[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

So you can see the inside of the building. Thought that was obvious.

In an animation, you don't start with all of the buildings, you start with none of the buildings and add the ones that you need.

Why should the collapse start from the first bit of debris that hit building 7? Explain.

I think you forgot to answer the questions again, by the way.

If you are right why are you dishonest? No one says fire can't bring down a steel framed skyscraper. Most people, including many of those promoting the official story, have said it had never happened before 9/11 or since. I believe that is a fact to this day, though there has been some time since 9/11. I would expect the mechanism used on 9/11 or something similar to be used somewhere like Tehran.

Skyscrapers are considered at least 40-50 stories and are steel framed. I don't think any of the buildings you cite qualify. I think we discussed the windsor before. You can look up whatever I said and insert that as a counter.

Sadly, I believe you.

I myself have an alternative explanation that has the added benefit of not requiring any of the armchair psychological reductionism like what you just employed: You have no evidence and rather than admit it are lashing out at others.

I just showed you multiple examples, dumbass,

This is just dumb sht you just made up.

Because if you did think it, your dumb theory would crumble. So you literally cannot permit yourself to think it. So you don't.

Keep in mind, there was no mechanism that would've stopped those collapses if they were taller, but you aren't ready to think about that.

I couldn't give two shts what you think as a counter. You are just flailing at stupid stuff like "that isn't technically a skyscraper (wrong) so the physics would be different because reasons."

You sound ridiculous and desperate.

And you still forgot to answer the questions.

And you will not answer them in your next posts where you try to convince everyone that the definition of "skyscraper" will affect the physics of a progressive collapse. But by all means, please go right ahead and try. I'm going to bed. I anticipate waking up to you linking an ai summary of what skyscraper means or some equally stupid ass sht like that.

I'm no scientist but I'm pretty sure it was a conservative collapse, not progressive one.
You doofus.

This is the correct move for you while blurring the situation with a 10 year old car accident that gets the mind working but the penthouse falling seconds before the rest of the building makes it a real advanced demolition job - almost like they didn't need to do anything or maybe they detonated the penthouse first? Maybe you're actually on to something. Explain.

...and yes, can we go back to the convo that you actually do care about and keep ignoring that has caused you to spend a decade of your life discussing this useless point for zero benefit?

Sick read brah, you must be a beast at the pokahs.

He was cited as demolitions expert. Do you know different? Your vitriol towards him is a little surprising. You present yourself as open minded and detached but I start mentioning demolitions experts and you react emotionally. I did a review of some statements from demolitions experts in the other thread. I won't repost it here if it's going to trigger you.

I've read your sentence 3 times and I have no idea what you want me to admit.

I don't know what you really mean here but I can tell you're trying to get deep. But I've been thinking about your psychology, the psychology of sheeple. And the more I ponder it, the more thankful I am for you. I mean, can you imagine the chaos that would ensure if everyone thought for themselves? I'm not sure that should be allowed to happen. I guess, in light of my new appreciation, I can admit to being a little elitist. It's not like an elitist who wants to exploit you, but it's like I think I'm living outside of the social programming which encumbers your thinking and I think the exploitative elites share this space with me.

Do you ever wonder why people feel the need to even discuss this topic and defend the elites as some kind of social stormtroopers? You've got all this readiness to deny deny deny and defend defend defend but you haven't even read the materials that purport to justify your beliefs which you defend. You ignore the lazy attempts of elites to show their work. You don't even know what your beliefs are on the issue, but you believe in self preservation I suppose. On an emotional level, you accept whatever these ghouls are doing. Whether it's genocide in Gaza or, now, eating babies (is that confirmed from the Epstein files btw?) nothing is going to animate you against the elites. You save your energy for any sheeple who get out of line because that's what they tell you to do.

You didn't though. You're strawmanning. The claim as always been no high rise/skyscraper steel framed building had ever collapsed due to fire. You are choosing to argue against the point that no building had ever collapsed due to fire when nobody made that point. 90% of what you say, nimrod, is beside the point. You think you are being clever but it's like a mental patient who thinks they are invisible. Everyone sees you dude.

I was ok when nobody knew what they were doing.

The Epstein files are destroying your whole religion, the official name of which I believe is "nothing to see here, folks". It turns out there is a ton to see. I think you and everyone like you, who has built their identity as a good person on totally false premises, should tread lightly now. This is a period of rapid disillusionment and not everyone is going to handle that smoothly.

Well, he would be if they just respected his raises.

I am. I welcomed you back and assumed that post Wookie, you'd grow a little hair on your chest so we could argue something other than a 25 year event that isn't going to go anywhere. You clearly should agree with me on that based on what you just said in this post.

But this post is a lot better so credit to you there. Lets roll with this.

tHe pSyChOlOgY oF sHeEpLe

Dust because that was predominantly the matter left at the base. No evidence of spaghettified steel that had buckled inward. No mass to cause transfer of GPE to KE. No mass to conserve momentum. Yes inertial mass does not vanish into thin air because of buckling, it remains solid, by their own admission there was no melting (more on this later). Where did the material go? NIST's conspiracy theories offer no solution.

It is claimed above "progressive collapse", requiring a shunting effect. This is at a rate of near free-fall in a vacuum (have half rate it is still impossible). At one and the same time we are expected to believe the whole thing turned to spaghetti, disappeared, yet offered enough weight to bring itself down. Thereby violating laws of conservation of energy and momentum, and the law of inertia.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

If nine in ten floors magically disappear (you can have this) then the inertial mass of the remaining circa 11 floors slows down the fall time to 27 s, a clear 7 s longer than your 20 s claim. Only ignoring the laws of physics allows your claim to stand.

You said progressive collapse. Define progressive collapse please.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

You can have 100%, i told you. You cannot account for the near total loss of mass while having weight to cause the collapse.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Yeah mad stuff. I have a mech eng degree, ask me if you like. I have also studied physics for 4 years towars an eventual MPhys.

"The pancake hypothesis of progression is almost certainly true, and acknowledged as true by NIST in their FAQ, even though NIST didn't bother to study collapse progression in much detail. It holds that once the top part of the towers - an assembly of connected floors, walls and core system - descended, all of its parts descending inside the perimeter would inevitably hit floors still intact and totally overwhelm their truss seats - that would result in a pancaking collapse progression all the way down, and this action is recorded on video and described by fire fighters on the scene."

Pancaking lives! No evidence besides the firemen saw it. We see from the photos there was no spaghettified steel, walls, floors etc remaining after the fact. We know that such pile up of material as the whole thing falls and material accumulates, all inwardly in an ever decreasing volume, would offer increasing resistance to acceleration. All done in 10 seconds. All vanished into thin air within 10 seconds. NIST's claim is that momentum is conserved while velocity increases negligibly and mass tends to zero.

"Hit floors still intact" is an impossibility given acceleration is required to begin ahead of immediate initiation. Effect must precede cause says the NIST conspiracy theory.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Yes just like you standing in a street being hit by a car. But then you aren't an engineer, I forgive you.

"Surprised it didn't fall faster"... something about basic physics, not being an engineer, those things.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

More sick reads dude. You must have studied psychology for a long time to get this good.

Neat. Explain the mechanism that would stop a progressive collapse between floor 39 and 40, otherwise this is a distinction without a difference. After you answer the other questions, of course

What "near total loss of mass" are you referring to? I have no obligation to account for something I don't claim happened. Hope that clears up your obvious confusion.

More made up absolute nonsense good lord

Neither are you, and if by some miracle you are you need to have any and all licenses revoked. Good lord.

Everything about collapsing inward is stupid and wrong, the expectation of intact walls and floors is stupid and wrong, the claim about decreasing mass in the debris pile is stupid and wrong, increasing resistance to collapse is stupid and wrong, and to top it off, your crown of mental illness on that increasing pile of dumb sht is that YOU REPEAT YOUR STRAWMAN OF A 10 SECOND COLLAPSE TIME MULTIPLE TIMES DESPITE BEING SO BADLY EMBARRASSED ON THE FACTS YOU GAVE UP AND SAID FINE I AGREE IT'S 20 SECONDS MULTIPLE TIMES. Apparently you don't agree it's 20 seconds, huh chief?

What an embarrassing series of nonsense.

I'm not going through your gish gallop of stupidity point by point, either. Get help. You've had 25 years to figure this out.

If you want to pick one of those dumbass things and talk about it, fine. Otherwise take your meds and try to do something more productive than this.

Or we could just look a little closer at your revised claim and the facts I presented to see if you're even right.

Edifício Wilton Paes de Almeida
[x] High rise/skyscraper
[x] Steel framed building
[x] Collapsed due to fire

And, here's the building's page on the Skyscraper Center website:

https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/buildin...

And:

You guys want to see something funny? Watch Deuces grab those goalposts and frantically move them, even though this distinction makes absolutely zero difference to anything at all.

Should be funny. Let's watch and see.