0
0

[–] RweSure ago 

Why do you insist on lying? You know that image only shows the very end of the collapse and that collapse begins like 10 seconds before what you show. And that viewing the full sequence we can see that there was a highly asymmetrical internal collapse that preceded the collapse of the outer shell.

https://www.metabunk.org/files/WTC-7-Explosion.gif

WTC7 was a tube within a tube construction with lateral supports connecting the two.

We can see that roof collapses on the left side first while outer shell looks fine.

We can then see this collapse of the roof starts to move right before the whole building comes down.

Just as the full collapse begins the roof develops a kink.

Then the outer shell comes down.

This is a highly unsymmetrical progressive collapse. Starts on lower left floors on interior goes straight up to the right before the whole roof bends in a kink and the outer structure falls.

This collapse is well under way already in that deceptive gif you show.

Why do you think lying will help your argument? Is it because the truth would destroy your argument?

0
0

[–] DarkMath ago  (edited ago)

"Why do you insist on lying?"

The Hillary Clinton School of Bull Shit Strikes again.

"Then the outer shell comes down."

All controlled demolitions implode the interior first and then the "outer shell". That's so the building collapses in on its own footprint. Once again you prove my point. Thank you.

"We can see that roof collapses on the left side first"

Yes because the left side of the roof of WTC 7 contained an additional penthouse structure the right side didn't have. The fact the left side penthouse collapsed first is actually as much evidence of a controlled demolition as not. It certainly is easily explained with a controlled demolition. It was first because, duh, there was more there to blow up.

"Why do you think lying will help your argument?"

You're priceless AreWeSure. Let's review more of the Scientific Method. I'd like to introduce you to an American Physicist named Richard Feynman. He famously wrote:

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

That means you don't get to call a competing view "lying". The entire concept of attacking the person instead of the argument is anathema to Science.

:-D

0
1

[–] RweSure 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I call you a liar because you insist on lying. You use a deceptive clip and claim that the "perfect symmetry" proves it must be a controlled demolition. Then when I point out you are being deceptive and not showing the full collapse and it was actually highly asymmetrical, you act like you never claimed the opposite.

Then you make a new claim that an asymmetrical collapse also proves a controlled demolition.

And I call you a liar because I had previously pointed how how deceptive your clip was and you went ahead a d used it with full knowledge it was deceptive.

Your new claim is also high order nonsense.

All controlled demolitions implode the interior first and then the "outer shell". That's so the building collapses in on its own footprint.

This is incredibly silly and ignores the fact of how WTC was built and how it differs from other buildings. There is no one size fits all. And there's dozens of examples of demolitions that show you wrong on YouTube. Here this highly asymmetrical collapse starts on the left outer than middle than right outer. https://media2.giphy.com/media/9zA9uLCuGqScM/giphy.gif

Also you had that nonsense explanation about the additional structure at the ready, didn't you? It just shows you knew your clip was deceptive and did not show the entire collapse sequence.

It was first because, duh, there was more there to blow up.

Holy Lord in Heaven, this is dumb. I'm going to give you a chance to rephrase this to make it less dumb, because there's no possible way you meant this.

In terms of how WTC 7 fell, the direction was inluenced by the structural damage caused by the collapsing Towers. Something nobody could have planned for.