CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: "We Blew Up WTC7 On 9/11" #3
This discussion was started in a previous topic. You can find it here.
Oct 21, 2017 16:07:27 #
Blade_Runner wrote:
Yeah, I've met him. He's an idiot.
Readers can judge whether Chandler or Blade are competent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDWknogw5Gw
http://911JusticeCampaign.org Time for indictments.
Oct 21, 2017 16:20:04 #
payne1000 wrote:
The argument advanced by the shill side of this discussion is that the center core fell last. The sections of the outer walls still standing above any remnants of the center core defeats that false premise.
So you argue that something that started out on the ground remains standing or leaning on the ground is proof of exactly what?... what are you talking about & why?
Oct 21, 2017 16:31:59 #
payne1000 wrote:
You forget to mention the force which peeled the banana. The force of gravity is straight down. The force it requires to peal a banana is outward from the center of the banana.
The alleged falling floors were falling straight down . . . no peeling power there.
The alleged falling floors were falling straight down . . . no peeling power there.
The force that started peeling the Banana was provided by the jet plane impacts & fuel explosions not fingers... the force of gravity is straight down ... So why are the Banana peels not touching the side of the banana?... the outer frame peeled outward while the top section crushed the lighter upper section of core to about the 700ft tall mark where the core structure was large enough to push through the roof... that's why 700ft of core fell last...
Oct 21, 2017 16:37:38 #
whole2th wrote:
Meet David Chandler: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDWknogw5Gw
Chandler uses his own name. He references observed conditions to principles of physics. He provides detail (not crude drawings).
Chandler uses his own name. He references observed conditions to principles of physics. He provides detail (not crude drawings).
Meet David Chandlers 100 fold math mistake in force...now if you only knew what it meant in regards to the second law of motion...
Oct 21, 2017 17:09:33 #
[quote=Blade_Runner]Aaron Brown, a CNN news anchor, watching a video shot from considerable distance, is supposed to be an expert on what he is looking at? Hell, I thought the media hacks were all Zionists who were in on it. Aaron Brown was there. he knew where the center of the tower had been. He knew where the side of the tower was. Brown put his name and reputation on what he reported. You hide your name from everyone.
All of the large sections of perimeter wall we see standing somewhat erect were at the base of the towers, they did not fall from any height. If you understood the physics of a progressive gravitational collapse, you would know why those sections remain. The physics of a gravitational collapse (if there were such a thing) would cause all the floors above the standing wall sections to fall straight down onto those wall sections. They would be underneath a hundred floors of debris.
Whoever worked up the graphic below, is obviously not as knowledgeable about the design and construction of the twin towers as you want us to believe. This graphic shows a box framed steel core in which all the columns are of the same dimensions. In reality, the core was much different than what is shown here.
1) The 16 columns on the outer long dimension of the core were the heaviest, the remaining 31 along the ends of the core and within it were half the size. If you had any powers of observation you would be able to see that the vertical columns in the computer rendering I created are not all the same dimensions. The dimensions in my rendering correspond to the official dimensions of the Towers.
2) The spandrel plates are too large and spaced too far apart. The spandrel plates and the core floor support beams are the same size. There was no spandrel on the center core . . . only steel horizontal connecting beams. I have depicted them the dimensions they were in reality.
3) A cursory look at the tower blueprints will show that whoever did this graphic was dishonest in attempting to depict the core as a "massive" box framed structure.
But, in your mind, everything about the twin towers and their destruction was "massive". Massive core, massive explosive debris clouds, massive explosions, massive conspiracy, yada yada.
The real center core shown next to my computer model below proves you are the dishonest one..
All of the large sections of perimeter wall we see standing somewhat erect were at the base of the towers, they did not fall from any height. If you understood the physics of a progressive gravitational collapse, you would know why those sections remain. The physics of a gravitational collapse (if there were such a thing) would cause all the floors above the standing wall sections to fall straight down onto those wall sections. They would be underneath a hundred floors of debris.
Whoever worked up the graphic below, is obviously not as knowledgeable about the design and construction of the twin towers as you want us to believe. This graphic shows a box framed steel core in which all the columns are of the same dimensions. In reality, the core was much different than what is shown here.
1) The 16 columns on the outer long dimension of the core were the heaviest, the remaining 31 along the ends of the core and within it were half the size. If you had any powers of observation you would be able to see that the vertical columns in the computer rendering I created are not all the same dimensions. The dimensions in my rendering correspond to the official dimensions of the Towers.
2) The spandrel plates are too large and spaced too far apart. The spandrel plates and the core floor support beams are the same size. There was no spandrel on the center core . . . only steel horizontal connecting beams. I have depicted them the dimensions they were in reality.
3) A cursory look at the tower blueprints will show that whoever did this graphic was dishonest in attempting to depict the core as a "massive" box framed structure.
But, in your mind, everything about the twin towers and their destruction was "massive". Massive core, massive explosive debris clouds, massive explosions, massive conspiracy, yada yada.
The real center core shown next to my computer model below proves you are the dishonest one..
Oct 21, 2017 17:12:42 #
emarine wrote:
Meet David Chandlers 100 fold math mistake in force...now if you only knew what it meant in regards to the second law of motion...
The allegation (alleged to be illustrated by the crude drawing) does not communicate clearly any mistake made by Chandler.
You and your fellow maintenance worker(s) are desperate to absolve Israel from responsibility for the 9-11 crimes.
Israel did 9-11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3335&v=3s0A_rutyxo
Oct 21, 2017 17:13:16 #
emarine wrote:
Meet David Chandlers 100 fold math mistake in force...now if you only knew what it meant in regards to the second law of motion...
The second law of motion is subject to the third law of motion which calls for an equal and opposite reaction when a falling mass strikes a solid mass below. This equal and opposite reaction prevents the falling mass from gaining the momentum you claim for the second law of motion. Absent momentum, the gravitational collapse could not occur.
Oct 21, 2017 17:20:11 #
emarine wrote:
So you argue that something that started out on the ground remains standing or leaning on the ground is proof of exactly what?... what are you talking about & why?
Why were those outer walls which remained standing not covered with 100 floors of debris? You claim there was enough debris to cause the extremely strong and dense outer wall structure to collapse. Why didn't all those floors come straight down as your mythical gravity collapse would dictate?
Oct 21, 2017 17:23:26 #
We've completed the 2nd 100 pages of exchanges in this topic.
A stark contrast exists between the "maintenance workers'" postings and the postings of Payne/whole2th regarding analysis and supportive references.
The persistence of the maintenance workers is consistent with tactics used by zionists to contain (put up a smokescreen to cover) evidence of Israeli-zionist perpetrators of 9-11.
An interesting aside. People applying for grant money to repair damages from hurricaine Harvey have to sign this agreement. Note provision #11 in the agreement.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/3s0A_rutyxo
A stark contrast exists between the "maintenance workers'" postings and the postings of Payne/whole2th regarding analysis and supportive references.
The persistence of the maintenance workers is consistent with tactics used by zionists to contain (put up a smokescreen to cover) evidence of Israeli-zionist perpetrators of 9-11.
An interesting aside. People applying for grant money to repair damages from hurricaine Harvey have to sign this agreement. Note provision #11 in the agreement.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/3s0A_rutyxo
Oct 21, 2017 17:27:49 #
emarine wrote:
The force that started peeling the Banana was provided by the jet plane impacts & fuel explosions not fingers... the force of gravity is straight down ... So why are the Banana peels not touching the side of the banana?... the outer frame peeled outward while the top section crushed the lighter upper section of core to about the 700ft tall mark where the core structure was large enough to push through the roof... that's why 700ft of core fell last...
So now you're changing your theory again. First it was falling floors which peeled your banana. Now it's jet planes and jet fuel. Does it take an hour to peel your banana?
Your mythical banana peels are not touching the sides of your mythical banana because powerful explosions peeled the real banana.
Where did your mythical 700 feet of core that you claim was still standing go? If it had the strength to remain standing, it could not have collapsed down on itself. It would have fallen over. Show readers the videos of that happening.
Oct 21, 2017 17:29:55 #
Maintenance workers aren't here to seek the truth. Their tactic is to lie, deceive and mislead.
When lies, deception and misdirection don't persuade, they also project their own failings on their adversaries.
When lies, deception and misdirection don't persuade, they also project their own failings on their adversaries.
Oct 21, 2017 17:58:20 #
payne1000 wrote:
The second law of motion is subject to the third law of motion which calls for an equal and opposite reaction when a falling mass strikes a solid mass below. This equal and opposite reaction prevents the falling mass from gaining the momentum you claim for the second law of motion. Absent momentum, the gravitational collapse could not occur.
A solid mass is not 88% thin air... its solid...
Oct 21, 2017 18:03:27 #
emarine wrote:
A solid mass is not 88% thin air... its solid...
88% air wouldn't crush much to begin with.
Didn't that ever occur to you?
It's no wonder you spend so much time playing blocks with kids.
Oct 21, 2017 18:21:00 #
payne1000 wrote:
So now you're changing your theory again. First it... (show quote)
I have presented the same exact facts from day one... while you have changed your theory's many times ... the top section of structure mass consisted of the entire structure not just the floors ... outer frame, inner core, hat truss system & floor system plus all the junk inside fell all at once impacting the first floor below it not the 90 floors below just the first one ...pushing the outer frame outward as the floor trusses below failed one @ a time peeling the structure outward into thin air...there comes a point time where you must stop asking the same questions... you claim to clearly understand The English language so what's so hard to understand about this... is this a grammar problem?
Oct 21, 2017 18:29:31 #
payne1000 wrote:
88% air wouldn't crush much to begin with.
Didn't that ever occur to you?
It's no wonder you spend so much time playing blocks with kids.
Didn't that ever occur to you?
It's no wonder you spend so much time playing blocks with kids.
Seems that I'm not the one stating over & over the towers were solid block masses ... it takes a very special type of person not to understand this... the towers were very flexible with a lot of air space... almost 110 square acres of nothing but air space or 88% air whichever way you can understand it...
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.