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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 187 188 [189] 190 191 ... 229   Go Down

911 What is the truth?

  • 6864 Replies
  • 1198732 Views
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5640 on: September 22, 2017, 06:41:23 AM »
Quote from: sokarul on September 22, 2017, 06:40:23 AM
404 57 explosions not found.

How did the building collapse symmetrically at free-fall for 2.25 seconds sock?

How did fire cause that?

I will remind you again that arguments from incredulity don't debunk Newton.
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 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.
*

Definitely Not Swedish

  • rutabaga
  • 8309
  • +0/-1
  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crime
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5641 on: September 22, 2017, 06:57:09 AM »
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 06:41:23 AM
Quote from: sokarul on September 22, 2017, 06:40:23 AM
404 57 explosions not found.

How did the building collapse symmetrically at free-fall for 2.25 seconds sock?

How did fire cause that?

I will remind you again that arguments from incredulity don't debunk Newton.

I and others have already given multiple possible explanations for that.
Logged
Quote from: croutons, the s.o.w.
You have received a warning for breaking the laws of mathematics.

Member of the BOTD
Sign up here.
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5642 on: September 22, 2017, 07:04:16 AM »
Please copy and paste your rebuttal to this post if one exists user. Use the search feature if you need to. However this is new and hasn't been addressed yet.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Please read it and respond to it.
Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.)

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.



A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

For reference Rayzor believes this debunks it. Notice he says it's "been debunked" since his first post on the topic.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Please respond to my post.

[Youtube][/youtube]
« Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 07:06:59 AM by disputeone »
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 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.
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45127
  • +90/-134
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5643 on: September 22, 2017, 07:24:44 AM »
It's page 189.  Are you guys any closer to the truth now than you were on page 1?
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
*

Definitely Not Swedish

  • rutabaga
  • 8309
  • +0/-1
  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crime
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5644 on: September 22, 2017, 07:32:40 AM »
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 07:04:16 AM
Please copy and paste your rebuttal to this post if one exists user. Use the search feature if you need to. However this is new and hasn't been addressed yet.
Not really having time for this stuff now. Basic points were
- It's impossible to know how fast the building would have to be falling to achieve free fall speed, because you don't know it's air resistance etc.
- It's impossible to precisely calculate the actual speed of the falling building
So, even if it's stated it did fall in free fall speed, it's just an approximation that's more or less accurate.

Assuming that it was close to free fall speed, this could very well be because
- Inertia of the falling mass is very high
- Once a wall/beam whatever cracks, theres basically no resistance for until the next floor/beam/whatever
- Imagine a 10m long beam. If it starts to bend until 9m and then breaks in the middle then there is no resistance for the rest of the 9m.

Anyway, those are obviously super simplified concepts, but I'm rather sure it's no worse than saying "free fall is impossible because  I think it doesn't sound right".
Logged
Quote from: croutons, the s.o.w.
You have received a warning for breaking the laws of mathematics.

Member of the BOTD
Sign up here.
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5645 on: September 22, 2017, 07:41:48 AM »
Quote from: User324 on September 22, 2017, 07:32:40 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 07:04:16 AM
Please copy and paste your rebuttal to this post if one exists user. Use the search feature if you need to. However this is new and hasn't been addressed yet.
Not really having time for this stuff now. Basic points were
- It's impossible to know how fast the building would have to be falling to achieve free fall speed, because you don't know it's air resistance etc.

We measured and NIST admits free-fall in the official report. The building had no structural resistance for 2.25 seconds allowing a symmetrical collapse at free-fall

Quote from: User324 on September 22, 2017, 07:32:40 AM
- It's impossible to precisely calculate the actual speed of the falling building

No it's quite easy both NIST and David Chandler did an analysis and came to pretty much on free-fall.

Quote from: User324 on September 22, 2017, 07:32:40 AM
So, even if it's stated it did fall in free fall speed, it's just an approximation that's more or less accurate.

Sure which is impossible to by caused by fire and NISTs conclusions on the building collapse were either criminal negligence or forgery.

Quote from: User324 on September 22, 2017, 07:32:40 AM
Assuming that it was close to free fall speed, (it was) this could very well be because
- Inertia of the falling mass is very high
- Once a wall/beam whatever cracks, theres basically no resistance for until the next floor/beam/whatever
- Imagine a 10m long beam. If it starts to bend until 9m and then breaks in the middle then there is no resistance for the rest of the 9m.

Anyway, those are obviously super simplified concepts, but I'm rather sure it's no worse than saying "free fall is impossible because  I think it doesn't sound right".

None of that is possible because of the way the building was supported and braced. No symmetrical free-fall is possible caused by fires and "progressive" collapse.

Edit.
As I have shown in my post everyone is dodging.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 07:46:03 AM by disputeone »
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 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.
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5646 on: September 22, 2017, 07:44:12 AM »
Quote from: markjo on September 22, 2017, 07:24:44 AM
It's page 189.  Are you guys any closer to the truth now than you were on page 1?

Much closer my friend.

http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/
Quote
This is a study of the collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7) at 5:20 P.M. on September 11, 2001. This building was a steel-frame office building located north of Vesey Street in the World Trade Center Complex in New York City’s Financial District. The World Trade Center Complex opened on April 4, 1973, and, at the time of completion, the featured Twin Towers (WTC 1 and WTC 2) were the tallest buildings in the world. WTC 7 was later completed in 1987. Other buildings in the complex included the Marriott World Trade Center (3 WTC), 4 WTC, 5 WTC, and 6 WTC.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) opened an investigation into the collapses of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 in August 2002. NIST released its final report on WTC 7 in 2008, finding that the fires that were ignited by falling debris from WTC 1 caused the collapse of WTC 7. Independent researchers, however, have assembled evidence that has raised profound questions regarding the notion that WTC 7 collapsed because of fire.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth provided funding to the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) to evaluate if fire caused the collapse of WTC 7 and to examine what may have occurred at 5:20 P.M. on September 11, 2001. Therefore, the UAF research team evaluated the structural response due to the reported fire. A structural framing virtual model of WTC 7 was used to conduct the study. The reported failure was simulated using three-dimensional finite element computer models of the building. The research team studied the building’s response using two finite element programs, ABAQUS and SAP2000 version 18. At the micro level, three types of evaluations were performed. In plan-view, the research team evaluated: 1) the planar response of the structural elements to the fire(s) using wire elements; 2) the building’s response using the NIST’s approach with solid elements; and 3) the validity of NIST’s findings using solid elements. At the macro-level, progressive collapse, i.e., the structural system’s response to local failures, is being studied using SAP2000 with wire elements, as well as with ABAQUS, and it is near completion. The findings thus far are that fire did not bring down this building. Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner core of this building failed nearly simultaneously.

So close we can taste it.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 07:47:07 AM by disputeone »
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 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.
*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5476
  • +0/-0
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5647 on: September 22, 2017, 08:08:35 AM »
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 06:31:36 AM
Quote from: sokarul on September 22, 2017, 06:28:01 AM
The sooner you realize a building can't be brought down with explosives and no one notice the better.

Actually lots of people did notice. There's a growing truth movement.

Squibs.
[youtube][/youtube]


There is something curious about the gif, the building on the right seems to never slow down during the fall.  There is also a very noticeable cloud of debris ejected prior to the fall starting.  Neither of these appear to happen in that shot of wtc7 falling. Did either of these happen?
Logged
Quote from: Starman on April 30, 2014, 09:07:24 AM
Quote from: jroa on April 30, 2014, 09:05:37 AM
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5648 on: September 22, 2017, 08:11:00 AM »
Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 22, 2017, 08:08:35 AM
There is something curious about the gif, the building on the right seems to never slow down during the fall.  There is also a very noticeable cloud of debris ejected prior to the fall starting.  Neither of these appear to happen in that shot of wtc7 falling. Did either of these happen?

Maybe wtc 7 wasn't a garden variety demolition. Assuming it was a demolition and Newtons laws hold, maybe they didn't want it to look too obvious. This could explain why columns 79, 80, and 81 failed a few seconds before the core simultaneously failed.

Edit.
As I've said we've had this for over 20 years. Don't underestimate what they're capable of.

[Youtube][/Youtube]
« Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 08:15:00 AM by disputeone »
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 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.
*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • 17037
  • +5/-4
  • He who walks away from Omelas
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5649 on: September 22, 2017, 08:37:17 AM »
Quote from: markjo on September 22, 2017, 07:24:44 AM
It's page 189.  Are you guys any closer to the truth now than you were on page 1?

There's some interesting information every now and then.  You just have to wade through a lot of V For Vendetta memes and personal attacks to get to it.

A few months ago there was a user named MaeNaesWolf who is a structural engineer.  He added some very good insight on wtc7.

If you start here https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1887692#msg1887692 and read his posts onward he clears up a lot of the weirdness regarding how that tower fell.
Logged
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5650 on: September 22, 2017, 08:41:15 AM »
He leaves and agrees that it was a strange collapse and he understood why we thought it shouldn't have collapsed as it did.

But thats all in the link crutonius posted and his posts on this thread.

If you think this is hard to wade through you should try posting on one of the chans. ;)

Do you disagree with my assetion and evidence that the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously for the collapse we saw to be possible?
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 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.
*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5476
  • +0/-0
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5651 on: September 22, 2017, 08:42:43 AM »
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:11:00 AM
Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 22, 2017, 08:08:35 AM
There is something curious about the gif, the building on the right seems to never slow down during the fall.  There is also a very noticeable cloud of debris ejected prior to the fall starting.  Neither of these appear to happen in that shot of wtc7 falling. Did either of these happen?

Maybe wtc 7 wasn't a garden variety demolition. Assuming it was a demolition and Newtons laws hold, maybe they didn't want it to look too obvious. This could explain why columns 79, 80, and 81 failed a few seconds before the core simultaneously failed.

Edit.
As I've said we've had this for over 20 years. Don't underestimate what they're capable of.

[Youtube][/Youtube]
That could explain the speed, but what about the debris cloud before the fall?   It's kind of difficult to make that disappear.
Logged
Quote from: Starman on April 30, 2014, 09:07:24 AM
Quote from: jroa on April 30, 2014, 09:05:37 AM
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5652 on: September 22, 2017, 08:45:14 AM »
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 08:37:17 AM
Quote from: markjo on September 22, 2017, 07:24:44 AM
It's page 189.  Are you guys any closer to the truth now than you were on page 1?

There's some interesting information every now and then.  You just have to wade through a lot of V For Vendetta memes and personal attacks to get to it.

A few months ago there was a user named MaeNaesWolf who is a structural engineer.  He added some very good insight on wtc7.

If you start here https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1887692#msg1887692 and read his posts onward he clears up a lot of the weirdness regarding how that tower fell.

For reference.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 31, 2017, 12:14:38 AM



This is what the external skin looks like. These are not minor steel beams they where using to keep it together either. Godzilla would not have gotten through that. Somewhere I saw pictures of the collapsed WTC7 building rubble, you could still see pictures of the external structures still highly intact. I am not sure how this building could have fallen over unless the external structure was severed first.

edit note


This is the east elevation, west looks similar. The east and west elevations are heavily braced, more so than North and South, this is because the edison substation is below the northern facade. So the buildings moments have to be pulled back to support the large spans and overhangs on the Northern facade. This is what would have to be destroyed before the building can have a non-symmetrical collapse.
Northern face is lighter than above, and south is fairly strong, but not as stiff as east or west.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM

The collapse makes a bit more sense to me after having gotten hold of the plans.
That said, it is still a very strange collapse.
I have the manufacturers drawings, I want to look at the joints between the floor beams and the outer columns.
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.


I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

I will try respond properly after I have gone over some more stuff.
But for now I have to go.


edited because South Africa's lingo is not international
« Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 08:49:05 AM by disputeone »
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 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.
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5653 on: September 22, 2017, 08:47:32 AM »
Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 22, 2017, 08:42:43 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:11:00 AM
Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 22, 2017, 08:08:35 AM
There is something curious about the gif, the building on the right seems to never slow down during the fall.  There is also a very noticeable cloud of debris ejected prior to the fall starting.  Neither of these appear to happen in that shot of wtc7 falling. Did either of these happen?

Maybe wtc 7 wasn't a garden variety demolition. Assuming it was a demolition and Newtons laws hold, maybe they didn't want it to look too obvious. This could explain why columns 79, 80, and 81 failed a few seconds before the core simultaneously failed.

Edit.
As I've said we've had this for over 20 years. Don't underestimate what they're capable of.
That could explain the speed, but what about the debris cloud before the fall?   It's kind of difficult to make that disappear.

All I am 100% sure of is that fires didn't cause wtc 7s collapse and NISTs classified report is either fraudulent or criminally negligent. We can move forward from here.
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 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.
*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • 17037
  • +5/-4
  • He who walks away from Omelas
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5654 on: September 22, 2017, 09:43:57 AM »
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:41:15 AM
He leaves and agrees that it was a strange collapse and he understood why we thought it shouldn't have collapsed as it did.

But thats all in the link crutonius posted and his posts on this thread.

If you think this is hard to wade through you should try posting on one of the chans. ;)

Do you disagree with my assetion and evidence that the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously for the collapse we saw to be possible?

No he had a series of posts.  They're all very well informed.  The gist of it is that the outer shell was exceptionally strong but it relied on the inner structure to remain upright.  The inner and outer shell weren't particularly well connected.  So when the inner structure collapsed, which we saw with the penthouse, then the outer shell would quickly follow and fall in a more vertical fashion than what we would expect.

There could be more to it.  But if you want a rational explanation about why the fall seems symmetrical and in free fall then MaeNaesWolf's explanation is the best I've seen so far.

The more I read this thread the more evidence I see agreeing with the "official story".
Logged
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget
*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5476
  • +0/-0
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5655 on: September 22, 2017, 10:44:18 AM »
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:47:32 AM
Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 22, 2017, 08:42:43 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:11:00 AM
Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 22, 2017, 08:08:35 AM
There is something curious about the gif, the building on the right seems to never slow down during the fall.  There is also a very noticeable cloud of debris ejected prior to the fall starting.  Neither of these appear to happen in that shot of wtc7 falling. Did either of these happen?

Maybe wtc 7 wasn't a garden variety demolition. Assuming it was a demolition and Newtons laws hold, maybe they didn't want it to look too obvious. This could explain why columns 79, 80, and 81 failed a few seconds before the core simultaneously failed.

Edit.
As I've said we've had this for over 20 years. Don't underestimate what they're capable of.
That could explain the speed, but what about the debris cloud before the fall?   It's kind of difficult to make that disappear.

All I am 100% sure of is that fires didn't cause wtc 7s collapse and NISTs classified report is either fraudulent or criminally negligent. We can move forward from here.
Something had to cause the collapse. So if not fire or explosions, then what?
Logged
Quote from: Starman on April 30, 2014, 09:07:24 AM
Quote from: jroa on April 30, 2014, 09:05:37 AM
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.
*

RocketSauce

  • 1441
  • +0/-0
  • I kill penguins for fun
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5656 on: September 22, 2017, 12:54:05 PM »
nothing worse than being 100% sure about something, and still being wrong...


:(
Logged
Quote from: Every FE'r

Please don't mention Himawari 8
Quote from: sceptimatic
Impossible to have the same volume and different density.

*fact*
Extra Virgin Penguin Blood is a natural aphrodisiac
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5657 on: September 22, 2017, 03:30:01 PM »
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 09:43:57 AM
The more I read this thread the more evidence I see agreeing with the "official story".

Tell us which of Newtons laws you disagree with and why.

Quote from: RocketSauce on September 22, 2017, 12:54:05 PM
nothing worse than being 100% sure about something, and still being wrong...

Is that what you believe?
Can you debunk Newton? And save the official story?

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Please read it and respond to it.
Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.)

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.



A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

For reference Rayzor believes this debunks it. Notice he says it's "been debunked" since his first post on the topic.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Please respond to my post.

[Youtube][/youtube]
« Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 03:34:21 PM by disputeone »
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 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.
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5658 on: September 22, 2017, 03:36:50 PM »
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 09:43:57 AM
if you want a rational explanation about why the fall seems symmetrical and in free fall then MaeNaesWolf's explanation is the best I've seen so far.

Please cite where MaeNaesWolf explains the free-fall "rationally" or please stop lying.

Thanks.

Edit.

Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:45:14 AM
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 08:37:17 AM
Quote from: markjo on September 22, 2017, 07:24:44 AM
It's page 189.  Are you guys any closer to the truth now than you were on page 1?

There's some interesting information every now and then.  You just have to wade through a lot of V For Vendetta memes and personal attacks to get to it.

A few months ago there was a user named MaeNaesWolf who is a structural engineer.  He added some very good insight on wtc7.

If you start here https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1887692#msg1887692 and read his posts onward he clears up a lot of the weirdness regarding how that tower fell.

For reference.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 31, 2017, 12:14:38 AM



This is what the external skin looks like. These are not minor steel beams they where using to keep it together either. Godzilla would not have gotten through that. Somewhere I saw pictures of the collapsed WTC7 building rubble, you could still see pictures of the external structures still highly intact. I am not sure how this building could have fallen over unless the external structure was severed first.

edit note


This is the east elevation, west looks similar. The east and west elevations are heavily braced, more so than North and South, this is because the edison substation is below the northern facade. So the buildings moments have to be pulled back to support the large spans and overhangs on the Northern facade. This is what would have to be destroyed before the building can have a non-symmetrical collapse.
Northern face is lighter than above, and south is fairly strong, but not as stiff as east or west.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM

The collapse makes a bit more sense to me after having gotten hold of the plans.
That said, it is still a very strange collapse.
I have the manufacturers drawings, I want to look at the joints between the floor beams and the outer columns.
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.


I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

I will try respond properly after I have gone over some more stuff.
But for now I have to go.


edited because South Africa's lingo is not international

The entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously to make a symmetrical free-fall possible

Fires cannot cause this.

Q.E.D.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 03:45:56 PM by disputeone »
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 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.
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5659 on: September 22, 2017, 03:50:00 PM »
Now, kindly debubk Principia Mathematica and show us why Newtons laws didn't apply to wtc 7 and why the entire core failed instantly if it was caused by ordinary office fires.

If not then do more research and homework.
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 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.
*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • 17037
  • +5/-4
  • He who walks away from Omelas
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5660 on: September 22, 2017, 04:02:14 PM »
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 03:36:50 PM
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 09:43:57 AM
if you want a rational explanation about why the fall seems symmetrical and in free fall then MaeNaesWolf's explanation is the best I've seen so far.

Please cite where MaeNaesWolf explains the free-fall "rationally" or please stop lying.

Thanks.

Edit.

Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:45:14 AM
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 08:37:17 AM
Quote from: markjo on September 22, 2017, 07:24:44 AM
It's page 189.  Are you guys any closer to the truth now than you were on page 1?

There's some interesting information every now and then.  You just have to wade through a lot of V For Vendetta memes and personal attacks to get to it.

A few months ago there was a user named MaeNaesWolf who is a structural engineer.  He added some very good insight on wtc7.

If you start here https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1887692#msg1887692 and read his posts onward he clears up a lot of the weirdness regarding how that tower fell.

For reference.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 31, 2017, 12:14:38 AM



This is what the external skin looks like. These are not minor steel beams they where using to keep it together either. Godzilla would not have gotten through that. Somewhere I saw pictures of the collapsed WTC7 building rubble, you could still see pictures of the external structures still highly intact. I am not sure how this building could have fallen over unless the external structure was severed first.

edit note


This is the east elevation, west looks similar. The east and west elevations are heavily braced, more so than North and South, this is because the edison substation is below the northern facade. So the buildings moments have to be pulled back to support the large spans and overhangs on the Northern facade. This is what would have to be destroyed before the building can have a non-symmetrical collapse.
Northern face is lighter than above, and south is fairly strong, but not as stiff as east or west.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM

The collapse makes a bit more sense to me after having gotten hold of the plans.
That said, it is still a very strange collapse.
I have the manufacturers drawings, I want to look at the joints between the floor beams and the outer columns.
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.


I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

I will try respond properly after I have gone over some more stuff.
But for now I have to go.


edited because South Africa's lingo is not international

The entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously to make a symmetrical free-fall possible

Fires cannot cause this.

Q.E.D.

Emotional reactions like this are why I avoid this thread.  On a rage scale of 1 to 10 I'm at about a 3 right now.  You seem to be at 11.

Maybe that's just the resting anger level of this thread.  Maybe you're mistaking me for Razor or something.  But if you're going to react to everything I have to say like then I'm not sure how useful a discussion is. 

As it stands MaNaeSWolf has an explanation that fits the fact, the best credentials of anyone on this thread and his contribution seems to be impartial. 

What am I missing here?  And please, take some time to calm down before you respond.
Logged
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5661 on: September 22, 2017, 04:08:36 PM »
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 04:02:14 PM
As it stands MaNaeSWolf has an explanation that fits the fact

I'm calm.

Please cite where MaeNaeSWolf "explained" the free-fall. If you cant cite what you claim then please retract it.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search

This is what he actually said.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

Edit. 1.
I just like Honesty Crutonius, that's all. If you have a quote please present it so we can see it and consider the information in it.

If no such quote exists please retract your claim and apologise.

Again.
This is what he actually said.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

Edit. 2.
No rush I've got all day man.

Edit.
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 04:57:58 PM by disputeone »
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 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.
*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • +3/-1
  • Standard Idiot
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5662 on: September 22, 2017, 05:09:38 PM »
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 04:08:36 PM

I just like Honesty Crutonius, that's all.



You are a self proclaimed liar.




I am Bullwinkle.
I am reason.
I forgive.
I forget.
I'll call if I'm going to be late.
Logged
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5663 on: September 22, 2017, 05:11:27 PM »
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 22, 2017, 05:09:38 PM

Please keep this thread on topic and your personal attacks to yourself.

No rush Crutonius.
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 04:02:14 PM
As it stands MaNaeSWolf has the best credentials of anyone on this thread and his contribution seems to be impartial. 

What am I missing here?

Ok Firstly he was very impartial and a pleasure to debate with. You can see this in our exchanges. Bhs also enjoyed debating with someone who knew what they were talking about.

Secondly I have shown that he merely offered a possible explanation of why the collapse was symmetrical. No explanation was given for the free-fall. As has been said since page one the symmetry and fall acceleration of wtc 7 combined are our smoking gun.

Thirdly Hulseys qualifications smash Wolfs, no disrespect intended Wolf you are a gentleman and a scholar.

http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people/leroy-hulsey.aspx
http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/

Most of all. You are claiming Wolf said things he didn't say. That is the reason I used large bold text.

I'd like you to retract your statement when you are ready.

Cheers.
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 05:13:01 PM by disputeone »
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 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.
*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • +3/-1
  • Standard Idiot
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5664 on: September 22, 2017, 05:14:16 PM »
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 05:11:27 PM


Please keep this thread on topic and your personal attacks to yourself.



You are a self proclaimed liar.




I am Bullwinkle.
I am reason.
I forgive.
I forget.
I'll call if I'm going to be late.
Logged
*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • 17037
  • +5/-4
  • He who walks away from Omelas
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5665 on: September 22, 2017, 05:15:34 PM »
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 04:08:36 PM
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 04:02:14 PM
As it stands MaNaeSWolf has an explanation that fits the fact

I'm calm.

Please cite where MaeNaeSWolf "explained" the free-fall. If you cant cite what you claim then please retract it.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search

This is what he actually said.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

Edit. 1.
I just like Honesty Crutonius, that's all. If you have a quote please present it so we can see it and consider the information in it.

If no such quote exists please retract your claim and apologise.

Again.
This is what he actually said.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

Edit. 2.
No rush I've got all day man.

Edit.
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

You don't have free fall, you have something that vaguely seems like free fall on a fuzzy camcorder recorded nearly 20 years ago.

The outer shell was rigid enough to hold while the inner structure collapsed.  Without the inner structure to hold it the outer shell would then collapse much faster than we would expect.

Now that I've proven your claims on wtc7 wrong beyond any reasonable doubt I think it's time for you to retract your claims about controlled demolition on it and apologize to razor and everyone else you've been attacking for disagreeing with you.  It's been a fun 200 pages but it's time for you to be a man and apologize to the people you've slandered.
Logged
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget
*

Bom Tishop

  • 11247
  • +12/-7
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5666 on: September 22, 2017, 05:16:17 PM »
The reason I enjoyed speaking with wolf is one, he knew what he was talking about so we could talk honestly and quickly... excluding a few differences in terms because of him working in Africa.

Two, he came to support the official story and believed it (though admitted he never really looked into it)..so we spoke honestly, with no ad hominems or personal attacks..he honestly looked at what the official story said with the design of the buildings and began to question the whole thing. He left feeling very uneasy about the whole thing...He knows it's impossible, but it is a tough pill to swallow.

I was an official story believer at one point too, I actually was converted when I was doing a project in college trying to support the official fairy tale. It's a tough pill to swallow, I knew the government didn't care about the people, but I didn't know they hated is that much.

Even if he came back and disagreed and supported the official story, I would have no beef with him. He took an honest look and made his conclusion....though I think we know by his uneasy actions how he feels about it...

So this goes back to

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 22, 2017, 01:25:42 AM
Let's see....I will trust my expensive education, over a decade of experience, 100k software, others education, experience and software that dwarfs mine over a "report" that the creators called rigged and "unsupported"...don't forget the 1000s of pages that were removed....

Yet the "truthers" are the crazy ones....

I am very surprised by some of the people's comments in this thread, and I am not talking about the usual Rayzor/symptom/user nonsense.
Logged
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 #5667 on: September 22, 2017, 05:32:10 PM »
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 05:15:34 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 04:08:36 PM
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 04:02:14 PM
As it stands MaNaeSWolf has an explanation that fits the fact

I'm calm.

Please cite where MaeNaeSWolf "explained" the free-fall. If you cant cite what you claim then please retract it.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search

This is what he actually said.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

Edit. 1.
I just like Honesty Crutonius, that's all. If you have a quote please present it so we can see it and consider the information in it.

If no such quote exists please retract your claim and apologise.

Again.
This is what he actually said.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

Edit. 2.
No rush I've got all day man.

Edit.
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

You don't have free fall, you have something that vaguely seems like free fall on a fuzzy camcorder recorded nearly 20 years ago.

The outer shell was rigid enough to hold while the inner structure collapsed.  Without the inner structure to hold it the outer shell would then collapse much faster than we would expect.

Now that I've proven your claims on wtc7 wrong beyond any reasonable doubt I think it's time for you to retract your claims about controlled demolition on it and apologize to razor and everyone else you've been attacking for disagreeing with you.  It's been a fun 200 pages but it's time for you to be a man and apologize to the people you've slandered.

Ive been trying to not use any personal attacks and just use logic and speak the truth.

Rayzor is a shill. I am 75% sure you are too. This is more than fear and cognitive dissonance. What you are doing is intentional it is too much of a councidence you jump in after I got Rauzor in checkmate This post directly debunks your assertions.

Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 09:43:57 AM
The more I read this thread the more evidence I see agreeing with the "official story".

Tell us which of Newtons laws you disagree with and why.

Quote from: RocketSauce on September 22, 2017, 12:54:05 PM
nothing worse than being 100% sure about something, and still being wrong...

Is that what you believe?
Can you debunk Newton? And save the official story?

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Please read it and respond to it.
Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.)

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.



A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

For reference Rayzor believes this debunks it. Notice he says it's "been debunked" since his first post on the topic.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Please respond to my post.

[Youtube][/youtube]
« Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 05:34:23 PM by disputeone »
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 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.
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5668 on: September 22, 2017, 05:36:31 PM »
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 05:15:34 PM
You don't have free fall,

Do your homework please.

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation
Quote
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 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.
*

disputeone

  • 28036
  • +112/-112
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #5669 on: September 22, 2017, 05:37:33 PM »
Repost.

Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 05:15:34 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 04:08:36 PM
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 04:02:14 PM
As it stands MaNaeSWolf has an explanation that fits the fact

I'm calm.

Please cite where MaeNaeSWolf "explained" the free-fall. If you cant cite what you claim then please retract it.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search

This is what he actually said.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

Edit. 1.
I just like Honesty Crutonius, that's all. If you have a quote please present it so we can see it and consider the information in it.

If no such quote exists please retract your claim and apologise.

Again.
This is what he actually said.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

Edit. 2.
No rush I've got all day man.

Edit.
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

You don't have free fall, you have something that vaguely seems like free fall on a fuzzy camcorder recorded nearly 20 years ago.

The outer shell was rigid enough to hold while the inner structure collapsed.  Without the inner structure to hold it the outer shell would then collapse much faster than we would expect.

Now that I've proven your claims on wtc7 wrong beyond any reasonable doubt I think it's time for you to retract your claims about controlled demolition on it and apologize to razor and everyone else you've been attacking for disagreeing with you.  It's been a fun 200 pages but it's time for you to be a man and apologize to the people you've slandered.

Ive been trying to not use any personal attacks and just use logic and speak the truth.

Rayzor is a shill. I am 75% sure you are too. This is more than fear and cognitive dissonance. What you are doing is intentional it is too much of a coincidence you jump in after I got Rayzor in checkmate This post directly debunks your assertions.

Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 09:43:57 AM
The more I read this thread the more evidence I see agreeing with the "official story".

Tell us which of Newtons laws you disagree with and why.

Quote from: RocketSauce on September 22, 2017, 12:54:05 PM
nothing worse than being 100% sure about something, and still being wrong...

Is that what you believe?
Can you debunk Newton? And save the official story?

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Please read it and respond to it.
Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.)

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.



A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

For reference Rayzor believes this debunks it. Notice he says it's "been debunked" since his first post on the topic.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Please respond to my post.

[Youtube][/youtube]
Logged
Quote from: Crouton on July 15, 2024, 05:37:14 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.
Pages: 1 ... 187 188 [189] 190 191 ... 229   Go Up
« previous next »