Exactly. And they really aren’t good analogues because of one thing that often seems to be overlooked (I think, in some cases, intentionally…in others, just ignorance) is the method of the fires origins. A normal fire starts in one place, or on one floor. It’s very rare for a fire to simultaneously start on multiple floors, and to cover multiple floors right off the bat. In the case of every one of the WTC buildings, we have fires starting, simultaneously and VERY rapidly (as well as starting off covering a huge initial area) on multiple floors. In WTC 7’s case, burning debris from the north tower started fires all along the south side, including in the big atrium. And there was nothing to mitigate those fires due to all the other things brought up.
But rarely do the CT types even acknowledge this point, as if fires regularly start on multiple floors (and I mean ACROSS THE MAJORITY OF THAT FLOOR SPACE) at once. Of course, they rarely acknowledge any of the points.
What’s so “symmetrical” about the majority of 7 crossing the street to fall on the CUNY building at 30 West Broadway followed by the southwest corner separating and sliding into the Verizon building?
7 did not fall “straight down” as conspiracy theorists would have us believe; rather it fell with a twisting motion as evidenced by the northeast corner falling toward the northwest, the location of 30 West Broadway.
Man, great link! I had seen the NIST model before, but I hadn’t bothered to really read the report the OP was talking about. That first video, especially, is one to watch to get some good basic understanding of what the report in question is trying to do wrt their deception. I urge LAZombie and anyone else who doesn’t seem to get this stuff to watch that one. Especially, go to time mark 6:19 and watch the ACTUAL NIST model of the collapse, then go back and watch starting around 3:50 or so on how the report shows the NIST model. It’s quite a contrast, and it’s one of the key deceptions that you’d never even understand you were being deceived on if you didn’t watch both. At 6:19, watch the actual model and then come back and talk about ‘symmetrical collapse’. If, after watching it, you can STILL say this with a straight face, then all I can say is there is no point in further discussion, because either you are deliberately being deceptive as well or you are so hopelessly biased that even showing you something that directly contradicts your expectations can’t shake you from that.
Look, guys, there’s only one way to solve this “debate” once and for all : we need to crash another pair of airliners at high speed into some big tower (I’m partial to the Burj Khalifa - you know, for the irony of it). In order for the crash to be equivalent in terms of mass and chaos and things, the airliners must regrettably be filled with passengers - I’d suggest a full cast and crew of Truthers, who would benefit the most from seeing up close, irrefutable evidence with their own eyes.
If nothing else, read post #156, which contains an email to Hulsey from 20 February 2017. The author related that 7 was actually damaged worse than what the NIST accounted for; Hulsey, of course, ignored it.
:eek: Are you mad??? Have you done the calculations for that much ignorance and and deception (I’m thinking of the famous Bozo equation that relates ignorance and deception to energy…isn’t it EsubB=(IsubB*DsubB)*Csquared?) on a air craft crashing into a building? At a minimum, the kinetic energy and hot air released would be devastating. At worst though we could form a singularity that might drop a significant sized black hole into the core of the planet, causing all sorts of havoc and mayhem! That much ignorance and deception should never be concentrated that way!
However, there have been more posts since Tuesday night. Notably that AE have claimed “technical issues” are preventing them from releasing the data Hulsey used.
