OT: WTC7 put to bed

[bob]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

i almost feel bad closing the door in it like this. simple 3 min
video, not 2:45 like some "others."

bob

[PeteWasLucky]

What happened to the Pentagon? Those pilots were trained like no others to adjust the plane path from high skies and do a great manoveur to fly very low parallel to the ground to hit 1-2 floors building from the front, right?...

Really Bob?!! What kind of pilots were they? What kind of training did they get and how many hours of commercial flight did they have?

[calim...@gmx.de]

They are all paid by Dubya and Cheney!

Max

[calim...@gmx.de]

On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 6:23:04 AM UTC+2, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> What happened to the Pentagon? Those pilots were trained like no others to adjust the plane path from high skies and do a great manoveur to fly very low parallel to the ground to hit 1-2 floors building from the front, right?...
>
> Really Bob?!! What kind of pilots were they? What kind of training did they get and how many hours of commercial flight did they have?

Quite obviously top-notch airforce pilots who were drugged, but in a way that still allowed them to apply their skills at that daring maneuvre. Maybe plus a little help with holograms.


Max

[The Iceberg]

There was so much to gain by crashing into the Pentagon! Lolol

[calim...@gmx.de]

On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 11:16:07 AM UTC+2, The Iceberg wrote:
> There was so much to gain by crashing into the Pentagon! Lolol

It was necessary in order to start the Afghanistan war and conquer their oil pipelines.

Max

[Paul]

BULLSHIT.

IT WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7Rm6ZFROmc

[Carey]

Odd, they look exactly the same. :)

[calim...@gmx.de]

The jews right?
Didn't they also kill JFK?


Max

[TennisGuy]

But that doesn't make sense Max. It's not logical.

Why would 19 hijackers want to help the U.S. with
their plans to start wars and conquer oil pipelines?

Huh?

[TennisGuy]

Nonsense. I see ever so slight differences between them! :)

[TennisGuy]

Hush little baby don't you cry, bob's going to sing you a lullaby. LOL!

[calim...@gmx.de]

Paid by the NSA? Or jewish bankers? Halliburton and Cheney?

Max

[TennisGuy]

The problem with you Max is that you don't think.

You just regurgitate what others have mentioned.

So you are saying 19 hijackers decided to hijack planes and crash them,
committing suicide, so they would get paid by NSA/jewish
bankers/Halliburton and Cheney?

How do they get paid if they are dead?

[TT]

TennisGuy kirjoitti 23.6.2017 klo 0:16:
>
> How do they get paid if they are dead?

72 virgins in paradise & a couple million dollars for the relatives?

[The Iceberg]

this is my view

https://tinyurl.com/z6vko79

[TennisGuy]

Given how easily and smoothly three massive skyscrapers were brought
down by office fires on 9/11, I have often wondered how utterly stupid
the demolition industry has been since that day.

Surely they must have learned the secret to saving billions of dollars
prepping buildings for their collapse?

I mean why waste all the time, effort and co$t of installing expensive
explosives in buildings when simply setting them on fire and sitting
back for a few hours will do the trick?

Maybe someone can explain why they haven't done the obvious?
I mean to me it's a no-brainer.

bob?

[bob]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 19:24:27 -0400, TennisGuy <TG...@techsavvy.com>
wrote:

you can't take a chance the fire will spread - see WTC7. :-)

bob

[TennisGuy]

Nonsense!

You want to take down the whole building. Let it spread through the
whole building.

How many peripheral buildings did the fires from WTC7 spread to on 9/11?

Just keep a squadron of firefighters at the ready just in case.

But basically sit back with a case of beer and enjoy the show. :) LOL!

And count up all the bucks you saved on controlled demolition!

[bob]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 20:13:38 -0400, TennisGuy <TG...@techsavvy.com>

why? it brought down WTC7.

>You want to take down the whole building. Let it spread through the
>whole building.

but prevent it from spreading to nearby buildings? tricky.

>How many peripheral buildings did the fires from WTC7 spread to on 9/11?

probably some, but able to control those fires.

>Just keep a squadron of firefighters at the ready just in case.
>But basically sit back with a case of beer and enjoy the show. :) LOL!
>And count up all the bucks you saved on controlled demolition!

nah, somebody's got to pay those folks.

bob

[TennisGuy]

Don't you see the problem bob?
You want to have your cake and eat it too!

You want fires to totally destroy a building so it collapses
conveniently in its own footprint at free fall speed (no tipping to the
side).

and then when you have a tried and true method (proven to work on cue on
9/11 in 'text book fashion') you want to deprive the entire demolition
industry of this powerful demolition method, simply because it _may
cause some peripheral fires that could easily be put out before they
cause any damage with firemen at the ready.

How selfish of you.
You greedy bastard!

[bob]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 20:24:59 -0400, TennisGuy <TG...@techsavvy.com>
wrote:

i see no reason a building must tilt to the side. it depends on the
construction of the building.

>and then when you have a tried and true method (proven to work on cue on
>9/11 in 'text book fashion') you want to deprive the entire demolition
>industry of this powerful demolition method, simply because it _may
>cause some peripheral fires that could easily be put out before they
>cause any damage with firemen at the ready.

that's a very valid reason.

>How selfish of you. You greedy bastard!

? i'm trying to keep the industry employed.

bob

[Whisper]

Virgins waiting for them on the other side?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Whisper]

On 23/06/2017 9:24 AM, TennisGuy wrote:
> On 6/22/2017 6:19 PM, The Iceberg wrote:
>> On Thursday, 22 June 2017 19:15:56 UTC+1, TennisGuy wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2017 10:03 AM, Carey wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 3:26:02 AM UTC-7, Paul wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2017 7:37 PM, bob wrote:
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i almost feel bad closing the door in it like this. simple 3 min
>>>>>> video, not 2:45 like some "others."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> BULLSHIT.
>>>>>
>>>>> IT WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7Rm6ZFROmc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Odd, they look exactly the same. :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nonsense. I see ever so slight differences between them! :)
>>
>> this is my view
>>
>> https://tinyurl.com/z6vko79
>>
>
> Given how easily and smoothly three massive skyscrapers were brought
> down by office fires on 9/11, I have often wondered how utterly stupid
> the demolition industry has been since that day.

Quickly & easily? It's the most complicated/dangerous method ever used
to bring down buildings. You need jumbo jets hurtling in at 1,000
km/hr, 40,000 ltrs jet fuel etc. It's also incredibly dangerous.

No, I think you're wrong here. The current industry methods would be
the cheapest, easiest & safest way to bring down buildings.

And you think the 'demolition industry' is dumb? Wow.

[kaennorsing]

Op vrijdag 23 juni 2017 01:25:18 UTC+2 schreef TennisGuy:

Yes, steel buildings are designed specifically to keep standing. That's the single most important thing they're designed to do. It's therefor a totally ridiculous assumption that even a few hours of fire had these massive, gigantic steal constructions suddenly *collapse into their steel footprint at freefall speeds*. All three.

[calim...@gmx.de]

What I'm asking myself is whether people like you get an orgasm when they lie like this.
Who ever claimed the towers went down "in free fall" or "molten steel" was involved?
But people like you repeat those lies again and again and again and again.


Max

[calim...@gmx.de]

And now the resident Dutch nutter also chimes in ...


Max

[PeteWasLucky]

> What I'm asking myself is whether people like you get an orgasm when they lie like this.
Who ever claimed the towers went down "in free fall" or "molten steel" was involved?
But people like you repeat those lies again and again and again and again.

Put more effort in reading and understanding instead of your "CNN lol" kind of replies.

[calim...@gmx.de]

You say there was 'free fall"?
You say the government's explanation was "molten steel"?

Yes or no?
If you have even one "yes" you are a liar.
Quite simple.

Almost all conspiracy nutters are pathological liars. They like lying and the thrill whether they can get away with it. Look at the Holocaust deniers or the JFK conspiracy nutters.


Max

[TennisGuy]

On 6/23/2017 12:44 PM, calim...@gmx.de wrote:
> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 5:20:09 PM UTC+2, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>>> What I'm asking myself is whether people like you get an orgasm
>>> when they lie like this.
>> Who ever claimed the towers went down "in free fall" or "molten
>> steel" was involved? But people like you repeat those lies again
>> and again and again and again.
>>
>> Put more effort in reading and understanding instead of your "CNN
>> lol" kind of replies.
>
>
> You say there was 'free fall"? You say the government's explanation
> was "molten steel"?
>
> Yes or no? If you have even one "yes" you are a liar. Quite simple.

You my dear friend Max have just proven for all of rst and any
other member of the public, your ignorance on 9/11.

*** Almost 10 years ago N.I.S.T. (a U.S. government agency) finally
admitted that WT7 was indeed in free fall for more than 3 seconds. ***

The significance of that admission cannot be overstated.

In essence it was an admission that 9/11 was an inside job.

So there is one "yes". Hmmmm... PeteWasLucky was not a liar.
I guess that means that you were a liar?

> Almost all conspiracy nutters are pathological liars. They like lying
> and the thrill whether they can get away with it. Look at the
> Holocaust deniers or the JFK conspiracy nutters.

Phewwww, I am so glad you added that "Almost" at the beginning or I
would surely have to be a nutter and a pathological liar. :)

[PeteWasLucky]

> You say there was 'free fall"?
You say the government's explanation was "molten steel"?

Yes or no?
If you have even one "yes" you are a liar.
Quite simple.

Almost all conspiracy nutters are pathological liars. They like lying and the thrill whether they can get away with it. Look at the Holocaust deniers or the JFK conspiracy nutters.

What are you talking about?!!

What molten steel? lol

[calim...@gmx.de]

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 7:33:44 PM UTC+2, TennisGuy wrote:
> On 6/23/2017 12:44 PM, calim...@gmx.de wrote:
> > On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 5:20:09 PM UTC+2, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> >>> What I'm asking myself is whether people like you get an orgasm
> >>> when they lie like this.
> >> Who ever claimed the towers went down "in free fall" or "molten
> >> steel" was involved? But people like you repeat those lies again
> >> and again and again and again.
> >>
> >> Put more effort in reading and understanding instead of your "CNN
> >> lol" kind of replies.
> >
> >
> > You say there was 'free fall"? You say the government's explanation
> > was "molten steel"?
> >
> > Yes or no? If you have even one "yes" you are a liar. Quite simple.
>
>
> You my dear friend Max have just proven for all of rst and any
> other member of the public, your ignorance on 9/11.
>
> *** Almost 10 years ago N.I.S.T. (a U.S. government agency) finally
> admitted that WT7 was indeed in free fall for more than 3 seconds. ***

But not during the whole collapse, right?
Although those conspy nutters always said this?

>
> The significance of that admission cannot be overstated.
>
> In essence it was an admission that 9/11 was an inside job.

How so?

> So there is one "yes". Hmmmm... PeteWasLucky was not a liar.
> I guess that means that you were a liar?
>

PWL is a liar like almost all conspy nutters.

> > Almost all conspiracy nutters are pathological liars. They like lying
> > and the thrill whether they can get away with it. Look at the
> > Holocaust deniers or the JFK conspiracy nutters.
>
> Phewwww, I am so glad you added that "Almost" at the beginning or I
> would surely have to be a nutter and a pathological liar.

There are some who just don't know the difference between fact and fiction.

There will always be people who think the Holocaust didn't happen, the moon landing was faked, JFK was hit from different directions, Lady Di was murdered, 9/11 was an inside job.
They are weak people who seek excuses for their failings in life. Conspiracies everywhere - on the world stage and in their personal lives.

You can't reason with them.


Max

[Carey]

They're straw-manning now. It's all they got. Heh.

[TennisGuy]

Max you are hopeless.
Not even worth my time to address what you said.

[PeteWasLucky]

> Max you are hopeless.
Not even worth my time to address what you said.

Max is in his own world.

[calim...@gmx.de]

Actually I'm in the real world. The world of experts and honest people.
You are in nutter world. No experts at all and only pathological liars.

Max

[PeteWasLucky]

> Actually I'm in the real world. The world of experts and honest people.
You are in nutter world. No experts at all and only pathological liars.

Good for you.

[calim...@gmx.de]

No answer is also an answer.
BTW, another lie of yours was that the NIST report "admitted" that WTC 7 collapsed in free fall for more than 3 seconds. They said that a free fall occurred for 2.25 seconds of a 5.4 second collapse. And explain that "free fall phase" quite comprehensively. You knew that - but lied of course. Because that is ingrained in your mindset. Lie whenever possible.

A true piece of shit you are.
I won't leave you, Carey or PWL alone with this one here in RST. You are marked, pal ...


Max

[PeteWasLucky]

> No answer is also an answer.
BTW, another lie of yours was that the NIST report "admitted" that WTC 7 collapsed in free fall for more than 3 seconds. They said that a free fall occurred for 2.25 seconds of a 5.4 second collapse. And explain that "free fall phase" quite comprehensively. You knew that - but lied of course. Because that is ingrained in your mindset. Lie whenever possible.

A true piece of shit you are.
I won't leave you, Carey or PWL alone with this one here in RST. You are marked, pal ...

Do you really want to have a logical conversation? Let's try by you answering my question instead of avoiding it:

Here is the first question:

What happened to the Pentagon? Those pilots were trained like no others to adjust the plane path from high skies and do a great manoveur to fly very low parallel to the ground to hit 1-2 floors building from the front, right?...
What kind of pilots were they? What kind of training did they get and how many hours of commercial flight did they have?

[Carey]

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 2:45:33 PM UTC-7, calim...@gmx.de wrote:

> A true piece of shit you are.
> I won't leave you, Carey or PWL alone with this one here in RST. You are marked, pal ...
>
>
> Max

Please expand on that a bit, Sir.

[TennisGuy]

On 6/23/2017 5:45 PM, calim...@gmx.de wrote:

>
> BTW, another lie of yours was that the
> NIST report "admitted" that WTC 7 collapsed in free fall for more
> than 3 seconds. They said that a free fall occurred for 2.25 seconds
> of a 5.4 second collapse.

I'm truly sorry Max. (Getting on my knees to beg forgiveness).
I confused what NIST said and what the reality was.

NIST said 2.25 seconds but it was in fact for over 3 seconds.
They tried to shave off .75 seconds.

It doesn't matter though because even if it was in free fall
for just ONE (1) full second it would still prove that
all steel beams were severed at the same moment.

Fire can never sever even one steel beam, let alone all beams,
and even more, ALL beams at the SAME TIME! LOL!!! :)

[PeteWasLucky]

> I'm truly sorry Max. (Getting on my knees to beg forgiveness).
I confused what NIST said and what the reality was.

NIST said 2.25 seconds but it was in fact for over 3 seconds.
They tried to shave off .75 seconds.

It doesn't matter though because even if it was in free fall
for just ONE (1) full second it would still prove that
all steel beams were severed at the same moment.

Fire can never sever even one steel beam, let alone all beams,
and even more, ALL beams at the SAME TIME! LOL!!! :)

Do you expect Max to finish reading one sentence of what you write?

[bob]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 11:06:00 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

what do you believe happened?

bob

[bob]

how would you expect buildings constructed like that to fall? explain
the reasons why?

bob

[bob]

not sure what you're inferring but i believe of the 19 terrorists,
those flying the planes had some modest training. these guys weren't
sullenberger up there. if they missed by a few feet, i'd expect it.

bob

[bob]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:17:26 -0400, TennisGuy <TG...@techsavvy.com>
wrote:

>On 6/21/2017 10:37 PM, bob wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
>>
>> i almost feel bad closing the door in it like this. simple 3 min
>> video, not 2:45 like some "others."
>>

>> bob
>>
>
>Hush little baby don't you cry, bob's going to sing you a lullaby. LOL!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

see from 2:20-2:30. it's obvious why WTC7 collapsed.

and the conspiracy theorist in me was hoping it was the gov't. :-(

bob

[bob]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:17:26 -0400, TennisGuy <TG...@techsavvy.com>
wrote:

>On 6/21/2017 10:37 PM, bob wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
>>
>> i almost feel bad closing the door in it like this. simple 3 min
>> video, not 2:45 like some "others."
>>
>> bob
>>
>
>Hush little baby don't you cry, bob's going to sing you a lullaby. LOL!

don't you think the gov't, if they wanted to intentionally implode the
bldg, would do it in a fashion to make the building NOT appear as if
it'd been imploded? make it tilt? make it fall as if in random fashion
- for the conspiracy theorists?

it's right there in the implosion 101 gov't handbook.

bob

[TennisGuy]

No dear bobby.
From what you just wrote it is abundantly clear that
you haven't put much time into researching 9/11.

If they made the building 'collapse' by falling to the side there would
be massive damage to the neighboring buildings and the bathtub with
possible flooding of Manhattan.

They had to make the 'collapse' as clean as possible. As little damage
to surrounding buildings as possible.

[TennisGuy]

On 6/23/2017 10:01 PM, bob wrote:

>

> don't you think the gov't, if they wanted to intentionally implode the
> bldg, would do it in a fashion to make the building NOT appear as if
> it'd been imploded? make it tilt? make it fall as if in random fashion
> - for the conspiracy theorists?

Speaking about tilting and random fashion...
You know something bob?

They goofed big time with the WTC2 detonation.

It was almost a complete disaster!
It was enough to give away the whole show though.

One of the many 'smoking guns' of 9/11.


Check out videos of the WTC2 'collapse'.
You will see they messed up and the top started tilting
to the side by more than 20 degrees.

Now two things to consider here.

1. Once the building starts tilting as much as that it is very difficult
to stop that momentum (your physics should help out with this). It will
continue to fall to the side as there was nothing to
stop it from continuing in that direction.


2. That top part that now had its center of gravity to the side of the
building (no longer the center of the building) miraculously
acted as a pile driver, not down the side of the building where it was,
but it had to have changed direction, and somehow tilted back to the
center (praise be to Allah for that) and was now in the perfect location
to act as a pile driver to demolish all the floor below it.

Its self-correction for its tilt was perfect! It managed to tilt back
right to center position and not over-compensate and tilt to the other
side.

[PeteWasLucky]

> don't you think the gov't, if they wanted to intentionally implode the
bldg, would do it in a fashion to make the building NOT appear as if
it'd been imploded? make it tilt? make it fall as if in random fashion
- for the conspiracy theorists?

it's right there in the implosion 101 gov't handbook.

Who said it was the government?!

Btw, check this to the end

https://youtu.be/e8QCQudNEtY

[Whisper]

On 24/06/2017 1:26 PM, TennisGuy wrote:
> On 6/23/2017 10:01 PM, bob wrote:
>
>>
>> don't you think the gov't, if they wanted to intentionally implode the
>> bldg, would do it in a fashion to make the building NOT appear as if
>> it'd been imploded? make it tilt? make it fall as if in random fashion
>> - for the conspiracy theorists?
>
> Speaking about tilting and random fashion...
> You know something bob?
>
> They goofed big time with the WTC2 detonation.
>
> It was almost a complete disaster!
> It was enough to give away the whole show though.

Links? Where's the evidence the show has been 'given away'?

>
> One of the many 'smoking guns' of 9/11.
>
>
> Check out videos of the WTC2 'collapse'.
> You will see they messed up and the top started tilting
> to the side by more than 20 degrees.
>
> Now two things to consider here.
>
> 1. Once the building starts tilting as much as that it is very difficult
> to stop that momentum (your physics should help out with this). It will
> continue to fall to the side as there was nothing to
> stop it from continuing in that direction.

Not even the internal floors collapsing?

>
>
> 2. That top part that now had its center of gravity to the side of the
> building (no longer the center of the building) miraculously
> acted as a pile driver, not down the side of the building where it was,
> but it had to have changed direction, and somehow tilted back to the
> center (praise be to Allah for that) and was now in the perfect location
> to act as a pile driver to demolish all the floor below it.

er, this is exactly what I would have expected to see as the floors
collapsed in on each other like dominoes.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[kaennorsing]

Op zaterdag 24 juni 2017 01:42:38 UTC+2 schreef bob:

Good question. Have you ever tried crushing a match by pressing it down into itself from both ends? Hard isn't it? That's because anything that's straight is strong as fuck. So the answer is anyhow EXCEPT into their own footprint, because that is the path of MOST resistance, given the structure. Here's an idea of how buildings can collapse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHcCbY2wY38

You'll notice it's usually SIDEWAYS, because there is LESS resistance. And these were even 'controlled', therefore should have been collapsing into their footprint, but failed to. Some failed to collapse entirely. They just kept standing after their core was supposed to be taken out. One just rolled over.

So all have problems falling into their footprint, precisely because buildings are designed NOT to. They are designed to keep standing straight. Yet you're claiming a bit of fire allowed the most powerful type of steel building to neatly collapse into its footprint... Not buying it, sorry!

[kaennorsing]

Op vrijdag 23 juni 2017 23:38:57 UTC+2 schreef calim...@gmx.de:

> Actually I'm in the real world. The world of experts and honest people.
> You are in nutter world. No experts at all and only pathological liars.
>
> Max

What about the thousands of architects and engineers who signed the petition for an independent research? All pathological liars too? None of them "experts", because they disagree with the government's version of the conspiracy?

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Look, it was a conspiracy either way. That is out of the question entirely: A number of people got together to conspire the terrorist events of 9/11/2001. The only question is do we trust the official story of this conspiracy and all the suspects as being hole and complete? The answer - given all the evidence - is obviously a resounding NO.

[Whisper]

Have a look at this pic & you may notice some differences with what we
saw in the video;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/World_Trade_Center%2C_New_York_City_-_aerial_view_%28March_2001%29.jpg


Can you list some of the differences, or do you see none at all?

[Brian W Lawrence]

On 23/06/2017 23:36, TennisGuy wrote:
> On 6/23/2017 5:45 PM, calim...@gmx.de wrote:
>
>>
>> BTW, another lie of yours was that the
>> NIST report "admitted" that WTC 7 collapsed in free fall for more
>> than 3 seconds. They said that a free fall occurred for 2.25 seconds
>> of a 5.4 second collapse.
>
>
> I'm truly sorry Max. (Getting on my knees to beg forgiveness).
> I confused what NIST said and what the reality was.
>
> NIST said 2.25 seconds but it was in fact for over 3 seconds.
> They tried to shave off .75 seconds.

Tried? They carried out video analysis to produce accurate timings.
They weren't using a stopwatch or counting out loud.

> It doesn't matter though because even if it was in free fall
> for just ONE (1) full second it would still prove that
> all steel beams were severed at the same moment.

Do you mean beams or columns? Or are they interchangable?

> Fire can never sever even one steel beam, let alone all beams,
> and even more, ALL beams at the SAME TIME! LOL!!! :)

No one would suggest that fire, however intense, could 'sever' a
steel beam (or column).

Anyway, when the collapse became visible to observers the beams and
columns had already collapsed inside the facade of the building.
There was no longer any internal support when the penthouses slipped
through the roof - the first visible sign of collapse.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[kaennorsing]

Op zaterdag 24 juni 2017 12:28:00 UTC+2 schreef Whisper:

Can you show me any building collapsing in its footprint that wasn't a controlled demolition?

[Whisper]

On 24/06/2017 8:27 PM, Whisper wrote:
> On 24/06/2017 7:58 PM, kaennorsing wrote:
>> Op zaterdag 24 juni 2017 01:42:38 UTC+2 schreef bob:
>>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 15:04:33 -0700 (PDT), PeteWasLucky

>> So all have problems falling into their footprint, precisely because
>> buildings are designed NOT to. They are designed to keep standing
>> straight. Yet you're claiming a bit of fire allowed the most powerful
>> type of steel building to neatly collapse into its footprint... Not
>> buying it, sorry!
>>
> Have a look at this pic & you may notice some differences with what we
> saw in the video;
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/World_Trade_Center%2C_New_York_City_-_aerial_view_%28March_2001%29.jpg

> Can you list some of the differences, or do you see none at all?
>

Looking at this pic one is struck by the sheer size/mass of these
buildings - truly mind-boggling;

540 mtr high (more than half a km)
110 floors
1 acre (4,000 m2) footprint
10 *million* square feet of office space


Another angle;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Twin_Towers-NYC.jpg


I'm no engineer, but I think the force required to make these building
keel over (like the tiny 'buildings' in your youtube link) would be
truly monstrous. The 'path of least resistance' for something of this
mass (most massive man-made structures ever made) seems to be straight
down as dictated by gravity.

You have a pretty wild imagination expecting these monstrosities to
behave the same way as the small towers in your clip. Keeling over?
Wow give me a break.

: )

[Whisper]

'Controlled demolition' is just semantics. This is pure physics.
Controlled or not the collapse happened as I'd expect. I see nothing
odd about it.

I doubt even a nuclear bomb on the 10th floor would make these building
keel over. They are so massive they'd just collapse straight down.

[PeteWasLucky]

> Wow give me a break.

The building did really go sideways when it broke at the level of the floors got bit by the plane and it seemed for few seconds that it will fall sideways but suddenly (and the only way to stop it from happening) the pivot point carrying the tilting part collapsed and then all the floors underneath started to collapse one by one, never two or three at the time, but one by one.

[kaennorsing]

Op zaterdag 24 juni 2017 12:58:15 UTC+2 schreef Whisper:

You're exactly wrong of course. The taller they are, the MORE likely they are to keel over. The shorter, the less likely. Yet, these 'short' buildings keeled over while being attempted to collapse downward. The reason is that straight, steel beams can not collapse in itself, although they MAY bend (allowing for a keel). That's why they are used as building blocks designed to keep standing straight... Hard to understand?

[Carey]

"It's difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
-Upton Sinclair

[TT]

Whisper is correct.... more mass means that the structure below offers
less resistance. The towers were huge, not only height but the width too
which may not be obvious if you never visited the site. When I visited
WTC I was first impressed by the enormity of the ground floor, it was
HUGE. Then I was impressed by the speed of the elevator which actually
locked my ears due to quick change in altitude. Finally I was impressed
by the height looking down from 110th floor.

Also:

-If it would have been a controlled demolition the sound of explosion(s)
would have been huge. Did they invent dynamite without sound?

-It collapsed from the exact level the plane hit it.

-Why would a 'free fall' mean it was a controlled demolition? If there's
a demolition - that doesn't still mean a building collapses in free fall
now does it...

[Pelle Svanslos]

From very little I know of it, the weak points in the structrure were
the points where the floors were jointed to the core and outer
perimeter. Once these joints failed, the floors dropped like cards, one
on top of another.

[Guypers]

Exactly, the heat expanded the floor steel beams which broke away from the outer columns, and collapsed on top of each other, explained on youtube many times!!

[PeteWasLucky]

> Exactly, the heat expanded the floor steel beams which broke away from the outer columns, and collapsed on top of each other, explained on youtube many times!!

you trust your youtube videos.
Let's work your brain a a little, the building broke at the floors where the plane hit, we will say fire weaken the beams, then it started to fall on the floors below.
Here is a question that never crossed people mind, the impact on the floor below, is it isolated to that floor or to all the floors underneath?

Once you answer this, I will follow up with you.

[Pelle Svanslos]

What's the problem here? A floor drops on one, which then drops and so
on ...

[TennisGuy]

On 6/25/2017 2:59 PM, TT wrote:

>
> Also:
>
> -If it would have been a controlled demolition the sound of
> explosion(s) would have been huge. Did they invent dynamite without
> sound?

Fortunately there exist many videos that prove explosions took place
that day.

This one shows police and firemen talking when a HUGE explosion takes place.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7LBq6jr1Y


Check the look of fear on the responders right after the blast.
They are cowering right after it. They don't cower before the blast, but
immediately after it.

> -Why would a 'free fall' mean it was a controlled demolition? If
> there's a demolition - that doesn't still mean a building collapses
> in free fall now does it...

Let's break this down. Second part first...

> If there's a demolition - that doesn't still mean a building collapses
> in free fall now does it...

Correct. Demolition does not automatically mean free fall will ensue.

> -Why would a 'free fall' mean it was a controlled demolition?

Free fall means falling at the speed of gravity.

Thanks to Newton's Second Law we get 'acceleration of gravity', which is
9.81 m/sec2

Whether a building drops, an apple drops, or a TV set drops from a
certain height, they will ALL DROP at the SAME rate of acceleration
9.81 m/sec2. IF they are in FREE FALL (that is, nothing is stopping it
from falling).

In order for WTC7 to have been in complete free fall all of its core
columns had to have been severed at the exact same moment.

Since the only way we have been able to sever ALL interior columns
of a building at the exact same moment, up until this point in time, on
this planet, is by using explosives (controlled demolition), it follows
that:

'free fall' would mean it was a controlled demolition.


If in the future, we do discover another method to sever all interior
core columns at the same time, then we will not be able to say

'free fall' means it was a controlled demolition.

But until we do find another way, we must say it was a controlled
demolition, as difficult it is to say.
It is difficult to admit because it means that the demolition was
planned in advance.

Planned in advance means that 19 'hijackers' nor OSB could not have done it.

If they didn't do it, then another conspiracy was at play on 9/11.
That is hard for most folks to stomach.

[TT]

One would assume that the impact reaches all the floors and obviously
most of it to the floor below.

The explanation about heat expansion makes sense.

[TT]

TennisGuy kirjoitti 25.6.2017 klo 23:23:
> On 6/25/2017 2:59 PM, TT wrote:
>
>>
>> Also:
>>
>> -If it would have been a controlled demolition the sound of
>> explosion(s) would have been huge. Did they invent dynamite without
>> sound?
>
> Fortunately there exist many videos that prove explosions took place
> that day.
>
> This one shows police and firemen talking when a HUGE explosion takes
> place.
>
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7LBq6jr1Y
>
>

"This video does not exist"

>
> > If there's a demolition - that doesn't still mean a building collapses
> > in free fall now does it...
>
> Correct. Demolition does not automatically mean free fall will ensue.
>
>
> > -Why would a 'free fall' mean it was a controlled demolition?
>
> Free fall means falling at the speed of gravity.
>
> Thanks to Newton's Second Law we get 'acceleration of gravity', which is
> 9.81 m/sec2
>
> Whether a building drops, an apple drops, or a TV set drops from a
> certain height, they will ALL DROP at the SAME rate of acceleration
> 9.81 m/sec2. IF they are in FREE FALL (that is, nothing is stopping it
> from falling).
>

Also resistance of air plays a role... an apple will drop faster than a
feather.

> In order for WTC7 to have been in complete free fall all of its core
> columns had to have been severed at the exact same moment.
>

According to that theory the whole building was wired with explosives.
Impossible to go unnoticed.

Also, the plane should have hit exactly correct floor... which would
possibly also have triggered some explosives in advance before others.

> 'free fall' would mean it was a controlled demolition.
>
>

It wasn't a free fall. Timing of the fall is sort of difficult since
some parts may have collapsed earlier than the exterior did and there
was stuff covering the visibility from outside.

[TT]

Also, a plane did not hit the smaller building so there wouldn't be much
sense in demolition.

In any case your absurd theory of asbestos makes no sense with other
planes...

[TennisGuy]

On 6/25/2017 4:47 PM, TT wrote:

>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7LBq6jr1Y
>>
>>
>
> "This video does not exist"

It works like a charm on my computer.
Try another browser or computer.

>>
>> Whether a building drops, an apple drops, or a TV set drops from a
>> certain height, they will ALL DROP at the SAME rate of
>> acceleration 9.81 m/sec2. IF they are in FREE FALL (that is,
>> nothing is stopping it from falling).
>>
>
> Also resistance of air plays a role... an apple will drop faster than
> a feather.

Of course. That is why I did not use a feather as an example. Duh. :)

>> In order for WTC7 to have been in complete free fall all of its
>> core columns had to have been severed at the exact same moment.
>>
>
> According to that theory the whole building was wired with
> explosives. Impossible to go unnoticed.

I'm sorry to have to say this TT, but each one of your replies
demonstrates greater and greater ignorance on the topic and basic facts.

No, according to "that theory" the whole building was not wired with
explosives. Did you see many explosives going off on the top floors of WTC7?

Free fall was taken care of by explosives on the lower floors.
The "impossible to go unnoticed" is a famous 'straw man' argument
used by many people.

The Manhattan Project was also "impossible to go unnoticed".
But you know what TT?
It did go unnoticed! LOL!

> Also, the plane should have hit exactly correct floor... which would
> possibly also have triggered some explosives in advance before
> others.

This is what I mean by "each one of your replies
demonstrates greater and greater ignorance on the topic and basic facts."

We have been talking about WTC7 here.
Do recall that a plane did not hit WTC7. :)

>> 'free fall' would mean it was a controlled demolition.
>>
>>
>
> It wasn't a free fall. Timing of the fall is sort of difficult since
> some parts may have collapsed earlier than the exterior did and
> there was stuff covering the visibility from outside.

See above (we were talking about WTC7).

[TT]

TennisGuy kirjoitti 26.6.2017 klo 0:34:
> On 6/25/2017 4:47 PM, TT wrote:
>
>>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7LBq6jr1Y
>>>
>>>
>>
>> "This video does not exist"
>
> It works like a charm on my computer.
> Try another browser or computer.
>

No, the video does not exist. Maybe it's open for kooks only?

So you have nothing on the missing sound of explosion problem then.

> The Manhattan Project was also "impossible to go unnoticed".
> But you know what TT?
> It did go unnoticed! LOL!
>

False equivalence, Manhattan Project was not a building in middle of
Manhattan and it did not go unnoticed.

[Gracchus]

Correct. It was a jazz fusion album that did pretty well.

[Federer Fanatic]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 14:38:55 -0700 (PDT), calim...@gmx.de <calim...@gmx.de> wrote:
| On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 8:16:03 PM UTC+2, PeteWasLucky wrote:
|> > Max you are hopeless.
|> Not even worth my time to address what you said.
|>
|> Max is in his own world.

|
| Actually I'm in the real world. The world of experts and honest people.
| You are in nutter world. No experts at all and only pathological liars.
|
| Max

I agree. People have misread you. Albeit your fascination with Steffi is a bit
over the top... :-)

FF

--





The measure of a man is what he does with power.
- Plato

[The Iceberg]

Video does not work here either!
Oh yes they rigged the bottom floors after smashing 2 planes into them! Guess getting some paid Arabs to drive cars packed with explosives was considered not worth it cos they'd already done that in 92, better to secretly wire the place Lol

[Whisper]

It just makes zero intellectual/logical sense. Sorry.

[Whisper]

Exactly. This is what I mean by there being so many 'moving parts' -
impossible to fake imo, without it being blatantly obvious to everyone.

[PeteWasLucky]

Try to watch and listen

https://youtu.be/9R1cwYqwFgo

[TennisGuy]

On 6/26/2017 8:02 AM, The Iceberg wrote:

> Video does not work here either!

You can watch the same video here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwpmniLh98oIR0VEZ1Z4MDFpNFE/view

Three (3) distinct explosions can be heard. This was just before WTC7
came down.

The blasts occur at 7, 22, 28 seconds.

For the first huge blast the guys say:

"Yeah, here's one of the guys he can tell you I'm OK, alright?
Here, hold on"
"You want to call your mother or something?"

BOOM !!!

"What the fuck was that?"
"What the hell, fuck was that?"

> Oh yes they rigged the bottom floors
> after smashing 2 planes into them! Guess getting some paid Arabs to
> drive cars packed with explosives was considered not worth it cos
> they'd already done that in 92, better to secretly wire the place
> Lol
>

You guys keeps jumping back and forth between WTC1/2 and WTC7.
WTC7 was wired completely differently than WTC1/2.

For WTC7 it was the bottom floors, for WTC1/2 it was the whole building.

