Topic: University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7's Collapse on 9/11 - page 12. (Read 2858 times)

the thing that makes these conspiracy nutter of 2020 look even more stupid. is that they cant even comprehend the decade of debunks. its like they found a new toy to play with and talk about not realising the rest of the world knows its an old toy that is no longer trending.
you know the type. the people that bought at the bitcoin $20k peak thinking they were buying in at the cheap
you know the type. the ones that hear a chatup line and use it on a women. not realising she heard it 50times already. and yet the idiot still wonders why she doesnt act with surprise. thinking that he thought he was being original

A couple years ago I decided to refute these clowns arguments about 911 using only 8th grade math, physics and chemistry level refutations.

That's how low grade and laughable these conspiracy theories really are.

You'd think Iran could have done better with their disinformation campaign.

spendy loves the maths of trajectory.
i prefer to find the witnessed evidence
badecker prefers to dream of fantasy

Spendy is simply doing what he does best. He is taking the whole point out of the context of what happened on 9/11. Doing this is causing him to miss the whole conspiracy.

And you? You're just a puppet, playing with all kinds of things you know nothing about. You should really go out and play with the other kids. If you play in your backyard, possibly the cops won't even think about how you might be breaking the lockdown, 'cause they won't see you. Do you think the neighbors will squeal on you?

a building is designed not to topple over at the very instant of an impact. but its not designed to be immortal to everything.
the whole damage to the columns does cause weaknesses and eventually them weaknesses would cause a collapse. but again to save repeating in many posts. they are built to withstand an initial hit.
railroad bridges, and other large structures are built like this. not to be immortal but to atleast delay the collapse.

i feel that spendulus was addressing the reality of what occured. where by news media knew it was going to collapse because thats common sense.
he was not addressing your(badecker) fantasy version
remember this if you can
it is your(badecker) fantasy version that is out of context. so when someone does not address your context. that is because they are not blindly following your fantasy.
i know you dont like it that you are failing to have success of being a promoter/influencer. but let this be a lesson to you. if you stop trying to promote fantasy and instead actually do the research and promote actual proper common sense logical/realistic stuff. you might actually get different responses

Well, when you take what I said out of context, you simply show that your points aren't very strong.

Like I said (final time here repeating this ) they knew all afternoon that building was most likely going to fall down, any minute. They could have recorded that to play later and by mistake it went on the air right then. So what?

There's nothing there. That's got to be the weakest, most totally worthless argument I've ever heard.

I agree. It was an error. But which direction was the error in?
1. An error in timing of a report they knew they were going to broadcast;
2. An error in reporting something that they didn't know they were going to report.

Of course, look at how it is stated in 5, above, "... it would have been an error ..." In other words, "We aren't going to admit that an error was made."

The point being that they might have done it the way they did on purpose, just to find out how many people would think "conspiracy" and how many wouldn't. Or, they might have had another reason for doing it on purpose... an undermining of some real mistakes they made somewhere that day... so that people would focus on this, and never find the really damning mistakes.

So you see? It's a conspiracy no matter how you look at it.

Lol so a reporter does a ridiculous thing, and you have to find an even more ridiculous explanation.

You started off with a predetermined wacko theory and tried to make the facts fit it.

Like I said, all of the reporters were receiving information that that tower was likely going to fall, among others from firemen. I remember that from watching it that day. This is a gigantic nothing burger. Here's what the BBC had to say about this issue.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

You are basically right. Where you are wrong is, what you said is exactly what they thought they were doing. They mistakenly thought the building had come down already. Otherwise they would never have allow her to tell us that it was down, while it was standing UP right in her background.

No need to WATCH it again. I'm talking about what the reporters on site SAID that afternoon.


Got their timing wrong? That's silly. Your imaginary conspirators would just sit back and let their own reporter watch it go down and report it. This is really, really grasping at threads.




Absolutely. There is Chinese disinformation.

So there is something to the UofA Fairbanks study! They are making it into a movie. See the preview.


SEVEN Official Teaser (2020) | World Trade Center Building 7




SEVEN Official Teaser (2020) | World Trade Center Building 7

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL9CCZFuDFY

If a reporter is wrong, who cares, right? But it was the BBC that was wrong. Reporters are the end-point of the system of news. They get their info from their bosses. If they happen to be investigative reporters, it's still their bosses that allow what they report on to go through to the people.

In this case, it's easy to speculate that the BBC knew in advance that Bldg. 7 was going to come down, and simply got their timing wrong with their TV reporter.

However, if the BBC didn't know, and it was a simple reporter mistake (highly unlikely, because reporters don't simply make crazy statements without some reason), you still can't show that this was the way it was.

After all, look at what is going on with Sinclair. Why not the BBC? The point being that things are planned ahead in the news. The suggestion being that the reporter mistake was a mistake in timing of what was already planned. Where did they get their info to plan like this? The inside job people.

Viral video raises worry over Sinclair's political messaging inside local news

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwA4k0E51Oo

,,,,,
You don't just walk around and make statements about things for no reason at all. Or maybe you do: "That car is going to crash into that truck that we don't know is on the other side of the hill."
[/quote]

So the reporter was wrong. Who cares? What's laughable is that you make that into a big deal.

Where was this guy anyway? In NY watching the scene, or in London?

Pretty weak, to try to use something like this to support your pet theory.

It remains the fact that I remember hearing a lot of talk about bldg 7 the afternoon of 9/11 by reporters on the television channels.

 "They expect building 7 to fall anytime", "firemen have been told to stay away from building 7," etc etc.

So there's no reason for you to act like it was some big surprise.

Okay, I got your argument now. Go ahead and support that with the relevant physics or static force diagrams, if you really believe it.

What you really have to prove is that after the 88th floor (IIRC) collapsed due to fire, then the weight of the floors above coming down at the speed when it hit the next floor was insufficient to pop the supporting structures.

A shearing of a beam would occur at the speed of sound in steel which would be essentially instantaneous, and certainly not result in some slow-motion collapse such as you seem to be arguing for. Once some of the potential energy is converted to kinetic, there is so much force in action that no sort of "slow motion collapse" is conceivable.

 the towers were designed to withstand impacts from 2 or 3 707 jets simultaneously. (there are 4 engines on a 707)

 they are were supported by 200 vertical steel columns around the perimeter, and several massive core columns that rise from the foundation to the roof.

on the day, it was as if they did not even exist, as the buildings fell at freefall speed (32 feet per second squared) the roofs meeting the ground in just ten seconds

there was zero resistance from these supporting columns, which means that incindiarys and explosives had to be used to accomplish such a quick fall




  that's not true at all. watch it again. there were some fires, some incidental damage, the building evacuated. just before the collapse the rooftop can be seen to dip, as the core columns were cut using incindiarys and explosives

it might have been common knowledge locally, because of all the loud explosions heard and reported by many witnesses

jet fuel (kerosine) does not burn hot enough to melt steel. no steel framed building has ever collapsed from a fire


word

LOL!

Thanks, Spendy. Laughs are good for the soul.

The buildings were designed to not come down from plane crashes. So why would anyone step out and say that Building 7 came down when it hadn't and wasn't supposed to and hadn't even been hit by a plane?

You don't just walk around and make statements about things for no reason at all. Or maybe you do: "That car is going to crash into that truck that we don't know is on the other side of the hill."

But thanks. And for the insight into you, a little.

So instead of a simple mistake by a dumb reporter, it has got to be changed into another part of a coverup by scheming conspirators. That's pretty weak.

But I'm curious about one thing. Why does it matter at all what one guy said on one TV channel?

Anyway, as I remember that day multiple TV channels were reporting about building 7, that it had been on fire, that it was likely to collapse or about to collapse. Can't remember the exact words, but the point was it was common knowledge because half of one side was tilting over and the top had caved in.

So what's the big deal about the BBC reporter's words?

Dispatched teams? They did what they could to cover their blunder.

So after they made the wrong report and then figured out it was wrong, they dispatched teams to make it true?

Loads of people care. But they don't know what to do and how to do something about it. Probably the payments issued to 9/11 injured and families of victims isn't anywhere near the earnings made by the insiders who did the collapse.

So, here we go again with a pandemic this time... which is as much fake-news as the official report about 9/11. The herd of people matches the lemming story better than the story ever matched the lemmings.