University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7's Collapse on 9/11

[Spendulus]

This is very informative if you can stand the 2 hrs . the presenter is a lab lady not a professional speaker so she slow at times but she lay's out evidence that pretty much only Splendy can refute.
....

You are welcome to write those arguments down and I'll be happy to refute them. As for your latest garbage...

NO PLANES? Where did all those people that got on those planes go to? I don't think the families of these people agree with you.

Now you are 100% inside anti-American, funded propaganda.

Duhh...

265 fatalities aboard the 4 planes include[84] 87 civilians (including 11 crew members) and the five hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 11; 60 civilians (including 9 crew members) and the five hijackers aboard United Airlines Flight 175;[85] 59 passengers (including 6 crew members) and the five hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 77; and 39 civilians (including 7 crew members), a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officer,[86] and the four hijackers aboard United Airlines Flight 93.[87][88] The dead included eight children: five on American Airlines Flight 77, aged 3 to 11,[89] and three on United Airlines Flight 175, aged 2, 3, and 4.[90] The youngest victim was a two-and-a-half-year-old child on Flight 175 and the oldest was an 85-year-old passenger on Flight 11.[91]
Among those killed were television producer David Angell, who co-created the sitcom Frasier,[92] and actress Berry Berenson,[93] both passengers on Flight 11. Barbara Olson, television political commentator and the wife of then-U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, was aboard Flight 77.[94]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks#List_of_the_dead

[BluePowder]

They didn't go anywhere. Some people died at WTC but no deaths anywhere else. Even lucky Larry survived, what are the odds there, he just happened to take a day off that day. Nothing is anti american, like I said 9/11 stinks of British and Israeli intelligence.

I guess you already watched the 2hr video in 15 minutes and have your report on it.

[sirazimuth]

This is very informative if you can stand the 2 hrs . the presenter is a lab lady not a professional speaker so she slow at times but she lay's out evidence that pretty much only Splendy can refute.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqbcsU0_RjU

I have seen a couple of versions of this as she went all over the world with her story. during one show someone from the audience tries to ask her about planes and CIA and other conspiracy. she shuts him up quick and say its irrelevant, planes not required . its all about the evidence she says. She's completely right, once you figure it was an unconventional weapon used, there is no need for the plane theory and the alternative weapon must be used to hide evidence of the lack of a plane.

“Comments are turned off”. LOL
That’s what the flat earth clowns do with many of their easily debunked nonsensical vids.
Coincidence? ...I think not...

[Spendulus]

They didn't go anywhere. Some people died at WTC but no deaths anywhere else. Even lucky Larry survived, what are the odds there, he just happened to take a day off that day. Nothing is anti american, like I said 9/11 stinks of British and Israeli intelligence.

I guess you already watched the 2hr video in 15 minutes and have your report on it.

No, there is a complete list of every person who died on the four airplanes.

Your version of 911 and your posts reek of pro-Saudi Islamic propaganda.

If not, then list where those people missing from their families who said they got on one of those planes are today. Go ahead, prove it to the world. Here is your chance. I'll make it easy. Just show how half of those people are imaginary people with imaginary families.

[TECSHARE]

"FBI 'Mistakenly' Releases 9/11 Bombshell In Court: Key Saudi Diplomat Who "Tasked" Hijackers Named"

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/fbi-mistakenly-releases-911-bombshell-court-key-saudi-diplomat-link-hijackers-named

[BADecker]

They didn't go anywhere. Some people died at WTC but no deaths anywhere else. Even lucky Larry survived, what are the odds there, he just happened to take a day off that day. Nothing is anti american, like I said 9/11 stinks of British and Israeli intelligence.

I guess you already watched the 2hr video in 15 minutes and have your report on it.

No, there is a complete list of every person who died on the four airplanes.

Your version of 911 and your posts reek of pro-Saudi Islamic propaganda.

If not, then list where those people missing from their families who said they got on one of those planes are today. Go ahead, prove it to the world. Here is your chance. I'll make it easy. Just show how half of those people are imaginary people with imaginary families.

Go to a baby-names website, and I'll bet you can find even more names for your list.

[groggin]

  
    fwiw/ fiend o mine had a bud on one of those planes. USMC vet, i volunteered my opinions on 911 and came close to being beat up ... don' think i blame him ...

 but it is what it is, 911 was an elite-op designed to take away our liberties

 spendy you should be ashamed that you speak for them.

quarter mile high steel framed buildings cannot collapse at freefall speed without the aid of incendiaries/explosives

10 seconds to the ground from 1200 feet are you kidding me?

over 200 vertical columns were there to prevent that

[Spendulus]

 
 ....
10 seconds to the ground from 1200 feet are you kidding me?

over 200 vertical columns were there to prevent that

I'm sure you have some equations to support your blabber.

Right?

[BADecker]

 
 ....
10 seconds to the ground from 1200 feet are you kidding me?

over 200 vertical columns were there to prevent that

I'm sure you have some equations to support your blabber.

Right?

The "equations" are quite simple. They are called "ground" or "the earth" or some similar thing.

Have you never noticed that stuff doesn't just fall through the ground to the center of the earth? Why doesn't it? Isn't it because all that solid earth is in the way?

So, why would stuff fall through the beams and girders and columns that are solid stuff, almost as though there was nothing there?

Spendy, I do feel a little sorry for you. Even the 8th graders have waked up to the fact that free-fall through solid material doesn't make sense. You should really check yourself into a psychiatric clinic while you have the chance... before you become a babbling idiot, and they can't do anything to help you any longer.

[Spendulus]

 
 ....
10 seconds to the ground from 1200 feet are you kidding me?

over 200 vertical columns were there to prevent that

I'm sure you have some equations to support your blabber.

Right?

Garbage deleted.

Go right ahead, grogginess, post your equations showing that what you think is true, is true.

This has been studied so they are available.

[BADecker]

 
 ....
10 seconds to the ground from 1200 feet are you kidding me?

over 200 vertical columns were there to prevent that

Garbage deleted.

The "equations" are quite simple. They are called "ground" or "the earth" or some similar thing.

Have you never noticed that stuff doesn't just fall through the ground to the center of the earth? Why doesn't it? Isn't it because all that solid earth is in the way?

So, why would stuff fall through the beams and girders and columns that are solid stuff, almost as though there was nothing there?

Spendy, I do feel a little sorry for you. Even the 8th graders have waked up to the fact that free-fall through solid material doesn't make sense. You should really check yourself into a psychiatric clinic while you have the chance... before you become a babbling idiot, and they can't do anything to help you any longer.

Garbage deleted.

Forget all the stupid non-science that Spendy promotes all the time. Stick to real, easily identified science, like the fact that solid beams and girders and columns don't simply jump out of the way without demolition... especially in a near-free-fall situation.

[sirazimuth]

....
 Stick to real, easily identified pseudo science, like I do.

ftfy

[groggin]

  

Go right ahead, grogginess, post your equations showing that what you think is true, is true.

This has been studied so they are available.

  k spendy, i'll bite:

                              


             any questions?

 (click the pic to visit the website and try it yourself)

[Spendulus]

  

Go right ahead, grogginess, post your equations showing that what you think is true, is true.

This has been studied so they are available.

  k spendy, i'll bite:

                              


             any questions?

 (click the pic to visit the website and try it yourself)

Sure, that defines one side of the problem. The fall time in a gravity field with air resistance disregarded, which is okay.

so what's wrong with the fall time of the twin towers?

[TECSHARE]

Sure, that defines one side of the problem. The fall time in a gravity field with air resistance disregarded, which is okay.

so what's wrong with the fall time of the twin towers?

Is the fact that the resistance from the ENTIRE STRUCTURE of the building is disregarded ok too? Apparently you think so. That is the ONLY way free fall speeds could be reached.

[BADecker]

Sure, that defines one side of the problem. The fall time in a gravity field with air resistance disregarded, which is okay.

so what's wrong with the fall time of the twin towers?

Is the fact that the resistance from the ENTIRE STRUCTURE of the building is disregarded? Apparently you think so. That is the ONLY way free fall speeds could be reached.

There is one other way free-fall speeds could have been attained. And it answers the point that no explosives could have been sneaked into the buildings.

The answer is that they were landed on the top of the buildings by helicopter, days before 9/11. It's these explosives that pushed the buildings into near free-fall speeds, and caused the "pancaking" that many seemed to have observed.

Of course, others have talked about missiles. So, maybe it was a missile or two, that had "shaped charge explosives" of the kind used in tank shells. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-explosive_anti-tank_warhead.

[Spendulus]

Sure, that defines one side of the problem. The fall time in a gravity field with air resistance disregarded, which is okay.

so what's wrong with the fall time of the twin towers?

Is the fact that the resistance from the ENTIRE STRUCTURE of the building is disregarded? Apparently you think so. That is the ONLY way free fall speeds could be reached.

Oh I see. So there would be some modification of the formula to accomplish this. Then the correct formula describing the matter has not been posted?

That's a bit like claiming that you are sure that lift, drag, thrust and gravity are related in such a way that an airplane goes up not down, and saying. "Just trust me."

Show your work please.

[TECSHARE]

Oh I see. So there would be some modification of the formula to accomplish this. Then the correct formula describing the matter has not been posted?

That's a bit like claiming that you are sure that lift, drag, thrust and gravity are related in such a way that an airplane goes up not down, and saying. "Just trust me."

Show your work please.

It has already been shown. Free fall = no extra resistance other than air and other negligible forces. Free fall speed means it fell as fast as possible at the speed resulting from the pull of gravity. ANY RESISTANCE WHATSOEVER means it falls slower than free fall speed. You have fun demanding equations so you can play intellectual and try desperately try to topic slide. Anyone who has basic understanding of simple physics knows this is not possible unless ALL resistance was removed. The only way that happens is if the supports were removed BEFORE the floor impacting the next happened, not as a result of them impacting each other. The "pancake collapse" theory violates the laws of physics, several of them.

[Spendulus]

Oh I see. So there would be some modification of the formula to accomplish this. Then the correct formula describing the matter has not been posted?

That's a bit like claiming that you are sure that lift, drag, thrust and gravity are related in such a way that an airplane goes up not down, and saying. "Just trust me."

Show your work please.

It has already been shown. Free fall = no extra resistance other than air and other negligible forces. Free fall speed means it fell as fast as possible at the speed resulting from the pull of gravity. ANY RESISTANCE WHATSOEVER means it falls slower than free fall speed. You have fun demanding equations so you can play intellectual and try desperately try to topic slide. Anyone who has basic understanding of simple physics knows this is not possible unless ALL resistance was removed. The only way that happens is if the supports were removed BEFORE the floor impacting the next happened, not as a result of them impacting each other. The "pancake collapse" theory violates the laws of physics, several of them.

The proof or lack of your statements really is in the equations.

You not only refuse to provide the math but actively deny the need for it.

It's not credible to assert that I'm "playing intellectual" if I'm keeping the discussion at the 8th grade level.

[BADecker]

Oh I see. So there would be some modification of the formula to accomplish this. Then the correct formula describing the matter has not been posted?

That's a bit like claiming that you are sure that lift, drag, thrust and gravity are related in such a way that an airplane goes up not down, and saying. "Just trust me."

Show your work please.

It has already been shown. Free fall = no extra resistance other than air and other negligible forces. Free fall speed means it fell as fast as possible at the speed resulting from the pull of gravity. ANY RESISTANCE WHATSOEVER means it falls slower than free fall speed. You have fun demanding equations so you can play intellectual and try desperately try to topic slide. Anyone who has basic understanding of simple physics knows this is not possible unless ALL resistance was removed. The only way that happens is if the supports were removed BEFORE the floor impacting the next happened, not as a result of them impacting each other. The "pancake collapse" theory violates the laws of physics, several of them.

The proof or lack of your statements really is in the equations.

You not only refuse to provide the math but actively deny the need for it.

It's not credible to assert that I'm "playing intellectual" if I'm keeping the discussion at the 8th grade level.

LOL! He's got you there, TECSHARE. He certainly isn't playing intellectual by keeping the discussion at 8th grade level. He has to get the discussion up to 8th grade level to keep it there.

If he happened to get up to 8th grade level, he might understand that the buildings were built to resist a whole lot more than free-fall... more such as airplanes crashing into them.