clocker bob wrote: Can you explain 'pretty slowly'? The penthouse reached the ground in 6.5 seconds.

The video EC posted earlier shows it collapsing in abuot 12 or 13 seconds I think from the first apparent 'slump'.

However, you'd still have to give me something else for me to believe it wouldn't have fallen over (rather than straight down) even if damage made it start to topple.

I really don't understand how the explanation for this miraculous one of a kind event is so readily accepted.

And Mr Aneurhythmia if you're still reading I don't understand why you think internet debates are inherantly useless. Are all conversations inherantly useless to you? If anything I would say a forum like this is better than a face to face debate because responses are often (though certainly not always) more considered.
If you think conversations (or face to face debate) aren't useful then fair dos but that would mean you must be really dull to have a drink with.

emmanuelle cunt wrote:

clocker bob wrote: Can you explain 'pretty slowly'? The penthouse reached the ground in 6.5 seconds.

yeah. at double speed

Cut it out, for christ's sake. It's 6.5 seconds from the first visible sign of the kink in the roof line to the point where the whole building is in its foot print. Thanks for posting video that confirms this. You are a flat out liar for using language like 'double speed', suggesting that I posted a speeded up video, which I did not.

A collapse time is measured from when the top floor of a building begins to fall! There is no such thing as a collapse of lower floors that is not accompanied by upper floors falling at the same rate. As resistance below is removed ( with explosives *or* with your magic fire and debris theory ), the entire building falls. The reason why the Towers collapsed differently than WTC7 was because they couldn't risk thermite only on the lower floors- if the upper floors were not sequentially blown apart as the lower columns were severed, there was too much chance of large chunks ( possibly dozens of floors ) breaking away from the vertical axis and toppling off to the side. That is why there was ejection of concrete and steel for 100's of yards in the horizontal directions- they were not collapsing the towers, they were exploding them.

WTC7 was a conventional controlled demolition, where the lower columns only were severed and gravity took care of the rest.

In summation: 6.5 seconds from the first visible kink in the roofline until the entire building was in its footprint.

You should be ashamed of yourself, Cunt. I'm starting to think you'll say just about anything on this subject.

All the losers who won't go near the skeptical parts of their brians will tune these questions out, so I congratulate you for at least not hiding from the exploration of this weirdness.

I won't go near any part of my Brian since he ate that smelly mexican food.

No - wait - I kid. I agree: people who are skeptical about what you're saying are obviously incapable of being skeptical. Shame on all. The gun is smoking. Proof is here.

Earwicker wrote:

clocker bob wrote: Can you explain 'pretty slowly'? The penthouse reached the ground in 6.5 seconds.

The video EC posted earlier shows it collapsing in abuot 12 or 13 seconds I think from the first apparent 'slump'.

It does not. The roof line kinks at 11:28 in that video, and it's in the ground by 18:00. What looks like a slump in the penthouse on the left side at the 7:00 mark is a trick of the smoke making it appear that the penthouse has dipped. Compare the still from 7:00 to the still from 10:00- the outline of the penthouse is exactly as it should be at the 10:00 mark, so you can see that nothing dipped at the 7:00 mark. Look at the entire roof line of the building compared to the other buildings around it- it is still level until the 11:28 mark. Only at 11:28 does the roof line begin to become concave.

And Mr Aneurhythmia if you're still reading I don't understand why you think internet debates are inherantly useless. Are all conversations inherantly useless to you? If anything I would say a forum like this is better than a face to face debate because responses are often (though certainly not always) more considered.

That guy is an idiot who thinks that the way to end one debate is to demand that a different debate take place. And now he's gone. We'll see if he returns, but for now, I'm guessing he was a sock worn by some other forum member.

Uncle Ovipositor wrote:

All the losers who won't go near the skeptical parts of their brians will tune these questions out, so I congratulate you for at least not hiding from the exploration of this weirdness.

I won't go near any part of my Brian since he ate that smelly mexican food.

I know Brian, too. I meant to say brian. This is between him and me.

clocker bob wrote:

Uncle Ovipositor wrote:

All the losers who won't go near the skeptical parts of their brians will tune these questions out, so I congratulate you for at least not hiding from the exploration of this weirdness.

I won't go near any part of my Brian since he ate that smelly mexican food.

I know Brian, too. I meant to say brian. This is between him and me.

Good. Lord knows I wouldn't buy a "mistake" as an "explaination" for such an important topic.

emmanuelle cunt wrote:take a closer look at the video

That's rich, you telling me to take a closer look of the video of WTC7's collapse. Dude, I've watched those videos so many times I could paint a comic book of the collapse on a wall with my piss.

bob, you said the penthouse reached the ground in 6.5 seconds. i showed the video which shows it started collapsing 13 seconds before it hit the ground, so i was not suggesting anything - i simply did the math, but i guess it's nice to wave the lonely truth seeker flag and accuse everyone around of being a liar.


edit: it doesn't look like a smoke illusion at all. sky is easily visible in the place where the part of the penhouse used to stand.
picture of wtc7 hours before the collapse: pent house is taking about 4/5 of the roof width.
enhanced:

still from this video, moments before the collapse,


still after the partial collapse of the penthouse:

clocker bob wrote:

emmanuelle cunt wrote:take a closer look at the video

That's rich, you telling me to take a closer look of the video of WTC7's collapse. Dude, I've watched those videos so many times I could paint a comic book of the collapse on a wall with my piss.

i take your word for it, but that comic book woldn't be all that accurate.. or do you still think it was smoke?

emmanuelle cunt wrote:bob, you said the penthouse reached the ground in 6.5 seconds. i showed the video which shows it started collapsing 13 seconds before it hit the ground, so i was not suggesting anything - i simply did the math, but i guess it's nice to wave the lonely truth seeker flag and accuse everyone around of being a liar.

As it turns out, you are right about that portion of the mechanical penthouse. You were still wrong to refer to my video as 'double speed'. That is an erroneous term that implies speeded up film. This picture shows the penthouse: it was in fact not evenly placed across the roof-

Okay, now I want to know why the kink ( and the penthouse drop ) begin on the east side of the building, when all the pics of fires and debris damage focus on the southwest side of the building. Why is the stronger side of the building failing first? This is more good evidence of demolition.

Steel skyscrapers do not collapse from fire in either 6.5 seconds or in 12.5 seconds.

who cares how fast it fell? I've seen controlled demolitions that take considerable time to fall. I guess people see it as a symptom of a catastrophic failure, which generally leads to the idea that a single event triggered the collapse. None the less, let's say a significant part of the southern part of the building was damaged. wouldn't the building therefore collapse towards that direction? For this building to collapse uniformly in the manner it did, implies that there was a full footprint failure in the building at the same time. This seems highly unlikely. Let's say that yes, fire or falling debris from the twin towers or the plane was capable of melting steel and weakening the structure. Did this happen uniformly over the whole footprint of the building? or were there areas that were more damaged/affected during that span of time? Probably the latter. If that's the case, why didn't the collapse happen more asymmetrically? why didn't the southern facing part of the building collapse?


re: the twin towers, why didn't the central core remain standing?

If the pancake collapse theory is true, shouldn't have the most rigid/strong part of the building remained???