Poll

What is the truth about the 911 attack on the World Trade Center?

Hijacked Planes were flown into the two towers.  Resulting fires caused the collapse.
14 (60.9%)
The planes were CGI and it was controlled demolition
2 (8.7%)
Something other than planes were flown into the twin towers,  missiles drones etc.
2 (8.7%)
The planes were holographic projections from a special satellite, and it was a directed energy weapon
1 (4.3%)
Something else.
3 (13%)
Denspressure
1 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 23

Voting closed: March 06, 2017, 10:56:40 PM

911 What is the truth?

  • 6864 Replies
  • 1198900 Views
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3030 on: March 29, 2017, 12:14:17 AM »
I can.
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

*

Rayzor

  • 12195
  • +0/-6
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3031 on: March 29, 2017, 12:14:47 AM »
I also think fire and debris didn't bring it down.

Is Hulsey crazy?

Are all building collapses free fall?

Is Hulsey crazy?   He is for getting paid by a group with an agenda which revolves around making money by pushing conspiracy.

No not all building collapses are free fall,  and just because a collapse is free fall doesn't mean controlled demolition. 


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3032 on: March 29, 2017, 12:15:58 AM »
Free-fall means no structural resistance.

Can you explain why wtc 7 had no structural resistance?

I can.
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

*

Rayzor

  • 12195
  • +0/-6
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3033 on: March 29, 2017, 12:16:31 AM »
Free-fall means no structural resistance.

Can you explain why wtc 7 had no structural resistance?

Yes.  it's been covered by myself and others in this thread,  why don't you try reading the replies for a change instead of pissing everyone off with continually spamming the same stuff.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3034 on: March 29, 2017, 12:17:42 AM »
Please cite where you explained why wtc 7 had no structural resistance.

The NIST report doesn't cover it.
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

*

Rayzor

  • 12195
  • +0/-6
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3035 on: March 29, 2017, 12:20:57 AM »
Please cite where you explained why wtc 7 had no structural resistance.

The NIST report doesn't cover it.

No,  why don't you tell us why you think it was controlled demolition.   Please offer some real evidence rather than just your personal opionion or speculation.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3036 on: March 29, 2017, 12:22:40 AM »
I think it was a CD because of collapse symmetry and fall acceleration.

Please cite where you explained why wtc 7 had no structural resistance.

The NIST report doesn't cover it.

If you cant just admit it.
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30076
  • +3/-4
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3037 on: March 29, 2017, 12:28:46 AM »
Why didn't the structure provide any structural resistance as it collapsed? Surely you aren't saying that all building collapses are freefall?

No,  but just because it was free fall doesn't automatically mean it was controlled demolition.   That's the logical flaw in your argument that I pointed out about 100 pages ago,  and many times since.
It was a full on steel framed building, like a grid. They do not collapse into their own footprint/basement unless two things happen.

1. A big godzilla appears that is so huge, it actually makes the tower look like a marshmallow against it's foot. Godzilla then stamps on the tower and bang we have a top down symmetrical type collapse into it's own basement.

2. Someone pre-planned, over many months or even years, a controlled demolition of the building.


There is one more possibility. It's as extreme as the Godzilla one but, here goes.

They attached two huge jump type leads to the bottom of the steel supports and sent juice into the tower which made all the structural steel glow then melt, shattering the concrete as it does this, then all the steel just melts and falls at near free fall speed,as the concrete pulverises more.


I feel a bit silly here but I'm going to hazard a guess that number 2 could be the reason.
What does everyone else think?

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
  • +0/-0
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3038 on: March 29, 2017, 12:30:04 AM »
Did some light reading on WTC7 building yesterday. Reading from some personal accounts of firefighters, it seems super unlikely that the building was purposely dropped.
It seems WTC7 was almost completely evacuated by the fire department before it collapsed. There where not even firefighters inside because a collapse due to fire and structural damage seemed imminent. So they cleared the area for quite a while before the building fell. This does not sound like sabotage.

It all makes for interesting reading.

No one is arguing it shouldn't have collapsed at all.

Just not a 2.25 second symmetrical freefall.

Back on topic, I hope someone can address this, it's been up for grabs since page one.

Should be easy.

You haven't attempted to explain why the building provided no structural resistance for 2.25 seconds.

Would you like to try?

Enlighten me.

Taking shots at my mental health isn't an answer.

I did say I wouldn't answer your dumb question for the n'th time.   But I will,  If you promise to  never ask again.   Listen Carefully...

IT WAS  FALLING DOWN,   COLLAPSING.   I HAVE VIDEO EVIDENCE PROVING THAT FACT.


Now ask it again,  I dare you to show us all how deranged you really are.


Why didn't the structure provide any structural resistance as it collapsed? Surely you aren't saying that all building collapses are freefall?

Can you at least see what I am saying Boots?

Yeah I watched the video you posted about that. Mostly I'm just waiting to see if someone has a good answer for it. But I agree that so far I haven't seen much. Totes said it wasn't necessarily impossible for there to be negligible resistance for that two second period. I was hoping to see more discussion on that. "It was collapsing" doesn't seem like much of an answer since the question is why is it collapsing at free-fall. I'm not sure which video Rayzor is referring to but I would take a look at it if I knew where it was.

Is this Hulsey investigation going to have credibility when it's complete? I would be very interested in the results of a peer reviewed report. Especially if it was reviewed by scientists who weren't already leaning toward whichever conclusion the report points to.
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3039 on: March 29, 2017, 12:31:51 AM »
We can't rule out Godzilla yet scepti.

;D ;D

Hulseys work will show clearly what had to happen to cause the collapse we saw. It will 100% be peer reviwed and scrutinized fully. They are following the scientific method to a T.

Thanks mate.
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

*

Rayzor

  • 12195
  • +0/-6
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3040 on: March 29, 2017, 12:49:30 AM »
I think it was a CD because of collapse symmetry and fall acceleration.

Please cite where you explained why wtc 7 had no structural resistance.

The NIST report doesn't cover it.

If you cant just admit it.

That's just your opinion,  what you need is evidence,  all the available evidence says it collapsed due to debris damage and fire.   If you want to prove that it was controlled demolition you need proof not opinions.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 12195
  • +0/-6
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3041 on: March 29, 2017, 12:57:00 AM »

Yeah I watched the video you posted about that. Mostly I'm just waiting to see if someone has a good answer for it. But I agree that so far I haven't seen much. Totes said it wasn't necessarily impossible for there to be negligible resistance for that two second period. I was hoping to see more discussion on that. "It was collapsing" doesn't seem like much of an answer since the question is why is it collapsing at free-fall. I'm not sure which video Rayzor is referring to but I would take a look at it if I knew where it was.

Is this Hulsey investigation going to have credibility when it's complete? I would be very interested in the results of a peer reviewed report. Especially if it was reviewed by scientists who weren't already leaning toward whichever conclusion the report points to.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1duxy_911-nbc-predicts-wtc7-collapse_news

Hulsey said in a progress review that the debris damage was minimal and the fires were small office fires and burnt out in 20 minutes. 




« Last Edit: March 29, 2017, 01:04:32 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3042 on: March 29, 2017, 12:57:24 AM »
Hulsey is working on proof be patient.

Please cite where you explained why wtc 7 had no structural resistance.

The NIST report doesn't cover it.

Please try to answer, we all want to know.
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3043 on: March 29, 2017, 01:11:31 AM »
Please answer Rayzor.

Why did wtc 7 have no structural resistance for 2.25 seconds?

Everyone wants an answer.
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

*

Rayzor

  • 12195
  • +0/-6
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3044 on: March 29, 2017, 01:20:08 AM »
Please answer Rayzor.

Why did wtc 7 have no structural resistance for 2.25 seconds?

Everyone wants an answer.

Sigh?  I've change my mind,  you are worse than crazy,  you are retarded as well,   

ANSWER:  The structure supporting the building collapsed.  Collapsing == no structural resistance.


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3045 on: March 29, 2017, 01:23:09 AM »
Please don't call me crazy. I really, really, don't like it.

Please try to answer the question.

Please answer Rayzor.

Why did wtc 7 have no structural resistance for 2.25 seconds?

Everyone wants an answer.

Collapse doesn't equal no structural resistance. Wtc 7 collapsed slower than free fall towards the end because of structural resistance. Not all collapses are at free-fall. Very few actually.
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

*

Rayzor

  • 12195
  • +0/-6
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3046 on: March 29, 2017, 01:30:15 AM »
Please don't call me crazy. I really, really, don't like it.

Please try to answer the question.

Please answer Rayzor.

Why did wtc 7 have no structural resistance for 2.25 seconds?

Everyone wants an answer.

Collapse doesn't equal no structural resistance. Wtc 7 collapsed slower than free fall towards the end because of structural resistance. Not all collapses are at free-fall. Very few actually.

You've got nothing but prejudice and delusional thinking left to support a controlled demolition for WTC7,  not to even mention that it would make no sense to anyone but a crazed conspiracy theorist like you to demolish a building teetering on the verge of collapse.  Think about that for a minute or two.   

911 truthers are as bad if not worse than flat earthers in their logical thought processes.

Free fall does not mean controlled demoliton

Let's see if purple 36 point makes it into your tiny brain...

« Last Edit: March 29, 2017, 01:32:50 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3047 on: March 29, 2017, 03:10:36 AM »
You are hysterical and embarrassing yourself. We can continue this later.

I'm just waiting to see if someone has a good answer for it. But I agree that so far I haven't seen much. Totes said it wasn't necessarily impossible for there to be negligible resistance for that two second period. I was hoping to see more discussion on that. "It was collapsing" doesn't seem like much of an answer since the question is why is it collapsing at free-fall.

Address my points at your leisure Rayzor.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2017, 03:23:31 AM by disputeone »
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3048 on: March 29, 2017, 03:12:08 AM »
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

?

totallackey

  • 4526
  • +0/-0
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3049 on: March 29, 2017, 03:50:00 AM »
No,  but just because it was free fall doesn't automatically mean it was controlled demolition.   That's the logical flaw in your argument that I pointed out about 100 pages ago,  and many times since.
So, there should be plenty of real-life examples of buildings in free fall due to fire/debris damage.

I would love to see your references/examples!

Thanks!

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11247
  • +12/-7
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3050 on: March 29, 2017, 05:03:31 AM »
Please answer Rayzor.

Why did wtc 7 have no structural resistance for 2.25 seconds?

Everyone wants an answer.

Sigh?  I've change my mind,  you are worse than crazy,  you are retarded as well,   

ANSWER:  The structure supporting the building collapsed.  Collapsing == no structural resistance.

You are such a fucking piece of shit... Seriously....Meet up with him faggot.

He has tried to be nice after him and boots spoke....He even explained why he hated being called crazy. Anyone...I repeat ANYONE with a shred of humanity would not call him crazy after learning the real reason he hated it. Yet you continue on and on calling him that.

You are such a fucking loser nobody, that is all you have.....Sorry boots, I know what you were saying, but I could care less about the 9/11 debate with rayzor...People like him just need an ass kicking. It's all they understand, however, even that is unlikely for a troll like this.

I wish there was an IQ limit for this thread...That would at a minimum exclude rayzor....Fucking pathetic loser.

Oh...And your argument of "it was falling"..Shows that you are attempting to over use that double digit IQ of yours. Quiet, adults are talking... Pathetic
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11247
  • +12/-7
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3051 on: March 29, 2017, 05:18:28 AM »
Did some light reading on WTC7 building yesterday. Reading from some personal accounts of firefighters, it seems super unlikely that the building was purposely dropped.
It seems WTC7 was almost completely evacuated by the fire department before it collapsed. There where not even firefighters inside because a collapse due to fire and structural damage seemed imminent. So they cleared the area for quite a while before the building fell. This does not sound like sabotage.

It all makes for interesting reading.

We'll keep in mind, the firefighters had just seen two impossibilities (1 and 2 collapse)...They were scared all the buildings were going to collapse. Especially 6 and 4... They didn't know what to say or do, just imagine losing so many friends and co-workers​ at one time in something that has never happened before. Especially when right before they collapsed they were reporting the fires were under control and on their way out.

So all buildings were suspect, I would do the same thing. Plus 6 and 4 were destroyed compared to 7...Though they were afraid of collapse, they did not.

Also, I don't know how fire fighters are in South Africa, what training or qualifications/power they have. Here though, they don't have the power/qualifications or training to make a call on a building. For example, the most recent fire I went to here (4 story condo, concrete base, wood exoskeleton, steel spine), burned for almost 3 days. Firefighters kept everone out, fought the fire from the outside and played the control game while it extinguished itself.

After it was finally out, they had one portion of the structure that the upper 2 stories collapsed, other than that it was "intact"...So at that point, yes first responders kept people (including fire fighters) from entering. However, they had no power to make a call about anything. That is when they called my self and a few others to come make the call. After a few days of investigation, we unfortunately had to make the call of condemning it. It is a tough call you cannot take lightly, excluding you are saying to everyone they aren't getting one piece of their personal belongings back. There was also a possible fatality involved. We attempted a drone search..Well anyways.

The point...That is the way power of command works here. Firefighters fight the fires. They make no calls on anything else
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • +1/-3
  • Show me the evidence
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3052 on: March 29, 2017, 05:21:15 AM »
Some more light reading here, its a summery of the NIST document.

I dont think there is much reason to think the NIST study is dramatically wrong in their assessment.
Rayzor is correct, just because a building fell at free fall for a portion of its total collapse time, does not mean that there was demolition involved. Total collapse time was about 10 seconds, you are only disputing 2,5 seconds.

Further more, from the reports, the building collapsed internally first, then pulled the external skin down with it. From the videos you see a free fall only after a major structural collapse has already happened. Meaning you are only seeing the collapse of the external skin. Once columns have buckled they produce very little if any vertical support, this is probably where your 2,5 seconds of free fall happen.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • +1/-3
  • Show me the evidence
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3053 on: March 29, 2017, 05:41:10 AM »
We'll keep in mind, the firefighters had just seen two impossibilities (1 and 2 collapse)...They were scared all the buildings were going to collapse. Especially 6 and 4... They didn't know what to say or do, just imagine losing so many friends and co-workers​ at one time in something that has never happened before. Especially when right before they collapsed they were reporting the fires were under control and on their way out.

So all buildings were suspect, I would do the same thing. Plus 6 and 4 were destroyed compared to 7...Though they were afraid of collapse, they did not.

Also, I don't know how fire fighters are in South Africa, what training or qualifications/power they have. Here though, they don't have the power/qualifications or training to make a call on a building. For example, the most recent fire I went to here (4 story condo, concrete base, wood exoskeleton, steel spine), burned for almost 3 days. Firefighters kept everone out, fought the fire from the outside and played the control game while it extinguished itself.

After it was finally out, they had one portion of the structure that the upper 2 stories collapsed, other than that it was "intact"...So at that point, yes first responders kept people (including fire fighters) from entering. However, they had no power to make a call about anything. That is when they called my self and a few others to come make the call. After a few days of investigation, we unfortunately had to make the call of condemning it. It is a tough call you cannot take lightly, excluding you are saying to everyone they aren't getting one piece of their personal belongings back. There was also a possible fatality involved. We attempted a drone search..Well anyways.

The point...That is the way power of command works here. Firefighters fight the fires. They make no calls on anything else

During a fire, the fire fighters make all the calls. Health and safety comes first. Obviously afterwards engineers do assessments. You are probably right, they probably just cleared everyone from the buildings after 1&2 fell. Somewhere I read they just evacuated the whole area anyway.

Yeah, I had to condemn an entire prison complex a while back. We still have some legacy apartheid buildings here that are not fit for occupation. It was not a hard call and I did not feel bad doing it, prisoners are human too.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11247
  • +12/-7
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3054 on: March 29, 2017, 05:53:38 AM »
Some more light reading here, its a summery of the NIST document.

I dont think there is much reason to think the NIST study is dramatically wrong in their assessment.
Rayzor is correct, just because a building fell at free fall for a portion of its total collapse time, does not mean that there was demolition involved. Total collapse time was about 10 seconds, you are only disputing 2,5 seconds.

Further more, from the reports, the building collapsed internally first, then pulled the external skin down with it. From the videos you see a free fall only after a major structural collapse has already happened. Meaning you are only seeing the collapse of the external skin. Once columns have buckled they produce very little if any vertical support, this is probably where your 2,5 seconds of free fall happen.

I am fully aware of the NIST report, the content, and their "conclusion"... Yes an entire column buckling provides little resistance (that is the whole point of a demo, removing sections so the building can maintain enough velocity to demolish the sections that are not removed), however, one column compromised on one floor (this is giving NIST credit this happened) is not going to produce the result we saw visually.

 I am fully aware of the core collapsing in a second before the rest of the building (we saw the penthouse reaction) also the total time being around 6.5-7 seconds...This is exactly what I would expect to see from Completely removing the core. Bedrock anchors removal first (upper and lower shaped charges, 10 meter spaced Vertical) we have the penthouse drop..

Then remove the mid 80 percent of the mids and corners, alternating on the other (this will also removed the spandle plates attached to the core) (we saw concussive markers just at these areas, what they are is speculation. They are certainly not floor compression because they were only at strategic locations, as well as was seen during its time of free fall..Very damning in my eyes)..Leave the floors attached to the Exoskeleton, as the core collapses (and it will as the Exoskeleton was for sheer not vertical load, that was the main job of the core) the exoskeleton will follow the path of the core like a wilting flower.

This will only work with removing all necessary components of the core, not making one support hot on one floor...It is 100 percent impossible to solidify what we saw with what we are supposed to accept the cause to be.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11247
  • +12/-7
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3055 on: March 29, 2017, 06:01:54 AM »
During a fire, the fire fighters make all the calls. Health and safety comes first. .

Oh absolutely, for public safety. That is all the calls they can make though. They cannot make a call on what a structure will do, they cannot demo a building or anything else.

Just as they did at my most recent example...They got everyone the hell away, deal with the details later. They made the call to not fight any more of the fires, just play containment and keep your distance. Plus, imagine how jumpy you would be in the situation, just saw two 110 story buildings come down when the fire was under control...Many of your friends and colleagues was inside.

That is why I used my most recent example, because it was close the the 9/11 situation. A fire got to the point where the fire fighters said it was to dangerous to try and put the fire out...So they just played containment and let it burn out...They didn't "measure the walls" or "start getting it ready to demo" like you hear so much disinformation on. They got everyone the hell away (including themselves) played containment and that's it.

Then they call people like me to come make the calls of what to do with the building, if it's safe for investigators to enter etc etc.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3056 on: March 29, 2017, 06:11:23 AM »

Further more, from the reports, the building collapsed internally first, then pulled the external skin down with it. From the videos you see a free fall only after a major structural collapse has already happened. Meaning you are only seeing the collapse of the external skin. Once columns have buckled they produce very little if any vertical support, this is probably where your 2,5 seconds of free fall happen.

The reports do not reflect reality MaNaeSWolf we can see that the majority of the internal structure is intact at the point of free fall.



This is clearly shown by their model which barely achieved collapse even leaving out the concrete fire proofing and neglecting key structural elements with their model.



This is not an acceptable model, it doesn't nearly reflect reality, the inputs are classified and was never peer reviewed or even properly scrutinized until recently.
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

*

Rayzor

  • 12195
  • +0/-6
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3057 on: March 29, 2017, 06:35:14 AM »

You are such a fucking piece of shit... Seriously....Meet up with him faggot.

He has tried to be nice after him and boots spoke....He even explained why he hated being called crazy. Anyone...I repeat ANYONE with a shred of humanity would not call him crazy after learning the real reason he hated it. Yet you continue on and on calling him that.

You are such a fucking loser nobody, that is all you have.....Sorry boots, I know what you were saying, but I could care less about the 9/11 debate with rayzor...People like him just need an ass kicking. It's all they understand, however, even that is unlikely for a troll like this.

I wish there was an IQ limit for this thread...That would at a minimum exclude rayzor....Fucking pathetic loser.

Oh...And your argument of "it was falling"..Shows that you are attempting to over use that double digit IQ of yours. Quiet, adults are talking... Pathetic

Nice,  just not really the sort of logical argument I would expect from someone with an engineering degree.   You will later accuse me of ad hominem attacks,  and  I'll remind you I sometimes respond in kind.

I actually agree I wish there was an IQ limit for this thread,  dipstick one wouldn't make the grade.   He just can't stop himself from spamming the thread with the same crap.  Maybe he's OCD as well as loopy.

I wonder what his friends and relatives think when he complains that some anonymous person on a flat earth forum thinks he is a conspiracy fruitcake.   I can only  guess what they might think..

I'll make a deal,  if he stops continuously spamming the thread with his brain damaged "free fall" crap,  I'll stop calling his sanity into question.


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

TotesReptilian

  • 2210
  • +0/-0
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3058 on: March 29, 2017, 06:49:01 AM »
Totes said it wasn't necessarily impossible for there to be negligible resistance for that two second period. I was hoping to see more discussion on that. "It was collapsing" doesn't seem like much of an answer since the question is why is it collapsing at free-fall.

MaNaeSWolf sums up my opinion well:

Further more, from the reports, the building collapsed internally first, then pulled the external skin down with it. From the videos you see a free fall only after a major structural collapse has already happened. Meaning you are only seeing the collapse of the external skin. Once columns have buckled they produce very little if any vertical support, this is probably where your 2,5 seconds of free fall happen.

If you want some actual numbers, you might be able to estimate the "structural resistance" using the bending moment of the exterior steel columns. The answer won't be anywhere near precise, but you might be able to get an order-of-magnitude estimate. Good luck! (I don't have much free time this week, so I can't do it now. If no one else tries, I might do it in a week or two.)

Here is how the exterior buckled according to the NIST:



*

Bom Tishop

  • 11247
  • +12/-7
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #3059 on: March 29, 2017, 06:54:35 AM »
not really the sort of logical argument I would expect from someone with an engineering degree.   You will later accuse me of ad hominem attacks,  and  I'll remind you I sometimes respond in kind.

I actually agree I wish there was an IQ limit for this thread,  dipstick one wouldn't make the grade.   He just can't stop himself from spamming the thread with the same crap.  Maybe he's OCD as well as loopy.

I wonder what his friends and relatives think when he complains that some anonymous person on a flat earth forum thinks he is a conspiracy fruitcake.   I can only  guess what they might think..

I'll make a deal,  if he stops continuously spamming the thread with his brain damaged "free fall" crap,  I'll stop calling his sanity into question.

It's low brow, uneducated, as well as warranted in this situation. Reread my post to you. You crossed the line...no more of your stuttering back talk...You have lost all humanity in my eyes, worthless would be an understatement. (That white stuff that builds up on the side of your mouth when you are hot has more purpose)

After he explained the back story of being called crazy you should have ceased and desist at that very moment (as any human with a shred of humanity inside them would) with using that phrase.

Yet you continued, even now...Keep going on and on...

I have not a name to call you that is suiting...Just lower than human, or even a basic mammal I suppose. I am sure it will mean nothing to someone as yourself....I don't expect it to.

It would be great if you just left this place...No one would miss you, though I doubt I, or the forum in general, would be so lucky. I just get depressed when I am constantly reminded "people" like you do Actually exist.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir