yeh it was an uncontrolled demolition and it collapsed in wtc 1's foot print come on post that backwards assed definition of yours again I loved that psuedo grammar you dont even know what a foot print is you read it and prove it was a natural collapse
Well, since Koko seems silent on the subejct, I thought I would post a computer simulated collapse as well, since I can only assume that Koko believes them to be trustworthy ways to represent the mechanics of building collapse. [video=youtube;fIAK6PAeyn8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIAK6PAeyn8[/video]
Rule book my ass. Out of 66 years of life experience, fifteen years of formal education, 14 years of military service, part of it as a fire fighter, experience in private security and construction trades, extensive reading on terrorist groups and their tactics (and you are really begining to push some buttons you shouldn't,) and personal contact with some small-time "legals" for known terrorist groups. Don't think you can put one over on us that easily. You are still stuck with providing some evidence of what yopu are trying to sell. There are only so many ways that a building can collapse, and ,contrary to what you are trying to convince the morons that might stumble across your blather, some of them do colllapse from the top down. Steel-framed buildings are not immune to progressive collapse. Now, before we go another step further, you need to prove that there is a serviceable hush-a-bomb on the market and has been since before 2001.
Everybody who knows what they are talking about knows that it is more valid than your idea of what cause the collapse of WTC7. know what I mean?
No, you don't get to do that. What your Nazi debunking guide gives you are false labels that you can stick on normal reactions to tightly compacted bull(*)(*)(*)(*) so that you can call it something else. Of course, normal people are going to call whackadoodles whackadoodles and other names suggesting that they are a fgew candles short of a chandaleier.
pretty much all collapses are progressive wow what incredible credentials! So tell us what when wrong with these natural collapses that they did not fall straight down. Must be defying the laws of physics huh.
oh! so if the damage was in the middle or top that would not happen right? They would just fall straight down then?
The original video evidence is all one needs to dissect what happened to the point of knowing the BS story is complete BS. I suggest everyone get themselves original copies and compare them to the rhetoric shills spin here. It's not that difficult.
If the computer generated collapse I posted is valid, why are you arguing? If it is not valid why did you post yours? Begging the question "how was the building demolished." The building was not demolished. You have not shown any evidence that it was. Name one. No circular reasoning will be allowed here... No weakened structure was found, no one admitted to weakening structure, no one witnesses structure being weakened, the collapse of the building did not require intentionally weakened structure. Nonsense. WTC7 did not "pancake" and you still have no evidence that the building was intentionally demolished. These are sad lame arguments of a pretend lawyer with no evidence to support his position. Sorry, Koko. Stating, correctly I might add, that there's no evidence is not an admission that evidence was destroyed. Wrong again. My theory is that you have no clue what you're talking about. The evidence for my theory abounds. Case in point, every time you get pinned down you change the subject to something like zoo animals. That's quite an accusation. Prove it's not the ravings of a paranoid delusional who's lost touch with reality. If the building was detonated there should be evidence of detonation. Where's the evidence? Where's the sound of detonation? Where's the wiring, casings, and detonation cut steel? Without them you have no argument. Hey it's your video that you posted to illustrate your point. The claim was made that it illustrates how easy to make such a video, yet there's no indication of how easy it is to make. How hard was it to make that video? How accurate is it? My video is the culmination of a massive investigation into the structural failure that lead to the collapse of the WTC7. This analysis took into account the actual structure of the building, and the damage to that structure as the result of the attack. Your video is a movie special effect. It made by graphic artists for the purpose of entertainment. If pretty much all collapses are progressive what's your issue here? This statement seems to suggest that the collapse should have been progressive whether the building was demolished or not. Why do you follow this statement with two collapses that are not progressive? Is it because you have no clue what you're talking about? That's my bet. I'm sure they stand up to your pretend lawyer credentials. First I have every confidence that you have no clue whether either of those collapses are intentional or not. Second the differences between these buildings and the WTC7 are myriad. Let's start with something simple like slenderness ratio. The more slender an object is, the more unstable it is in compression. Your first building is not very slender. The structural members appear to be encased in concrete, which has a much higher compressive strength than steel. This means a much greater force is required for them to buckle under compression. The point of failure in your first building creates a rotation in the upper portion of the building very similar to the rotation in the upper portion of the WTC2. This rotation is caused by strain in the structure of the undamaged side. The difference between your building and the WTC2 is that the ground is the fulcrum in your building and slender structure was the fulcrum in the WTC2. The WTC2 structure buckled, but in your video the ground does not buckle. This allows the angular momentum to roll the building along the ground. The WTC2 had nothing to roll on. It all fell away. Lastly, I'd just like to mention that verinage is not appropriate for any and all buildings. This is due to slenderness ratio as well.
