*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

[OngBonga]

So ok, what do you guys suppose happened to WTC7?

[MadMojoMonkey]

So ok, what do you guys suppose happened to WTC7?

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster...-investigation

[Poopadoop]

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster...-investigation

Hey no fair. You're citing expert opinions here instead of those of laypeople!

[OngBonga]

If you're ignoring the rest of that paragraph and the 3 that follow it as though they were not written to debunk what you're still saying after I've written them, then you really should drop the pretext that you are even remotely interested in challenging your prior conclusions and admit that you are in denial of the scientific process as pertains to this subject.

I'm trying to be concise. Sorry I didn't quote the entire three paragraphs. You said the building is mostly air. Air isn't supporting the structure. Steel is. You keep saying "science denial" but this isn't what I'm doing. Hot steel is not a gas. You know this. It's not even liquid. You know this too. It might be weaker than cold steel, but it is still solid. You're basically arguing that the ENTIRE steel structure is compromised, not just the part exposed to fire. How can that happen? I can hold a steel knife to a flame and not burn the shit out of my hands. I used to do exactly this in my early weed smoking days, we did "hot knives", which involves putting a flame to two steel butter knives and squeezing a block of resin between them when they are red hot, inhaling the smoke. Happy memories. Steel has relatively low thermal conductivity, as you surely know.

and all we have to judge for the total fall time is the noise.

You said this is the part I "ignored". It's like you're unaware that there is video footage of the collapse. We have more than noise. We can literally watch it. The only doubt is the final part of the collapse, but most of the collapse is clearly visible, and its speed is easily measured by anyone with the knowledge and technology to analyse the footage in enough detail.

Heat reduces the strength of metal.

I don't dispute this. But the metal, at 750c, remains a solid. It's not even liquid.

Plunge some steel into a forge and pull it out when it's a soft glowing red-orange and it's between 1,000 and 1,500 degrees and a human can pound it into shape with a hammer.

Ok. What happens if a human pounds water with a hammer? What happens if a human pounds air with a hammer? You're trying to tell me the steel acted like air. Also, kerosene doesn't burn as hot as you cite here. You're going to need more than jet fuel.

You do not need to melt the steel for it to lose structural rigidity.

Ok perhaps I was sloppy in my language when I talk of "structural integrity". I don't expect the building to remain undamaged. I expect the steel to have problems doing its job supporting the building. So I accept the steel has lost "structural integrity". My problem is the total lack of resistance it offered. The steel acted no different to air. This is what you call "science denial"? Stop saying that, it discredits your entire argument, and instead makes you appear triggered. My opinions are formed on my understanding of science, and my understanding is that a stone dropped in water does not fall at 9.8m/2^2. I expect hot steel to act with more resisting force than water, and certainly air.

An office fire that is not further supported by hundreds of gallons of jet fuel being dumped into it at the same time is a totally different story.

All of the jet fuel in the world isn't making the fire hotter. There is a limit to what the kerosene can do in terms of adding heat to a fire. If kerosene burns at 750 degrees, and offices burn at 900 degrees, and you set fire to an office, then add a billion tons of jet fuel, it still won't get hotter than 900 degrees. You know that, right?

You're not actually suggesting that a toaster fire is the same thing as hundreds of gallons of fuel being lit in an office building are you?

No. I'm saying weakened steel is still orders of magnitude stronger than air.

I mean... you're telling me and poopy (both professional scientists) that you know what science is better than we do.


I wouldn't ship here. You have no fold equity.

Fine. I appreciate why, as a scientist, you are triggered by me saying that your statements on this subject seem to me that you lack an understanding of what science is. It's ridiculous to me, too. But you keep saying "science denial" when it is you that seems to be having a problem with the science. You keep telling me, basically, that hot steel is the same as air.

Oh right. It's my responsibility to do your research for you.

I've tried. Not for a long time now, but I've tried. No such evidence exists.

Yeah... that's more plausible than a conspiracy that involves tens of thousands of people to keep their mouths shut for 2 decades.

idk where you get "tens of thousands" from. It only requires a handful of people "in the know". If by "tens of thousands of people" you're referring to scientists and "experts", then you're being selective. Lots of people have a lot to say on this subject, many of them "experts" who refute the official narrative. Many of whom are professional demolition folk, engineers, firemen, people of all walks of life. I don't think you're "in on it", despite you being a scientist who believes what they say.

Note: It'd be hard to produce because anyone with a civil engineering degree doesn't need a model to know that it's totally what buildings look like when they fall. Funny that. People with doctorates in building making don't seem too fussed about it.

Again, selective. There are people with doctorates who were fussed about it. And don't ask me to find anything for you after telling me to do my own research.

Buildings look like that when they fall if they have been professionally demolished.

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster...-investigation

The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires.

And you think this is going to support your position?

This supports my position...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwgHorgDPGo

You just watched a BBC report they say doesn't exist.

And this totally contradicts that report you link...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZlmHvd_RZU

"pull it"

That is the phrase used by professional demolition engineers to level a building. Further, if they did "pull it", then how did they manage to place the explosives in a burning building? Such explosives must already be in place.

[Poopadoop]

This supports my position...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwgHorgDPGo

They said it collapsed 8 hours after the first plane hit the towers. That's what actually happened.

But, apparently someone posted this video as if it was shot before that happened, and we're supposed to believe they're talking about the future. Or something.

And this totally contradicts that report you link...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZlmHvd_RZU

"pull it"

That is the phrase used by professional demolition engineers to level a building.

Is it? I've never heard that before. I could see "pull it down" or something.

But "pull it" could also mean "get the firefighters out", because it looks like it's about to collapse. They just watched WT1 and 2 collapse, so doesn't seem far-fetched to think maybe the same could happen here.

Also he says he said that to the fire dept. commander. Since when does the fire dept. do controlled demolitions?

[Poopadoop]

So ok, what do you guys suppose happened to WTC7?

I have no idea. What are the dominant explanations from each side?

I'm open to the idea something funny was going on with this building. I'm not convinced that when two buildings get hit by planes full of jet fuel at 500 mph and both subsequently catch fire and fall down that it's some kind of suspicious event.

[OngBonga]

I have no idea. What are the dominant explanations from each side?

I'm open to the idea something funny was going on with this building. I'm not convinced that when two buildings get hit by planes full of jet fuel at 500 mph and both subsequently catch fire and fall down that it's some kind of suspicious event.

Ok, so let's say we can agree that "something funny" happened with WTC7. Now let's ask the question... why? And if you accept that, then how on earth can you go ahead and believe what they say about the other two buildings that fell that day?

[Poopadoop]

Ok, so let's say we can agree that "something funny" happened with WTC7. Now let's ask the question... why? And if you accept that, then how on earth can you go ahead and believe what they say about the other two buildings that fell that day?

You're getting ahead of yourself here. I said I'm open to the idea, not that I agree something funny happened. My default position is that it wasn't a conspiratorial controlled demolition. Before I agree to something funny being true, I need to see evidence that there was something funny to begin with. A building falling down after a couple of bigger buildings collapsed and threw debris on it is not that outrageous imo.

You have to first convince me of the something funny before we go into who/what/why it happened, and what it implies about the other buildings.

[OngBonga]

Allow me to clarify one thing... I would not be surprised if the building toppled (rather than fell into its footprint at freefall speed). I recognise that the steel was not going to perform at the level expected of it, and that might even cause collapse. But the manner of the collapse suggests the steel acted like air.

[Poopadoop]

But the manner of the collapse suggests the steel acted like air.

Air would freefall. The steel didn't.

[OngBonga]

Air would freefall. The steel didn't.

I literally have no idea what you're trying to say here. Please rephrase this.

[Poopadoop]

Ong, you know the steel on each floor of the building is only strong enough to hold the weight of it's own level and maybe a couple above it, not the entire 100 floors or whatever, right? It's like your expecting one floor to collapse, the next one to wobble as it tries to stay up, then collapse, and so on all the way down.

btw, this argues it wasn't a free-fall, so there was some resistance on the way down. I haven't read all your arguments, but if this is one of them, it doesn't fly sorry.

https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JO...agar-0112.html

This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1

[Poopadoop]

Oh, i get it, the WTC7 building was supposedly still standing when she said it had already collapsed.

BBC said it was a confusing time and if their reporter said it had collapsed before it did, then she had made a mistake. They also claim not to be in on any global conspiracy with the world MSM and the US gov't. If they had, perhaps they would have waited until the collapse to report it, so as not to arouse suspicion.

Or maybe that's just what they WANT us to think, the 3D chess playing bastards.

[Poopadoop]

There's also the question of why Silverstein would go on tape and confess to insurance fraud. That seems like an extremely dumb move.

[OngBonga]

There's also the question of why Silverstein would go on tape and confess to insurance fraud. That seems like an extremely dumb move.

Yeah, just like it would be dumb for the BBC to report on something yet to happen.