Renewable Revolution

Much talk about the free fall of building seven but there is something even more obvious than that.  The equipment shed on top of the elivator shafts which must have been in the center of the building falls into the roof  a fraction of a second before the roof in it's entirety starts to free fall.  This is clear  proof that demolition brought the building down.   That shed was on top of the strongest part of the building on an elivator shaft made of concrete which would have been the first structural component blown to insure the building fell in on itself.

 

And even Propagandist Palloy was forced to admit FREE FALL for a SIGNIFICANT part of the descent.

PALLOY SAID:

"You can clearly see that only the section between 0.7 and 3.2 seconds has constant acceleration."

The fact that initial split second acceleration is difficult to measure is ignored by Palloy to make the ridiculous and irresponsible claim that there "wasn't any acceleration" prior to the 0.7 mark. This is the cheapest rationalization I have seen him invent yet for some imagined gradual failure by a "critical" girder.

At any rate, AFTER the 3.2 second mark, any debris encountered is irrelevant to the FACT that free fall acceleration between the 0.7 and 3.2 second mark REQUIRED that ALL support structures be TOTALLY severed. That can ONLY occurred from a precisely timed demolition sequence.

But facts are inconvenient for Palloy. Notice how your in depth discussion of seismic signatures and sound was totally ignored by BOTH MKing and Palloy. YOU, as an engineer, KNOW what you are talking about. So, they avoid anything that that they cannot bob and weave around with double talk.

Palloy is a text book example of the old Tobacco industry meme that was handed off to the Fossil Fuel Industry to delay the truth. He tries to come off as that fine fellow interested in "objective" discussion when all he really is out there to do is throw DOUBT on absolutely everything said by opponents who defend the truth.

For him, for example, to say that he "surprisingly agrees" with my statement that free fall is 32 feet per second squared is one of his more insidiously clever statements. Any book on physics and gravity provides that figure. The ONLY reason he comes up with such TRIPE is to establish some arrogant puffery about how "much he knows" and how anything I say is "questionable" by his highness, Mr. "objectivity".

Finally, every time I expose his shenanigans, he plays the "verbally abused victim" card. 

Basically, while claiming his fishing expeditions and propaganda are an attempt to be "objective"  ,THIS is Palloy's mission here in regard to what happened on 9/11 and why it happened.  :evil4: