Reply With Quote
And yet, John Edwards (who dat?) can't even keep his baby momma a secret?
YOU are quite gullible Dan. I think you should stop gizzing to your Loose Change DVD and move onto more productive life.
Obviously not if you don't know Atta was followed by the FBI when he was in the U.S. prior to 2001...
And yet, John Edwards (who dat?) can't even keep his baby momma a secret?
YOU are quite gullible Dan. I think you should stop gizzing to your Loose Change DVD and move onto more productive life.
Show me where.
o?
y
WTC 7 didn't fall at freefall speed the entire fall.
WTC 7 didn't fall straight down.
Where there's smoke there is indeed fire.
There is no way to determine of what the molten material consists, nor its total mass.
Thermite!
The firefighters were preparing to move into WTC 7 to fight the fires when the were pulled from the site.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 05-04-2010 at 07:14 PM.
WTC 7 didn't fall at freefall speed the entire fall.
Not going to watch or listen to it. I already proved Gage is a liar.
Explain to me, in your own words, how falling 2.25 seconds at freefall speed = falling the entire 610 feet at freefall speed.
You've never proven crap about Gage, but nice try...
Why should I explain your lie? You explain it..Explain to me, in your own words, how falling 2.25 seconds at freefall speed = falling the entire 610 feet at freefall speed.
Of course I have. He just lied about WTC7's falling straight down.
And about its falling at freefall speed the entire fall.
And about molten iron.
And about the firefighters being pulled from their planned assault on the WTC7 fires.
Now, before you try to change the subject again with more hours of Youtube:
Sure.
The top of WTC7 was measured falling at approximately freefall speed for 2.25 seconds.
That does not mean that WTC7 fell at freefall speed throughout the entire fall.
The rest of the time, WTC7 fell at speeds slower than freefall.
Is there a part of that you don't understand?
Gage from dan's video: "This building came straight down as fast as a freely falling brick from the top of this building."
Tell me, dan: Does this building tilt as it is falling?
Yes or no.
That the building fell symmetrically isn't even a point of contention among the real debunking crowd...of course it fell symmetrically...Of course I have. He just lied about WTC7's falling straight down.
Please answer.
Inconclusive, but looking at the pile of rubble, I would say no.
That picture shows the resulting debris pile from the building's collapsing to the south.
Thanks, dan.
Well, I just proved you are a liar as well.
Thanks again.
Ok, whatever...
Anyway, Even Random-Chump have relunctantly admitted that the alleged damage was asymmetric, confined to the tower's south side, and any weakening of the steelwork from fire exposure would also be asymmetric. Thus, even if the damage were sufficient to cause the whole building to collapse, it would have fallen over asymmetrically -- toward the south. But WTC 7 fell straight down, into its footprint. (except to Chumpy who sees what he wants to see, I guess,)
But it fell to the south, as you illustrated in the video and your first picture. Do you know which way is south in that picture? I will certainly allow for some debris heading north.
And it wasn't due to the damage shown in your second picture.
But it fell to the south..
That's just not supported by the evidence...
Well, it's still standing in that picture (though that one does a good job showing how much smoke was coming out of it from the fires within), but the other one you posted shows most of the debris to the south.But it fell to the south..
That's just not supported by the evidence...
Thanks again for posting it.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
