Can you disprove this simple proof? :boggled:
I. Given that “free fall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building” due to the structural components below providing resistance; (David Chandler, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth)
II. And given that NIST agrees, “free fall” is only possible if there are “no structural components below” providing resistance; (Shyam Sunder, NIST)
III. Therefore, NIST understands that it requires no structural resistance below for a building to free fall.
IV. Given that NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall, and therefore there was no structural resistance from the structural components below;
V. And given that the only way for there to have been no structural resistance below allowing WTC7 to free fall, would have been to remove all structural resistance at once and that can only be done with a controlled demolition;
VI. Therefore, the free-falling WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
Q.E.D
I. Given that “free fall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building” due to the structural components below providing resistance; (David Chandler, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth)
II. And given that NIST agrees, “free fall” is only possible if there are “no structural components below” providing resistance; (Shyam Sunder, NIST)
III. Therefore, NIST understands that it requires no structural resistance below for a building to free fall.
IV. Given that NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall, and therefore there was no structural resistance from the structural components below;
V. And given that the only way for there to have been no structural resistance below allowing WTC7 to free fall, would have been to remove all structural resistance at once and that can only be done with a controlled demolition;
VI. Therefore, the free-falling WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
Q.E.D
via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=269767&goto=newpost
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire