Pizzagate Subverse Network
/v/AskPizzagate – Pizzagate-related questions
/v/pizzagatewhatever – anything Pizzagate-related
/v/PizzagateMemes – Pizzagate memes
/v/pizzagatemods – meta concerns and Pizzagate moderation discussion
For Newcomers
Submission Rules
See also "subverse best practices"
Policy on linking dangerous research
1: Relevance: Posts must be directly relevant to investigation of Pizzagate: the sexual/physical abuse and/or murder of children by elites, child trafficking organized by elites, and/or cover-up of these activities and/or the protection/assistance provided to the people who engage in said activities. See definition of Pizzagate and examples of relevant posts.
2: Empiricism: EACH factual claim that is not common knowledge must be sourced with a link. If you ask a question: Explain what led to your question and provide sources. If you present opinion/argument, connect your dots and provide sources for them. Avoid baseless speculation. ALL posts must include at least one link.
3: Clarity: All titles must adequately describe post content and must establish direct relevance to pizzagate. EACH link in your post must include a description of content and how the link relates to the post (except when markup is used to embed links in the specific text they support).
4: Meta submissions and general discussion submissions without sources will be removed. Please submit indirectly relevant posts to /v/pizzagatewhatever and unsourced questions to /v/AskPizzagate. Sourced activism / publicity posts and memes are allowed. Posts about the subverse itself go to /v/pizzagatemods.
5: You must label NSFW posts (“Not safe for work”; for example gore, nudity etc.) as such when submitting.
6: No Link Posts -- Only editable submissions made with the "Discuss" button are allowed. "Link" submissions have been banned by the community for the reasons described here. Link posts will be immediately removed.
Adspam, illegal content, and personal info about Voat subscribers will be removed, and the offender will be banned.
Moderator Rules and Removal Explanations
Submission Removal Log
WARNING! Due to the nature of this investigation, clicking some links could result in opening incriminating material. Always practice common sense before clicking links, and make sure you're browsing safely.
Use archive.is to archive sources.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 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. :-)