The scentific method or assumtion, what are you inclined to beleive.

[sundevil777 102]

Yes, it shows variation in the acceleration. Whether that variation is so slight that it is not significant depends on you saying exactly what accuracy can be claimed from the video data. So, what accuracy do you claim? At what acceleration should the building have fallen, if it was not a controlled demolition? If you don't have answers to those questions, then you cannot logically make the assertion that the data supports your conclusion.

These are simple questions that have direct, scientific bearing on your assertions. I understand that you don't have the answers, but the fact that your truther scientists have avoided them should tell you that they do in fact not follow the scientific method.

The older excel versions of my file were too big, so attached is a pic I pulled from my commentary on the data, that shows there was not uniform accelera tion, based on your data.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[rhys 0]

Quote

You complain about name calling while constantly name calling. What do you think hypocrisy means?

You can call me names all day long, i could care less andif you have substance to back up your assertions then I would be put on the spot, but using the namecalling alone as your subtsance is childish and pathetic.

A waste of time.

Quote

In was quoting you. You were calling people lemmings, a whole two lines before you complained about people calling you names.

O.k. thatis clear, but I have told you why i think people are lemmings, so therefore i have backed up my assertions, and you are free to question those assertions. If I did not give you an explanation to question, and called someone a lemming, then I would be a hypocrite, but that is not the case here. i cann't say you are wrong without explaining how that is so as much as i cannot say i am right without expaining so.

I am not convinced of a conclusion and I am still questioning the events, you say i am wrong for doing that.

and that is inconsistent with common sense.

Quote

You've stated that you thought it was a controlled demolition the first time you watched it on TV. Ever since then you've been grasping for any 'evidence' that will support your preconcieved notion no matter how tenuous or stupid.

Becasuse that is what it looks like. they fell straight down, at near freefall speed, thats what controlled demolitions look like and these 3 buildings are the only ever to fall down in this manner other than controlled demolition.

The evidence has not only been found but is prevelant in all of the dust samples that have become available.

You asked for evidence, you got it, you asked for peer reviewd journals, you got them and now all you do is deny that evidence as that is what NIST and the Government officials responsable, and meanwhite there is a myrad of othe clustefucks to deal with and who can be bothered openng the can of worms, the elephant in the room lays dormant.


The mare denial that there is any anomoly about the fasion of the collapses on that day is clear evidence that one is trying to hide something.

This I why I am very interested in sundevils attachment as i imagine this is the angle he is trying to get to.

but ask yourself, should a steel framed building completely collapse in 'slightly longer' than complete freefall from fire?

If you answer is yes, then you are only kidding yourself, but that is the story you and you criminal friends are palming off. There was not enough potential energy in the building to do that, oposing forces.....

Science has easily disproved the nist report, buts hiding behind authority is the only thing between the truth and the rubbish you are trying to claim as everyday science.

Quote

And there you go again. You, my friend, are the one who will fail to learn any lessons from the recent Gulf conflicts if you keep grasping onto this stupid notion that it was all set up pre-9/11.

You have already been there?, iraq has been infulential in oil supply since the beginning of last century, you forget you have already been there before?

You have the IMC to feed and these wars and oil fit the bill perfectly.

don't play stupid with me.

Quote

Assumption would be a big step up from the lies that you're currently regurgitating.

These type of replies are rendered useless unless you explain what it is that you think I am lying about. I will take heed of Bills warning and not continue this pathetic excuse of a debate with you.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

Yes, it shows variation in the acceleration. Whether that variation is so slight that it is not significant depends on you saying exactly what accuracy can be claimed from the video data. So, what accuracy do you claim? At what acceleration should the building have fallen, if it was not a controlled demolition? If you don't have answers to those questions, then you cannot logically make the assertion that the data supports your conclusion.

So what you are saying is; that a miniscule variation from freefall in the bulidings collapse makes the assertion that it fell too fast to be considered possible from fire damage, incorrect?

Because it did not fall ecactly the same speed for the whole descent?

The term I remember being used is 'virtually indistiguisable from freefall' if you start talking in 1% and 2% then that fits that descrption quite well.

So now that you have studied that graph intently, do you still belive that office fires would be capable of making that building fall so quickly and symmetrically?

This is the part I cannot understand about your argument, a slight variation from freefall would be expected with the debris and air pressure in the building, even with exensive expolsives, the movement of air, debris and the collisions between them will create friction and will add enegry to the mix, this will explain any varyation from the 'free'fall model. It is not like we are claiming the roof got to fall to the ground with absolutely nothing in between.

It seems this is what you beleve we think, and you would be wrong.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

Yes, it shows variation in the acceleration. Whether that variation is so slight that it is not significant depends on you saying exactly what accuracy can be claimed from the video data. So, what accuracy do you claim? At what acceleration should the building have fallen, if it was not a controlled demolition? If you don't have answers to those questions, then you cannot logically make the assertion that the data supports your conclusion.

So what you are saying is; that a miniscule variation from freefall in the bulidings collapse makes the assertion that it fell too fast to be considered possible from fire damage, incorrect?

Because it did not fall ecactly the same speed for the whole descent?

The term I remember being used is 'virtually indistiguisable from freefall' if you start talking in 1% and 2% then that fits that descrption quite well.

So now that you have studied that graph intently, do you still belive that office fires would be capable of making that building fall so quickly and symmetrically?

This is the part I cannot understand about your argument, a slight variation from freefall would be expected with the debris and air pressure in the building, even with exensive expolsives, the movement of air, debris and the collisions between them will create friction and will add enegry to the mix, this will explain any varyation from the 'free'fall model. It is not like we are claiming the roof got to fall to the ground with absolutely nothing in between.

It seems this is what you beleve we think, and you would be wrong.

It does not surprise me at all that the building fell at near freefall acceleration. You previously said it did fall at 1g, sometimes you say that it fell at near freefall accel, which is it, and how close to 1g should it have fallen? Is .98g too fast? How about .95 or .90? To say that it fell too fast requires that you know how fast it should have fallen, all you do is say it fell too fast. How can you know that without an analysis of how fast it should have been without the supposed controlled demolition? How much variation in the accel should have been expected? You don't know, but somehow are able to be sure that the variation in the data is not significant. You make your analysis by the armchair engineering method, and your truther "scientists" don't offer anything better. That is NOT using the scientific method, something that you cite so often.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[winsor 236]

Quote

Q: What is the difference between a 911 Truther and a dead cat?

A: Dead cats are still useful.

I am reminded of a "recreated" scene wherein about 30 people popped up with rifles around Dealy Plaza - on the Grassy Knoll, out of manholes, trash cans, windows, the Texas Book Depository and so forth - each fired a shot or two, and then immediately disappeared.

In the case of the September 11 attacks, Bill Kurtis' observations regarding the JFK assassination are enlightening. Kurtis noted that it was more than most people could handle to accept that a disgruntled misfit with a $16 rifle could so completely change the political and social trajectory of the US, and that there MUST be something major behind the scenes to account for such monumental results.

Similarly, it is difficult to accept that a group of malevolent troglodytes could drop $500k on an attack that would have us chasing our tails for a decade (so far), with the expenditure of over $2 Trillion that we did not have in the first place.

The simple truth is that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy for his own reasons, and al Qaeda orchestrated the WTC and Pentagon attacks for their own nefarious purposes (mission accomplished on their part...).


BSBD,

Winsor

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

You can call me names all day long, i could care less andif you have substance to back up your assertions then I would be put on the spot, but using the namecalling alone as your subtsance is childish and pathetic.

It is all that is needed. For someone who couldn't care less you spend a lot of time moaning about being called names, while at the same time spending even more time calling people names.

That is what hypocrisy is.

Quote

O.k. thatis clear, but I have told you why i think people are lemmings

Well in that case, everyone else has told you why they think you're an idiot so a) stop whinging about it and b) you're still a hypocrite.

Quote

I am not convinced of a conclusion and I am still questioning the events, you say i am wrong for doing that.

No. You're wrong for accepting stupid explanations because you want them to be true and for discounting actual physics and engineering because it supports the conclusion you don't want to accept.

Remember when you supported a theory that required a 757 to disappear in midair? How would that have happened? Remember when you discounted the seismic evidence of the biggest demolitions firm in New York because you didn't think seismometers could tell you anything more than 'a building fell down'? What level of expertise allowed you to come to that conclusion?

Quote

Becasuse that is what it looks like. they fell straight down, at near freefall speed, thats what controlled demolitions look like and these 3 buildings are the only ever to fall down in this manner other than controlled demolition.

Of course they're the only ones. No other skyscraper has ever had a fully laden jet liner fly into it. No other skyscraper has had thousands of tons of steel and concrete smash into it from 100 floors up. It was a unique event. And let's not forget it is simply an assumption of yours that it looked like controlled demolition, an assumption based on absolutely no expertise or experience but one that has informed your entire outlook on the subject ever since. You made your mind up on day one and there isn't a power on earth that could make you change it. I wonder if you remember the article published in your own pet Truther journal by the aforementioned demolitions firm stating that it did not look like anything that could be expected from a controlled demolition?

Quote

but ask yourself, should a steel framed building completely collapse in 'slightly longer' than complete freefall from fire?

If you answer is yes, then you are only kidding yourself, but that is the story you and you criminal friends are palming off. There was not enough potential energy in the building to do that, oposing forces.....

Oh Really? Not enough potential energy? Opposing forces. Go on then, analyse it for me. How much gravitational potential energy in the sections above the impact floors? How much kinetic energy once they've fallen through one crash and fire damaged floor?

Quote

You have already been there?, iraq has been infulential in oil supply since the beginning of last century, you forget you have already been there before?

I said nothing of the sort.

I said that you will learn none of the lessons from how our governments took us into Iraq if you keep on believing it was all a big pre-arranged conspiracy.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rhys 0]

Quote

It does not surprise me at all that the building fell at near freefall acceleration. You previously said it did fall at 1g, sometimes you say that it fell at near freefall accel, which is it, and how close to 1g should it have fallen? Is .98g too fast? How about .95 or .90? To say that it fell too fast requires that you know how fast it should have fallen, all you do is say it fell too fast. How can you know that without an analysis of how fast it should have been without the supposed controlled demolition? How much variation in the accel should have been expected? You don't know, but somehow are able to be sure that the variation in the data is not significant. You make your analysis by the armchair engineering method, and your truther "scientists" don't offer anything better. That is NOT using the scientific method, something that you cite so often.

how abut this data;

here is a live BBC report from 9/11 talking about the collapse of building 7 as past tense. Even citing the reason for the collapse before it actually happened;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnVn7xyWPHw

so 23 minutes before the building actually collapses they have already told us it has fallen, it is in plain view and 5 minute before the actual collapse takes place, they lose reception to the camera that is filming it live, hmmmm.

smell something fishy there?

as far as how fast a building dhould collapse from fire.

you tell me, do you think anything even close to even 50% of the rate of gravity is acceptable?

It surly is not in my view on how things break.

I can study this further to explain and give you references because you can bet your bottom dollar the mathmatics has already been done, but why, are you going to accept that a 47 story steel structure will fall down completwly in less that 7 seconds and take that as a relatively normal occurance?

please!

I have to sleep but I would be interested to see what you think of that BBC footage.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[nanook 1]

Quote

so 23 minutes before the building actually collapses they have already told us it has fallen, it is in plain view and 5 minute before the actual collapse takes place, they lose reception to the camera that is filming it live, hmmmm.

Geez. . . just because someone is recording live doesn't mean that the background screens behind them have to show real time events. it's probably the only recording they had at the time.

Everyone is in front of green screens. The studio is rarely anywhere near an outside wall where natural light can wreak havoc in the interior lighting the cameras require.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Skyrad 0]

All that proves is that there was a lot of confusion on the day. One person saying a building is about to collapse could quite easily turn into a building has collapsed.

Do you really think the BBC were in on this??? next you'll be telling us that it was actually Terry Wogan and Jonathon Ross flying the planes and Ross Kemp that planted the alledged Thermite devices.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Q: What is the difference between a 911 Truther and a dead cat?

A: Dead cats are still useful.

ahh such eloquence and intellect. You are such a great role model.

A real ambassedor for your trade.

Well, when the trade is poking holes and poking fun at wildly delusional ideas - yes, he is a great role model.

Oh, gotta go. There is a faked-Moon-landing CT'er knocking at my door. Time to go practice the trade. Ooo, based on the book they are carrying, I'm guessing they are also into the Jewish Zombie thing. Double the fun.

" . . . 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

[billvon 3,111]

>Ooo, based on the book they are carrying, I'm guessing they are also into
>the Jewish Zombie thing.

Don't accept any cigarettes from them!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

so 23 minutes before the building actually collapses they have already told us it has fallen, it is in plain view and 5 minute before the actual collapse takes place, they lose reception to the camera that is filming it live, hmmmm.

smell something fishy there?

Indeed. You think that Bushco is still successful in keeping secret one of the greatest crimes committed in the US, yet they were so incompetent that they told the BBC of the building's destruction well over 23 minutes ahead of time?

Doesn't that inconsistency smell like bullshit?

Quote

you tell me, do you think anything even close to even 50% of the rate of gravity is acceptable?

It surly is not in my view on how things break.

I can study this further

You do that. See how many of your 1000 scientists think that it should have been less than .5g. You're not going to find many.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

you tell me, do you think anything even close to even 50% of the rate of gravity is acceptable?

It surly is not in my view on how things break.

I can study this further to explain and give you references because you can bet your bottom dollar the mathmatics has already been done, but why, are you going to accept that a 47 story steel structure will fall down completwly in less that 7 seconds and take that as a relatively normal occurance?

You think it should be much less than 0.5g! Wow, I guess you think it should have gone like the ca-chunk, ca-chunk lady on the truther video. You have that much of an intuitive sense of physics and dynamics - none. Anyway, that is your uneducated guess, what about your truther scientists? What do they think it should have been? What is the accuracy of the video evidence?

Also from my observations of your guy's data - what about the early 3 data points, why was it so slow? How did the data come back to the 1g line (which would mean >1g - impossible) after it slowed the 3 times I pointed out? I'll tell you how, the data is inaccurate, it didn't fall at 1g, and the acceleration of the collapse wasn't uniform.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Q: What is the difference between a 911 Truther and a dead cat?

A: Dead cats are still useful.

ahh such eloquence and intellect. You are such a great role model.

A real ambassedor for your trade.

I wouls suspect an engineer who makes jokes about dead cats and Truthers gets far more respect than anyone of any trade who spreads misinformation and outright lies about something they nothing of.

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.

[rhys 0]

Quote

You think it should be much less than 0.5g! Wow, I guess you think it should have gone like the ca-chunk, ca-chunk lady on the truther video. You have that much of an intuitive sense of physics and dynamics - none. Anyway, that is your uneducated guess, what about your truther scientists? What do they think it should have been? What is the accuracy of the video evidence?

The video evidence from david chandler matches that of NIST.

If you are so enlightened and so much more intellegent than me, how about we swing this around and you tell us all how a steel framed 47 stroy building could reasonably be expected to fall in about 7 seconds.

How is that ever going to be a reasonable concept, and what calculations do you use to work that out?

If fire is all that is needed to bring that building down then who is in the firing line, and who is responsable, does your country have a building code? Would it be reasonable to expect that a building such as this one would be let to stand for decades in the central business district of manhattan with such important tenants if it was such a piece of crap?

How about you explain how it is so normal for a high rise building to collapse completely in seconds, this should be entertaining.

You all argue the point about thermate about how much of it would be needed to make a building collapse yet you say it is normal for them to collapse on thier own accord without explosives, you cannot be right about both...

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You all argue the point about thermate about how much of it would be needed to make a building collapse yet you say it is normal for them to collapse on thier own accord without explosives, you cannot be right about both...

No, you're the thermate fan. Since you mention it, though, how about explaining how this mystical thermate acts differently in use than several tons of burning jet fuel? Then we can go into why this oh-so-super-effective thermate isn't being used by demolition companies all over the world to take down buildings.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rhys 0]

Quote

Indeed. You think that Bushco is still successful in keeping secret one of the greatest crimes committed in the US, yet they were so incompetent that they told the BBC of the building's destruction well over 23 minutes ahead of time?

Doesn't that inconsistency smell like bullshit?

Nice spin. you like to put words in peoples mouths don;t you.

I did not air the news piece, the BBC did, and I have no clue on where they get thier information.

watch again and take not of the time...

Indeed. You think that Bushco is still successful in keeping secret one of the greatest crimes committed in the US, yet they were so incompetent that they told the BBC of the building's destruction well over 23 minutes ahead of time in the second piece!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s

Quote

You do that. See how many of your 1000 scientists think that it should have been less than .5g. You're not going to find many.

I don't know what scientists you are talking about, but the 1200+ engineers and architechts don't believe it should have fallen down at all, so I guess that falls within the less than .5g threshold.

it was a grid of steel framework with massive thick verticle steel columns, not a stack of cards.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

but the 1200+ engineers and architechts don't believe it should have fallen down at all

Probably 20,000 times that number know that there was nothing unexpected about the way it fell without any demolition devices being planted.

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.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Probably 20,000 times that number know that there was nothing unexpected about the way it fell without any demolition devices being planted.

probably?

hahaha, where are these probable people?

and how many other times has that happened in history for them to make that assumtion?

Just keep on pulling your shit out of thin air.

I'll challenge you to show us all an event, any event other than tor 1 and 2's collapse that comes even close to WTC7's collapse.

How you can describe it as 'unexpected' is beside me.

you had better start explaining!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Probably 20,000 times that number know that there was nothing unexpected about the way it fell without any demolition devices being planted.

probably?

hahaha, where are these probable people?

and how many other times has that happened in history for them to make that assumtion?

How many times has a building been taken down by magical thermate for Jones and you to make YOUR assumption?

Quote

Just keep on pulling your shit out of thin air.

Indeed.

Quote

you had better start explaining!

Indeed.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

You think it should be much less than 0.5g! Wow, I guess you think it should have gone like the ca-chunk, ca-chunk lady on the truther video. You have that much of an intuitive sense of physics and dynamics - none. Anyway, that is your uneducated guess, what about your truther scientists? What do they think it should have been? What is the accuracy of the video evidence?

The video evidence from david chandler matches that of NIST.

That doesn't answer the question of how accurate it can be. It can't be very accurate.

Quote

If you are so enlightened and so much more intellegent than me,

I went to school and worked very hard for a long time to get a mechanical engineering degree. Not civil engineering, but it does give me a much better sense of what is reasonable than you, relying on your high school physics lessons.

Quote

how about we swing this around and you tell us all how a steel framed 47 stroy building could reasonably be expected to fall in about 7 seconds. How is that ever going to be a reasonable concept, and what calculations do you use to work that out?

What is not reasonable? Just because you keep repeating "steel framed" blah blah over and over doesn't mean that what happened was unreasonable. Your armchair engineering conclusions don't mean anything. I'll take the detailed analysis of the Purdue team about how the damage and fire resulted in the failure, the speed of the rest of the collapse is a separate subject. That analysis could be done, perhaps it should be done to answer truthers (although it likely would be rejected as part of the conspiracy), and I expect that it would agree well with the actual result of what happened that day. Why don't the truthers just conduct their own analysis of how fast it should have fallen? The bullshit "experiments" dropping stuff on top of other stuff should be embarrassing, seriously. You have so many scientists/engineers in the truther ranks, why can't they show their analysis of how fast it should have fallen? They can't because they haven't done it. Why haven't they done it, why are you left to make your own wild estimate of <0.5g? Because a real analysis would not support their assertions. Instead they just claim with indignity that the structure failing and falling must have been set up as intentional, with their proof being that it just doesn't seem reasonable.

Quote

If fire is all that is needed to bring that building down then who is in the firing line, and who is responsable, does your country have a building code? Would it be reasonable to expect that a building such as this one would be let to stand for decades in the central business district of manhattan with such important tenants if it was such a piece of crap?

Please pay attention. A large heavy airplane hit it at high speed, causing massive damage.

Quote

How about you explain how it is so normal for a high rise building to collapse completely in seconds, this should be entertaining.

There you go, armchair engineering again without the skills to do it properly. There was a large mass above the point of failure. Your high school physics lessons were not sufficient for you to appreciate the significance of what can result. As I said before, my more educated armchair engineering view of things fully expects that an analysis of the collapse would agree with the actual result of what happened. Why don't the truthers do their own analysis and put it in a peer reviewed journal for scrutiny?

Quote

You all argue the point about thermate about how much of it would be needed to make a building collapse yet you say it is normal for them to collapse on thier own accord without explosives, you cannot be right about both...

You misunderstand. You claim that nano-razzmatazz was distributed widely throughout the building to carry out the deed because it would be needed to ensure the collapse. The thinking would be that the conspirators would not be confident that the damage from the airplane and fire would actually be enough to cause the collapse, and so it would require a massive amount of nano-razzmatazz. Your conspiracy theory might be (but it isn't) just arranging for the airplane attack, but truthers claim more than that, they/you claim that the conspirators wanted to be sure it would collapse. That would require not just a little, but a lot of nano-razzmatazz.

One more thing...

Quote

Just keep on pulling your shit out of thin air.

You and the truthers do nothing but that. I understand that you may not realize that your reasonable meter is broken, but it is indeed way overdue for calibration.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

it was a grid of steel framework with massive thick verticle steel columns,

You are going to lose a lot of people if you keep using those scientific terms.

Quote

not a stack of cards.

Or Jenga blocks.

[pirana 0]

Quote

If you are so enlightened and so much more intellegent than me, . . .

You all argue the point about thermate about how much of it would be needed to make a building collapse yet you say it is normal for them to collapse on thier own accord without explosives, you cannot be right about both...

You seem reasonably intelligent; but are not putting it to use on this topic. You, and a proportionately small but absolutely too large of a subset of the population, appear to want to believe wierd stuff so badly that you check your smarts at the door.

An interesting phenomena, and one that used to relegate these kinds of topics to the tabloids until the internet came along and made it possible for all kinds of goofballs to fuel the CT fires.

Side note - the buildings did not collapse on their own. Planes flew into them - big ones - loaded with fuel. Then there were fires, very hot stuff. And the 47 story one had big pieces of the bigger buildings fall onto it. Pretty significant destructive forces - hardly what could be called "collapse on their own accord." (We are assigning buildings sentience and their own accord now?)

" . . . 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

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Probably 20,000 times that number know that there was nothing unexpected about the way it fell without any demolition devices being planted.

probably?

hahaha, where are these probable people?

and how many other times has that happened in history for them to make that assumtion?

Just keep on pulling your shit out of thin air.

I'll challenge you to show us all an event, any event other than tor 1 and 2's collapse that comes even close to WTC7's collapse.

How you can describe it as 'unexpected' is beside me.

you had better start explaining!

Those 'probable' people are all of those who refused to acknowledge any credibility of the Truthers theories.
Show me another instance of two airliners crashing into neighboring skyscrapers at high speed and showering fire and debris onto another building first.
I never described it as unespected. In fact, many reputable engineers have said that they were surprised the towers stood as long as they did after being struck.
My side has already explained everything about the collapse in detail and using proven scientific methods and physical laws.
Your side has only picked and chose what you want to present, and fabricated the rest, to support what you think happened.

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.

[rhys 0]

Quote

That doesn't answer the question of how accurate it can be. It can't be very accurate.

if it cannot be that accurate, and NIST used it in thier conclusion, then the NIST conclusion is not very accurate and that is the hypothesis you are inclined to beleive.

how is your standpoint accurate then if nist's is not?

Quote

I went to school and worked very hard for a long time to get a mechanical engineering degree. Not civil engineering, but it does give me a much better sense of what is reasonable than you, relying on your high school physics lessons.

No, i am relying on the hypothesis, peer reviewed journals and evidence contrived by (civil) engineers, architects, scientists and other industry professionals that have spent years working on then only to be sniffed at by people like you that seem to think you can scorn at thise that have much more experience than you.

I can read, that is all it takes for me to be able to understand any of these hypothesis, and yours my friend does not add up, and is not following the very principals you would have learnd about.

Newtons laws of motion;

Quote

Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that form the basis for classical mechanics. They describe the relationship between the forces acting on a body and its motion due to those forces. They have been expressed in several different ways over nearly three centuries,[1] and can be summarised as follows:

1. First Law: Every body will persist in its state of rest or of uniform motion (constant velocity) in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed on it.[2][3][4] This means that in the absence of a non-zero net force, the center of mass of a body either is at rest or moves at a constant velocity.
2. Second Law: A body of mass m subject to a force F undergoes an acceleration a that has the same direction as the force and a magnitude that is directly proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass, i.e., F = ma. Alternatively, the total force applied on a body is equal to the time derivative of linear momentum of the body.
3. Third Law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and −F the "reaction".

take these laws and inject them into your hypothesis and see whetehr you come up trumps.

Buildings cannot fal that fast without energy input from and external source.

It is impossible and you are arguing a very stupid argument.

"i'm more intellegent than you because I am a mechanical engineer, so therefore I know more about civil engineering than you ever could"

What an arrogant position, but that was clear before.

Quote

What is not reasonable? Just because you keep repeating "steel framed" blah blah over and over doesn't mean that what happened was unreasonable.

You need to recap your studies, you can start by readng about newton and his findings, this will be a great start to you understanding what I am talking about, as it is plainly obvious that you are ignoring the very principals you would have been taught about in you mechanical engineering degree.

Quote

I'll take the detailed analysis of the Purdue team about how the damage and fire resulted in the failure

so a failure of one or more floors immedieatley equalt to the failure of the whole building in 6.5 seconds?

hahaha did you pass you degree?

Quote

the speed of the rest of the collapse is a separate subject.

yeah and they are not linked at all in determining the conclusion of what happened I suppose?

Quote

Why don't the truthers just conduct their own analysis of how fast it should have fallen? The bullshit "experiments" dropping stuff on top of other stuff should be embarrassing, seriously. You have so many scientists/engineers in the truther ranks, why can't they show their analysis of how fast it should have fallen?

Simple, it shpoudn't have fallen, it was a steel framed structure with strength well in excess of what was needed. You sugest the truth movement should determine how fast it should have fallen when it is plainly obvious tha it should not have, these people you are arguing against are among highly experienced high rise building architects, why should thay have to prove themselved to you, they have solid evidence of explosives both ignited and unignited, this evidence has come from the scene of the crime and it remains IGNORED by ignorance.

What do you make of the nano thermite, you know, the stuff that is littered throughout the dust from all 3 of the collapses?

Are you going to ignore that as well, and the peer reviewed journals about it.

I suppose those wankers are just a bunch of paranoid truthers as well.

Explain how newtons laws of motion shpuld so easily be ignored in this case? as that is the point you seem to be trying to make.

Quote

Please pay attention. A large heavy airplane hit it at high speed, causing massive damage...

...to the top of the buildings while the remainer of the buildings were releatively undamaged,, if the tops had of fallen off then O.k. but straight through the path of greatest resistance... destryoing everything in thier path, Please!

back to the laws of motion..... you know equal opposite forces and all that... you seem to be forgetting your studies again...


I can't be bothered with all of your post as you are clearly not understanding what the point is but I'll answer this last one,

Quote

You and the truthers do nothing but that. I understand that you may not realize that your reasonable meter is broken, but it is indeed way overdue for calibration.

So the hypothesis we are expected to beleive, uses computer modelling instead of evidence and experiment, the existance of explosive evidence is completely IGNORED, and the actual collapses are unexplained and decribed as "imminent global collapse then occured".

What is imminent about something that has never happened before, and what information was used to make that assertion.

it seem your meters need calibrating as you are not cting with an ounce of common sence right now, it is you emotions that are controlling you words, you reluctance to accept basic realities is not very becoming of somebody in your trade!

you must acknowledge ALL of the evidence, if you ignore one aspect, then your view is skewed and false.

I suggest you read the numerous peer reviewed jornals on the subject, because your attempts to belittle people with untold more experience than you is quite pathetic, you think because you passed an exam or two and know how to fix an engine that that gives you the right to ridicule those who's knowledge, experience, and evidence far exceeds anything you would be personally capable of as these people are in the millions now, but you just go on beleive it is just me and a few of my friends.

that is a joke.

It is arrogant AND ignorant.

Try studying sometime, you must have cheated to pass you exams in an mechanical engineering degree without understanding Newtons laws of motion.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix