Exactly when was it discredited? I’ve seen nothing that shows that whatsoever.
Lemme guess, Gage or some other crank demanded the data Schlafley style in their obscure conspiracy blog and nobody heard them so they cried “victory”.
Come on people. Our friend cannot be bothered to learn what the real official story is because it could diminish his outrage against what he imagines the official story to be.
I’m still waiting for any actual physics from the OP.
What “laws of physics” do you think have been violated by the “official explanation”? Be specific.
Of the two examples you gave here, what “laws of physics” do you think have been violated? Again, be specific.
I would like to go on the record as registering my strenuous opposition to this. It is a very bad idea that no reasonable person should support. I adamantly assert that this sort of thing ought not be allowed.
please be clear, “this sort of thing”
what are you referring to?
snerk
Chaotic input does NOT= coherent output
the fact is that to achieve the observed result, that is having WTC7
drop at free fall acceleration, ALL of the support out from under the falling mass would have had to have been removed and all at the same time, this is ONLY accomplished by controlled demolition
Do you have a recording of the sound of the explosives?
Sounds likethis.
What would be your conclusion if it had NOT fallen at free fall speed?
So true.
It would take longer.
“Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)”
what do you call this? FREE FALL is FREE FALL
there is no way to negate what was observed and what it means is that
the falling mass could not possibly have been crushing or pushing anything
it was in FREE FALL, how is that arranged without some sort of engineered
demolition?
You deliberately left out the other portions to create a false impression.
What’s the obsession with free-fall? What are you trying to prove?
Where’s that recording of the explosives that you claim brought down WTC7?
Did hit your head and black out after reading stage 1? And then just not read stage 3?
the allegation that the WTC tower wall would prove to be “flimsy” when faced with overwhelming energy from an airliner colliding with it
however, the strength of the wall has bearing on this discussion in that the amount of energy required to breach the wall would be in proportion to the strength of said wall.
and the airliner would have to slow down in direct proportion to the energy required to breach the wall. and slowing down means deceleration force,
so the forces acting upon the airliner would be a direct result of the strength of the wall.
is stage 3 supposed to negate the fact that in stage 2 the building fell at FREE FALL rate?
what is going on here. … most Illogical captain …
If you think the pictures of the wreckage were faked, then you’d think an inventory of the pieces would be faked also. So I’m not going to bother to even look. Often all that work is done to find out the cause of the crash. That was pretty obvious in this case.
You didn’t answer my question about what happened to the guy killed in the crash. Or the cellphone calls.
Today I came upon a video by a religious flat-earther “proving” that the eclipse this year showed that the normal model of the earth moon system was a hoax,
His argument makes more sense than yours.
You deliberately implied that the freefalll portion was all there was by making no mention of the entire sequence. And by deliberately not linking to your sources so it couldn’t be checked.
What’s illogical is you seeing the evidence refuting your claims and you are trying to shoehorn it to fit your claims and it is failing miserably.
so do you deny that the free fall portion is significant?
how is it to be explained that the building fell as it did?
Somebody PLEASE explain how free fall was achieved without there having been a controlled demolition ?