[TT]

TennisGuy kirjoitti 26.6.2017 klo 21:35:
> On 6/26/2017 8:02 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
>
>> Video does not work here either!
>
> You can watch the same video here:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwpmniLh98oIR0VEZ1Z4MDFpNFE/view
>
> Three (3) distinct explosions can be heard. This was just before WTC7
> came down.
>

Yeah, complete bullshit.

One can't tell when the clip was taken etc. The sounds are likely coming
from building collapsing and it does not sound like dynamite. Could be
doctored clip as well.

Unless you think that THEY had wired wtc7 with dynamite and thought
people wouldn't notice anything peculiar with the building blowing up
without no particular reason. Is that it? lol

[Guypers]

Get a fukking life nutcase!

[Brian W Lawrence]

Certainly don't sound like explosions to me.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Carey]

In the present context, I think CJ Hopkins is worth reading:


https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/13/why-ridiculous-official-propaganda-still-works/

My take is that the official 11 September story is implausible, *and was meant
to be*. Even if you don't agree with the article, it's a better fit with what
I see happening all around me, with my own senses, than the BS from the PTB.

[bob]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 02:58:22 -0700 (PDT), kaennorsing
<ljub...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Op zaterdag 24 juni 2017 01:42:38 UTC+2 schreef bob:
>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 15:04:33 -0700 (PDT), PeteWasLucky

>> <waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> No answer is also an answer.
>> >BTW, another lie of yours was that the NIST report "admitted" that WTC 7 collapsed in free fall for more than 3 seconds. They said that a free fall occurred for 2.25 seconds of a 5.4 second collapse. And explain that "free fall phase" quite comprehensively. You knew that - but lied of course. Because that is ingrained in your mindset. Lie whenever possible.
>> >
>> >A true piece of shit you are.
>> >I won't leave you, Carey or PWL alone with this one here in RST. You are marked, pal ...
>> >
>> >Do you really want to have a logical conversation? Let's try by you answering my question instead of avoiding it:
>> >
>> >Here is the first question:
>> >
>> >What happened to the Pentagon? Those pilots were trained like no others to adjust the plane path from high skies and do a great manoveur to fly very low parallel to the ground to hit 1-2 floors building from the front, right?...
>> >What kind of pilots were they? What kind of training did they get and how many hours of commercial flight did they have?
>>
>> not sure what you're inferring but i believe of the 19 terrorists,
>> those flying the planes had some modest training. these guys weren't
>> sullenberger up there. if they missed by a few feet, i'd expect it.
>>
>> bob
>
>Good question. Have you ever tried crushing a match by pressing it down into itself from both ends? Hard isn't it? That's because anything that's straight is strong as fuck. So the answer is anyhow EXCEPT into their own footprint, because that is the path of MOST resistance, given the structure. Here's an idea of how buildings can collapse.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHcCbY2wY38
>You'll notice it's usually SIDEWAYS, because there is LESS resistance. And these were even 'controlled', therefore should have been collapsing into their footprint, but failed to. Some failed to collapse entirely. They just kept standing after their core was supposed to be taken out. One just rolled over.

>So all have problems falling into their footprint, precisely because buildings are designed NOT to. They are designed to keep standing straight. Yet you're claiming a bit of fire allowed the most powerful type of steel building to neatly collapse into its footprint... Not buying it, sorry!

if it's so hard to do, even in "controlled demolitions," how come
whoever "controlled the demolition" of these buildings did it so
easily for 3 of them in a row?

your post contradicts itself.

bob

[bob]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 20:58:05 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

>On 24/06/2017 8:27 PM, Whisper wrote:

>> On 24/06/2017 7:58 PM, kaennorsing wrote:
>>> Op zaterdag 24 juni 2017 01:42:38 UTC+2 schreef bob:
>>>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 15:04:33 -0700 (PDT), PeteWasLucky

>>> So all have problems falling into their footprint, precisely because
>>> buildings are designed NOT to. They are designed to keep standing
>>> straight. Yet you're claiming a bit of fire allowed the most powerful
>>> type of steel building to neatly collapse into its footprint... Not
>>> buying it, sorry!
>>>

>> Have a look at this pic & you may notice some differences with what we
>> saw in the video;
>>
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/World_Trade_Center%2C_New_York_City_-_aerial_view_%28March_2001%29.jpg
>
>> Can you list some of the differences, or do you see none at all?
>>
>
>
>Looking at this pic one is struck by the sheer size/mass of these
>buildings - truly mind-boggling;
>
>540 mtr high (more than half a km)
>110 floors
>1 acre (4,000 m2) footprint
>10 *million* square feet of office space
>
>
>Another angle;
>
>https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Twin_Towers-NYC.jpg
>
>
>I'm no engineer, but I think the force required to make these building
>keel over (like the tiny 'buildings' in your youtube link) would be
>truly monstrous. The 'path of least resistance' for something of this
>mass (most massive man-made structures ever made) seems to be straight
>down as dictated by gravity.
>
>You have a pretty wild imagination expecting these monstrosities to
>behave the same way as the small towers in your clip. Keeling over?
>Wow give me a break.
>
>: )
>

to me, the incredible weight of the concrete floors - flat floors -
falling straight down into other floors, etc., is logical and what i'd
expect. steel is strong, until heated.

bob

[bob]

i thought the video i found was very simple so RST could understand,
and made perfect sense. and it's what i'd expect to happen even if
nobody said so.

what year did you go up the tower? i went up it in september 2000,
took some videos. i recall being in the lobby arguing whether i wanted
to actually go up or not as i was in a pinch for time and the towers
weren't all that "popular" then.

bob

[bob]

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 17:34:50 -0400, TennisGuy <TG...@techsavvy.com>
wrote:

the manhattan project in alamagordo new mexico VS the WTC in lower
manhattan? lol

>> Also, the plane should have hit exactly correct floor... which would
>> possibly also have triggered some explosives in advance before
>> others.
>
> This is what I mean by "each one of your replies
>demonstrates greater and greater ignorance on the topic and basic facts."
>We have been talking about WTC7 here.
>Do recall that a plane did not hit WTC7. :)

we've actually veered into discussing all 3 collapsing bldgs.

>>> 'free fall' would mean it was a controlled demolition.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It wasn't a free fall. Timing of the fall is sort of difficult since
>> some parts may have collapsed earlier than the exterior did and
>> there was stuff covering the visibility from outside.
>
>See above (we were talking about WTC7).

bob

[bob]

aw, c'mon, jazz fusion? pure pop!

bob

[bob]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 21:51:44 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>TennisGuy kirjoitti 26.6.2017 klo 21:35:
>> On 6/26/2017 8:02 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
>>
>>> Video does not work here either!
>>
>> You can watch the same video here:
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwpmniLh98oIR0VEZ1Z4MDFpNFE/view
>>
>> Three (3) distinct explosions can be heard. This was just before WTC7
>> came down.
>>
>
>Yeah, complete bullshit.
>
>One can't tell when the clip was taken etc. The sounds are likely coming
>from building collapsing and it does not sound like dynamite. Could be
>doctored clip as well.

ya think? lol

sad, but probably 3/4 of the clips out there are doctored by
conspiracy theorists trying to prove their pt.

>Unless you think that THEY had wired wtc7 with dynamite and thought
>people wouldn't notice anything peculiar with the building blowing up
>without no particular reason. Is that it? lol

bob

[bob]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 11:55:04 -0700 (PDT), Guypers <gap...@gmail.com>
wrote:

no need to call names. tennisguy is very passionate about the topic,
and he's read a lot. unfortunately, he's been duped. i believe he
should get a support group to stay strong about it all, since he's
given so much of his life to it.

bob

[bob]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 13:44:36 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

what do you see happening all around you?

bob

[bob]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 22:55:53 -0400, TennisGuy <TG...@techsavvy.com>
wrote:

>On 6/23/2017 10:01 PM, bob wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:17:26 -0400, TennisGuy <TG...@techsavvy.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/21/2017 10:37 PM, bob wrote:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
>>>>
>>>> i almost feel bad closing the door in it like this. simple 3 min
>>>> video, not 2:45 like some "others."
>>>>
>>>> bob
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hush little baby don't you cry, bob's going to sing you a lullaby. LOL!
>>
>> don't you think the gov't, if they wanted to intentionally implode the
>> bldg, would do it in a fashion to make the building NOT appear as if
>> it'd been imploded? make it tilt? make it fall as if in random fashion
>> - for the conspiracy theorists?
>>
>> it's right there in the implosion 101 gov't handbook.
>>
>> bob
>>
>
>No dear bobby.
> From what you just wrote it is abundantly clear that
>you haven't put much time into researching 9/11.
>
>If they made the building 'collapse' by falling to the side there would
>be massive damage to the neighboring buildings and the bathtub with
>possible flooding of Manhattan.

you think someone who would do that kind of damage would care about
any collateral damage? nah.

>They had to make the 'collapse' as clean as possible. As little damage
>to surrounding buildings as possible.

why?

bob

[bob]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 21:44:52 -0700 (PDT), PeteWasLucky
<waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> don't you think the gov't, if they wanted to intentionally implode the
>bldg, would do it in a fashion to make the building NOT appear as if
>it'd been imploded? make it tilt? make it fall as if in random fashion
>- for the conspiracy theorists?
>
>it's right there in the implosion 101 gov't handbook.
>
>

>Who said it was the government?!
>
>Btw, check this to the end
>
>https://youtu.be/e8QCQudNEtY

"this video does not exist."

bob

[PeteWasLucky]

> to me, the incredible weight of the concrete floors - flat floors -
falling straight down into other floors, etc., is logical and what i'd
expect. steel is strong, until heated.

Why didn't few or even all of the upper floors collapse while the steal beams skeleton stayed standing? Or partial survive of the steal skelton?

[bob]

because those humongous and extremely heavy concrete floors dragged
everything down in its wake.

bob

[PeteWasLucky]

> because those humongous and extremely heavy concrete floors dragged
everything down in its wake.

Do you understand what a standing vertical steal structure is?

Probably not.

Let me ask you another question. Don't you think that this steal structure should provide at least some resistance to the falling floors above that will result in slowing down the vertical speed of the collapse? Did you see any slow down?

[bob]

On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:32:13 -0700 (PDT), PeteWasLucky
<waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> because those humongous and extremely heavy concrete floors dragged
>everything down in its wake.
>

>Do you understand what a standing vertical steal structure is?

is it anything like a steel structure? :-)

>Probably not. Let me ask you another question. Don't you think that this steal structure

that's twice now...if you can't spell steel i'm not sure you're a PhD
in structural engineering and certainly not qualified to speak of how
buildings are built.

ok, enough of the typo jokes. i trust you'll quit with the same
misspelling BS.

when i'm in RST halve the time i'm talking on the phone with my right
hand, typing with my left.

> should provide at least some resistance to the falling floors above that will result in slowing down the vertical speed of the collapse? Did you see any slow down?

i can't tell if it slowed down without dropping an identically sized
concrete floor next to it with no building underneath for comparison.
i know what free fall is, i skydove even once, but we'd have to figure
in wind and other resistances below the bldg to understand the true
free fall speed.

i am not a structural engineer or architect (though i took a strength
of materials course, multiple physics courses and dynamics). the
buildings honestly fell like i'd expect them to, given their weight,
the weight of concrete floors, and how they were constructed.

bob

[PeteWasLucky]

Read this and stop the personal attacks

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjZ5cvAtd_UAhUCQj4KHbSWAnsQFggdMAA&usg=AFQjCNF0UDkekapOgqD1pwjJROjZIRg-UA

[bob]

On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:47:38 -0700 (PDT), PeteWasLucky
<waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Read this and stop the personal attacks

i wasn't attacking, it was a playful joke. jeez. yet i'm attacked
often, no worries.


>https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjZ5cvAtd_UAhUCQj4KHbSWAnsQFggdMAA&usg=AFQjCNF0UDkekapOgqD1pwjJROjZIRg-UA

i saved the doc i'll read it tomorrow. but i can see it's authored by
"truthers."

bob

[PeteWasLucky]

> i saved the doc i'll read it tomorrow. but i can see it's authored by
"truthers

Let me say that I don't accuse any specific group but I believe we weren't told the truth.