Belgian_Draft 0 #651 February 26, 2010 YOU are the one who insists the buildings fell too fast. I think you are confused about who is confused.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #652 February 26, 2010 What can possibly "assist" a building in falling faster? Did the government increase local gravity? My continuity is fine. You are making no sense. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #653 February 26, 2010 >What can possibly "assist" a building in falling faster? Little tiny rockets, I'm tellin ya. Did the NIST test for rocket fuel residue? No, they didn't! In fact they BANNED the testing for rocket fuel residue! What are they hiding, and why won't they re-open the investigation into those rockets? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #654 February 26, 2010 Quote>What can possibly "assist" a building in falling faster? Little tiny rockets, I'm tellin ya. Did the NIST test for rocket fuel residue? No, they didn't! In fact they BANNED the testing for rocket fuel residue! What are they hiding, and why won't they re-open the investigation into those rockets? Coulda been the magical unicorns that brought the nano-thermite. Did they check for magical unicorn poop at Ground Zero?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #655 February 26, 2010 QuoteWhat can possibly "assist" a building in falling faster? Did the government increase local gravity? rocket packs, all pointing downward. LOTS of rocket packs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #656 February 26, 2010 I find it most curious that you and billvon both had the exact same answer. Could it be that you are both government plants here to keep the sheeple from asking questions? Why did you both immediately try to steer the discussion away from government Local Gravity Control? LGC has been well documented by literally billions of engineers, architects, and Slurpee machine repairmen. When they release their report next (week, month, year, whatever) we'll see who has the last laugh. Pfft, rocket packs. Ridiculous! - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #657 February 26, 2010 QuoteI find it most curious that you and billvon both had the exact same answer. Could it be that you are both government plants here to keep the sheeple from asking questions? I suppose it could be true. When we disagree violently on other subjects, it's to maintain our cover. (I would have beaten him to the posting but I got distracted by my manager before clicking submit) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #658 February 26, 2010 Check it out. Your buddies made The Washington Times! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/?feat=home_columns"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #659 February 26, 2010 A quick query for you since you put a lot of credence on this list of Architects and Engineers. My old company consisted of over 100 Engineers in the construction industry. My girlfriend's company consisted of over 100 Architects. Of that group 100% do not believe that there were explosives in any of the towers. To be conservative, let's say that some of those people secretly believe that there were explosives (we'll say 50% to be fair). So, just knowing how many more companies are out there we could say that there are at least 1000 who don't think there were explosives. What would be your reaction if there was an equally large list of Architects and Engineers who understand and state that airplanes were the only reason for the structural failure of all of the buildings?"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #660 March 2, 2010 Quote YOU are the one who insists the buildings fell too fast. I think you are confused about who is confused. they did fall too fast, free fall is too fast. Nist admits free fall of at least building 7, you are supposed to be an engineer, and you believe that it is OK for a steel framed building to fall at free fall speed. some engineer!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #661 March 2, 2010 QuoteA quick query for you since you put a lot of credence on this list of Architects and Engineers. My old company consisted of over 100 Engineers in the construction industry. My girlfriend's company consisted of over 100 Architects. Of that group 100% do not believe that there were explosives in any of the towers. To be conservative, let's say that some of those people secretly believe that there were explosives (we'll say 50% to be fair). So, just knowing how many more companies are out there we could say that there are at least 1000 who don't think there were explosives. What would be your reaction if there was an equally large list of Architects and Engineers who understand and state that airplanes were the only reason for the structural failure of all of the buildings? How sure are you that they don't believe, and how can you be sure they are simply not protecting their jobs by conforming to popular belief. i met an engineer only a month ago that was sure that truthers were kidding themselves, he took the time to study what they were saying and has been and active truth activist ever since. We don't point the finger anymore, we simply state the facts, the simple irrefutable facts. How sure are you that they are aware of the freefall acceleration of building 7? Most people don't know building 7 fell because it was not really reported after that day. If they believe free fall acceleration is possible for a steel framed building by fire alone, they need to re asses their understanding of basic physics. No one, I repeat, No one has explained how this anomaly is possible, they have not tried and will not because it is physically impossible."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #662 March 2, 2010 >But I suppose, because you are an engineer . . . In this thread you continue to mock those who (you admit) have far, far more training and experience in engineering and physics than you do. In another thread, in safety and training, someone said night tandems were unsafe and you called his opinions "ridiculous." Why are they ridiculous? Surely if you are as qualified as any engineer to discuss building collapse, anyone who has jumped is just as qualified as you are to determine whether night tandems are safe or not. (Common sense, of course, tells us that night tandems are not safe at all - you can't see a thing! You don't need to be a snooty money grubbing tandem master to see that.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #663 March 2, 2010 QuoteCheck it out. Your buddies made The Washington Times! http://www.washingtontimes.com/...5/?feat=home_columns The truth movement as a whole was shocked to see that printed by them. A great start to the new decade. Exponential growth of the truth is now inevitable. AE911truth has almost 1100 now... we'll see how long it takes for the next 1000. If you talk to your girlfriends colleagues and your own rationally they may convince some of her colleagues to be truthful to themselves also. The free fall acceleration of building 7 is a good place to start. as that is now acceptable by the official narratives standards. 9/11blogger.com is getting more than 10,000 hits a day now, and is a great source of information."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #664 March 2, 2010 QuoteWhat can possibly "assist" a building in falling faster? Did the government increase local gravity? My continuity is fine. You are making no sense. Removal of the structural integrity can accelerate the collapse. For free fall to happen, 'ALL' of the structural integrity would have to be removed for that portion of the collapse to be so fast. Pretty simple stuff."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #665 March 2, 2010 Quotehttp://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1dpio_what-happened-to-wtc-building-7-on_news loose change? is that a trick question?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #666 March 2, 2010 QuoteIn this thread you continue to mock those who (you admit) have far, far more training and experience in engineering and physics than you do. I'm no longer mocking you or anyone, I'm simply pointing out that free fall is not possible without the removal of the structure or platform that the free falling object was propped up by. You can have all the credentials in the world, you still have to make sense to I have asked you multiple times to explain to me how you think it is possible. Before you simply said, "there was no free fall", now that NIST was forced to admit free fall, you have simply resorted to either silence or 'mocking' those that question your belief. How about you be honest with yourself, me and everyone reading this, and explain how questioning the official narrative is so silly when such simple physics are irrefutable. You can start by telling us how the building could collapse at free fall speed, and how you accept that notion. Nist told us how they were poised to collapse and created some funky computer model of chaos. No one has explained this anomaly, you say it is not an anomaly, yet you cannot explain it. So enlighten me, you can use one of your silly analogies if you please. Maybe a skydiver free falling through a pile of falling and static debris something?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #667 March 2, 2010 Rhys every time I see one of your possts , Im going to re ask my question until I get a serious asnwer. If 9/11 was a inside job why didnt they plant some evdience of Iraq's invovlement? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #668 March 2, 2010 Quote Quote YOU are the one who insists the buildings fell too fast. I think you are confused about who is confused. they did fall too fast, free fall is too fast. Nist admits free fall of at least building 7, you are supposed to be an engineer, and you believe that it is OK for a steel framed building to fall at free fall speed. some engineer! You have already asked me about that and I have replied. I must not have told you what you wanted to hear because you have forgotten it. I doubt that you have even read the report. Try reading it and making up your own mind instead of just parroting what the truthers tell you. I have asked you many times why the debris from the top of the towers hit the ground long before the towers finished collapsing at what YOU call free-fall speed. Why won't you explain this? It fits right in with your latest trend.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #669 March 2, 2010 QuoteRemoval of the structural integrity can accelerate the collapse. For free fall to happen, 'ALL' of the structural integrity would have to be removed for that portion of the collapse to be so fast. Pretty simple stuff. So you believe that for "freefall" to occur, that all structural integrity needs to be removed. Although you really don't know what you're talking about, I'll play along. How many floors do you believe were completely removed by explosives? More than one? If only the bottom floor was removed by explosives, then the building would presumably "freefall" for ten feet, and then we'd be right back where we started. You do not, in fact, need to remove all the structure to create a complete collapse. Have you ever popped a ballon with a pin? All you are doing is creating a very small hole in the structure. In your world, the rest of that structure should prevent a rapid collapse. In reality, even a small hole in a ballon (or the weakening of enough columns in a building) can lead to a rapid collapse when the rest of the structure is almost instantly overstressed. It might even look instantaneous on low quality video (just like a ballon bursting). - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #670 March 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteA quick query for you since you put a lot of credence on this list of Architects and Engineers. My old company consisted of over 100 Engineers in the construction industry. My girlfriend's company consisted of over 100 Architects. Of that group 100% do not believe that there were explosives in any of the towers. To be conservative, let's say that some of those people secretly believe that there were explosives (we'll say 50% to be fair). So, just knowing how many more companies are out there we could say that there are at least 1000 who don't think there were explosives. What would be your reaction if there was an equally large list of Architects and Engineers who understand and state that airplanes were the only reason for the structural failure of all of the buildings? How sure are you that they don't believe, and how can you be sure they are simply not protecting their jobs by conforming to popular belief. i met an engineer only a month ago that was sure that truthers were kidding themselves, he took the time to study what they were saying and has been and active truth activist ever since. We don't point the finger anymore, we simply state the facts, the simple irrefutable facts. How sure are you that they are aware of the freefall acceleration of building 7? Most people don't know building 7 fell because it was not really reported after that day. If they believe free fall acceleration is possible for a steel framed building by fire alone, they need to re asses their understanding of basic physics. No one, I repeat, No one has explained how this anomaly is possible, they have not tried and will not because it is physically impossible. ANSWER THE QUESTION! I said that I would even say that 50% of the people were secretly on your side. Again the question is: What would you say if an equally large group of engineers and architects signed a petition and actually believed what they were signing? So, is your answer that you'd entirely dismiss it just because it wasn't your own point of view? Yet you say that a group that does support your point of view is absolute proof. Do you see where I'm going? Remember, I'm giving you 50%. How can you say that one equally large group of equally intelligent and educated people is so easily dismissed? At best it means that the data is useless."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #671 March 2, 2010 QuoteQuotehttp://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1dpio_what-happened-to-wtc-building-7-on_news loose change? is that a trick question? I'm asking about the specific points that this video makes. What are they and what do you agree with? For example do you agree that the language they were using (saying they decided to pull the building) is proof that there were explosives, or that the Mayor didn't enter the building to utilize the emergency facility for...some reason. What's that reason?"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #672 March 2, 2010 QuoteHow sure are you that they don't believe, and how can you be sure they are simply not protecting their jobs by conforming to popular belief. Oh that's beautiful. Really beautiful. Ok Rhys, I'm sure that 99% of Engineers and Architects believe your story, it's just that they're all to scared to speak up. Yep, and everyone who speaks publicly against the truth movement is definitely a government stooge. Quotei met an engineer only a month ago that was sure that truthers were kidding themselves, he took the time to study what they were saying and has been and active truth activist ever since. Every Evangelist out there will tell you a story about a 'friend' of theirs, or someone they met who always used to speak out against the bible, and rail against God every chance he got. Until one day, that friend actually read the bible, and guess what? He was instantly converted and is now an after dinner speaker on the Creation Science circuit! Amazing story, eh? QuoteHow sure are you that they are aware of the freefall acceleration of building 7? Most people don't know building 7 fell because it was not really reported after that day. So, once again matey, for the umpteenth time, why would they have bothered rigging it to collapse? What did they have to gain that made the risk worthwhile?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #673 March 2, 2010 >I'm simply pointing out that free fall is not possible without the removal >of the structure or platform that the free falling object was propped up by. Just as it's not possible to skydive safely if you can't see. That's really, really simple physics. >I have asked you multiple times to explain to me how you think it is >possible. And I have answered you several times. Indeed, I once did the math to demonstrate how much force a collapsing building can generate. It is several orders of magnitude larger than the building is designed to withstand. >Maybe a skydiver free falling through a pile of falling and static debris something? OK. Let's say you're in freefall. You hit the skylight of a building at 120mph. The skylight can withstand an impact of about 50 pounds before shattering. The force of your impact is around 2500 pounds. Will you stop? Or even be noticeably slowed down? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #674 March 2, 2010 Quote Quote YOU are the one who insists the buildings fell too fast. I think you are confused about who is confused. they did fall too fast, free fall is too fast. Nist admits free fall of at least building 7, you are supposed to be an engineer, and you believe that it is OK for a steel framed building to fall at free fall speed. some engineer! I'm confused about how any conspiracy activity would have contributed to the building(s) falling "too fast." What activity linked to a conspiracy would have allowed for such speed that non-conspiracy explanations could not account for? In other words, if the arguement is that the speed of the collapse could not have occured given the explanation of the commission, how does that point to a conspiracy? Do you think some additional downward pressure was exerted by the conspirators efforts?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #675 March 2, 2010 > Do you think some additional downward pressure was exerted by the conspirators efforts? Rockets, I'm tellin ya. Little tiny rockets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites