask you -- how can there be 2.25 seconds of free fall at Building 7 without some additional energy source removing 8 stories of structure abruptly from beneath the upper structure?

How can it be rigged for explosives while it is on fire?

 

[leftysergeant]

I should have said "pyroclastic-like flow."

It was a turbidity flow and anyone who can't tell the difference has no business being an engineer in any field related to flight.

[/QUOTE]I prefer to ask you -- how can there be 2.25 seconds of free fall at Building 7 without some additional energy source removing 8 stories of structure abruptly from beneath the upper structure?[/QUOTE]

Everything in front of the wall they were watching had discombobulated. The wall broke soumewhere above ground level and was pulled off its footing. How fast will it drop?

 

[beachnut]

How can it be rigged for explosives while it is on fire?

With fireproof silent explosive super thermite nano-bots, they leave no blast effects; a secret thermite mixture which the iron residual dustifies by a select radio frequency, and leave no evidence. The thermite has C and Si in it, these residual are from the nano-bot circuitry used to vaporize the termite iron products and used to ignite the thermite. This cost the NWO about 3 trillion dollars, the money poor Rumsfeld was looking for on 911!


GI Joe, the movie let the thermite nano-bots secret slip. As seen in GI Joe these nano-bots ate steel! Judy was wrong about DEW. Jones was right about the dust, the dust was from nano-bots crushed and spread all over NYC. The kill switch stopped the bots from destroying all of NYC, but a few got caught in a frequency dead zone in WTC 7 CIA vault, and finished WTC 7 in the late afternoon.

Proof, the Si in the dust, from the nano-bot circuitry! Too late for Jones to correct his findings, I have the Pulitzer Prize locked!@ bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


The nano-bots are fire proof! Did you see GI Joe? Hello! wake up

beer? Can Deets beat this?

 

[Mel Odious]

I should have said "pyroclastic-like flow."

At the time I made the statement, 3 years ago, it was an important distinguishing feature in my mind.

Since that time, other things have become more compelling to me. Thus, it has fallen off my list of things I stress.

I prefer to ask you -- how can there be 2.25 seconds of free fall at Building 7 without some additional energy source removing 8 stories of structure abruptly from beneath the upper structure?

What was NIST's explanation, and why do you disagree with it?

 

[T.A.M.]

I should have said "pyroclastic-like flow."

At the time I made the statement, 3 years ago, it was an important distinguishing feature in my mind.

Since that time, other things have become more compelling to me. Thus, it has fallen off my list of things I stress.

I prefer to ask you -- how can there be 2.25 seconds of free fall at Building 7 without some additional energy source removing 8 stories of structure abruptly from beneath the upper structure?

Well I am not an engineer or physicist, so I would ask you to explain to me how the 2.25 seconds of free fall the NORTH FACE of WTC7 underwent DURING its collapse, violates any laws of physics.

Thanks

TAM

 

[The Big Dog]

What was NIST's explanation, and why do you disagree with it?

Man, that is a beautiful couple of questions.

Will Mr. Deets answer them?

 

[dadeets]

What was NIST's explanation, and why do you disagree with it?

NIST crafted their explanation at a time when they maintained the building came down 40% slower than freefall. I won’t go into the explanation other to say it was a natural progression following what they called thermal expansion of a long girder, due to out of control office fires.

NIST changed their position on freefall just before issuing their final report. The final report said the building collapse included a stage having a 2.25 sec. free-fall drop extending 8 stories. However, they didn’t change their explanation to go with this new position on freefall.

Why I disagree with the NIST explanation -- During freefall, there must be simply a conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy. There can’t be any energy going elsewhere, such as doing work by bending metal in the structure below. That means, the structure below must get out of the way abruptly. Explosives are the only way to do this in a steel-framed high rise.

 

[Pardalis]

Explosives are the only way to do this in a steel-framed high rise...

...which was on fire. Riiight.

 

[T.A.M.]

Where did they say the entire building went through 2.25 seconds of free fall, as opposed to a portion of it (part of the North Face)?

TAM

 

[dadeets]

...which was on fire. Riiight.

One must assume the building wasn't on fire at the time the explosives were placed. Had to have been the weeks and months before.

 

[ProBonoShill]

NIST crafted their explanation at a time when they maintained the building came down 40% slower than freefall. I won’t go into the explanation other to say it was a natural progression following what they called thermal expansion of a long girder, due to out of control office fires.

NIST changed their position on freefall just before issuing their final report. The final report said the building collapse included a stage having a 2.25 sec. free-fall drop extending 8 stories. However, they didn’t change their explanation to go with this new position on freefall.

Why I disagree with the NIST explanation -- During freefall, there must be simply a conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy. There can’t be any energy going elsewhere, such as doing work by bending metal in the structure below. That means, the structure below must get out of the way abruptly. Explosives are the only way to do this in a steel-framed high rise.

NIST is talking about the North Face, not the internal structure, so nothing has to get out of the way.

Explosives?

What kind of explosives?

This kind?

 

[dadeets]

Where did they say the entire building went through 2.25 seconds of free fall, as opposed to a portion of it (part of the North Face)?

TAM

They started out the section saying, "A more detailed examination of the same video led to a better understanding of the vertical motion of the building in the first several seconds of descent."

They did make the measurement at the North Face, but it was the whole building that was coming down.

This on page 45 of their Final Report (NCSTAR 1A.pdf)

 

[Pardalis]

One must assume the building wasn't on fire at the time the explosives were placed. Had to have been the weeks and months before.

And the explosives were somehow not triggered when the fires broke out?

How long can explosives be safely placed and remain dormant in a working office building?

 

[Mel Odious]

One must assume the building wasn't on fire at the time the explosives were placed. Had to have been the weeks and months before.

What was the backup plan (i.e. excuse for the eventual collapse) if the building hadn't been badly damaged and set on fire by the collapse of WTC 1?

 

[beachnut]

NIST crafted their explanation at a time when they maintained the building came down 40% slower than freefall. I won’t go into the explanation other to say it was a natural progression following what they called thermal expansion of a long girder, due to out of control office fires.

NIST changed their position on freefall just before issuing their final report. The final report said the building collapse included a stage having a 2.25 sec. free-fall drop extending 8 stories. However, they didn’t change their explanation to go with this new position on freefall.

Why I disagree with the NIST explanation -- During freefall, there must be simply a conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy. There can’t be any energy going elsewhere, such as doing work by bending metal in the structure below. That means, the structure below must get out of the way abruptly. Explosives are the only way to do this in a steel-framed high rise.

Like flying, you have no expertise in structural engineer. NIST did not change their position, you are repeating a lie from 911 truth. Kind of sad, you can't do your own research you just repeat lies from idiots.

Please explain the flyover at the Pentagon, and why you endorsed CIT?

Explosives? No evidence found, no booms, no blast damage.

 

[leftysergeant]

One must assume the building wasn't on fire at the time the explosives were placed. Had to have been the weeks and months before.

And you are going to tell us that explosives technicians are going to go into a building next to one of the most powerful transmitter signals in all of NYC, possibly in the country and set blasting caps without shutting down those transmitters for the duration of the operation. Riiiiight.

I aint gettin on board with that outfit.

Then there is the problem that every form of explosives that I know of burn or melt when exposed to the kinds of temperatures that prevailed over several floors of the buildings. In the towers, those temperatures far exceded what would be needed to destroy the charges on precidely those floors on which the charges that initiated the collapse sequence. In WTC7, the fires were observed to be in flash-over, thus well over the temperatures needed to destroy the charges in places over more than long-enough periods. After the whole south face was ventilated by ballistic impacts, the locations of the fires was entirely a matter of random chance. This is totally not conducive to the sort of precise planning that would be needed to take out exactly the right columns.

Then there is the problem of disguising what they had done. There were a lot of cops and fire fighters and iron workers looking at the steel in the rubble pile. Many, if not most of them, would have had military experience, many in fields in which they would have gained some knowledge of the effects of demolitions charges. That none of them saw anything consistant with such blast effects implies that it is highly unlikely that any were there.

Further, charges adequate to take out a steel column would also have taken out the glass over entire floors all around the building. The only glass observed breaking between the impact of the tower on WTC7 and the initiation of collapse was the result of fires. Nearly all of the glass on the north side remained in tact until after the wall had started to buckle, long after the mechanical towers had fallen into the interior of the building. I see no way that this would be possible, given the over-pressurization of the structure which would neccessarily have followed the detonation of charges. Perhaps one might think that the vast gash taken out of the front might have relieved this over-pressurization, but that would also have amplified the horrendous explosives sounds of the detonating charges like a fire cracker in a paint can.

There is an absence of evidence for explosives and a mountain of evidence of their absence.

 

[T.A.M.]

They started out the section saying, "A more detailed examination of the same video led to a better understanding of the vertical motion of the building in the first several seconds of descent."

They did make the measurement at the North Face, but it was the whole building that was coming down.

This on page 45 of their Final Report (NCSTAR 1A.pdf)

As I asked, I'll ask again, WHERE DID THEY SAY, that the entire building was coming down AT 2.25 SECONDS OF FREE FALL?

I believe, what came from their report, was that the NORTH FACE of the building, not the entire building, had a moment of 2.25 seconds of free fall during the collapse.

TAM