0
0

[–] DarkMath ago 

Moving on. Of the 10 items on my list of evidence 2 involved Larry Silverstein. Maybe I'm wrong but you haven't addressed those.

They're important because they don't deal with physical evidence of a demolition but with verbal evidence. Silverstein infamous verbal gaffs need an explanation. Here they are again:

1) Used the demolition term "Pull it" in reference to bringing WTC 7 down.

2) Started planning the WTC 7 replacement one year BEFORE 9/11.

I could maybe have dismissed 1 but 2 apparent slips of the tongue is beyond the pale. I think the most likely explanation is they refer to advanced knowledge of 9/11.

Why am I wrong?

@AreWeSure @are_we_sure @are_we__sure

:-D

0
0

[–] DarkMath ago  (edited ago)

"How does this explain you using the same deceptive gif AFTER it's been pointed out how deceptive this is?"

Because I don't think it's deceptive.

"The shell falls symmetrically because all of its interior lateral support is gone and it just falls straight down."

I think I know what the misunderstanding is. You concede the exterior collapse was symmetric and I concede the interior collapse was asymmetric. The misunderstanding I think the exterior shell should have collapsed asymmetrically given your argument fire weekended the structure. After all one entire side of WTC7 is drenched in smoke while the remaining 3 sides aren't. That steel within the back side away from the camera should have failed at a different rate than that of the side facing the camera. If fire played a significant role in the collapse then the outer shell collapse would have been asymmetric.

"Are you claiming the collapse starts at the Roof? Because it starts lower. "

No not at all. I'm claiming the demolition started within the core deep within the building. And within the core the demolition started "on the left" side because that would neutralize the left core's asymmetric load. That's the very reason I believe the outer shell failed symmetrically. The additional core load carried by the steel on the left was neutralized.

The big picture here is there are various theories about the collapsed. You have the "official" theory and I the unofficial. There is no "True" and "False" theory. That's just how science operates. Scientific is rarely 100% correct. Even something as simple as a straight line gets disproven later when Einstein discovers all space is warped to some degree. There doesn't exist a single straight line in all the Universe.

Get it? You don't get to declare victory here. In fact you're trying to quash dissent by labeling it as "lying". Do you work in the S.T.E.M. field? Something tells me you don't because you're adding in all these subjective terms like "lying" when describing something there's obviously a difference opinion on.

It's almost comical. That's why I gave you the example of Professor Jim Gates giving a lecture on Super Symmetry and constantly referring to critics as liars. Gates or anyone else would be laughed off stage. Calling a competing theory "lying" is so unscientific it hertz. :-)