Total Members Voted: 23
Voting closed: March 06, 2017, 10:56:40 PM
7/10 shilling.Please cite the post explaining why wtc 7 fell at free-fall.If such a post exists and you are not lying.Just cite it.tShould be easy.
I'm anti-judaism.
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.
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 PMNo 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 AMQuote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AMQuote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AMQuote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AMYou 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 PMQuote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PMQuote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PMWe'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.htmlAh, 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 AMThats 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 PMWe 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
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 AMQuote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AMQuote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AMQuote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AMYou 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 PMQuote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PMQuote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PMWe'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.htmlAh, 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 AMThats 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.
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AMQuote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AMQuote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AMYou 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 PMQuote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PMQuote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PMWe'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.htmlAh, 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: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AMQuote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AMYou 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 PMQuote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PMQuote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PMWe'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
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AMYou still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PMQuote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PMWe'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
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PMWe'll soon see about that.Yes, Hulsey's simultaneous collapse theory. What a joke.
We'll soon see about that.
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.
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?
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PMQuote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PMWhat caused the core to collapse at free-fallOpposed 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, 07:35:45 PMWhat caused the core to collapse at free-fallOpposed to hovering in place?
What caused the core to collapse at free-fall
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PMQuote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PMWhen 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]
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PMWhen the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.
Quote from: sokarul on September 24, 2017, 07:10:03 PMUnbalanced forces are a problem aren't they.Please elaborate on what you mean by unbalanced forces. Using the information in your short post it's hard to understand your meaning.http://study.com/academy/lesson/unbalanced-force-definition-example-quiz.htmlSeems like you're on the right track, keep researching.QuoteUnbalanced forces are forces that cause a change in the motion of an object.Very good.Now this article shows us why a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of wtc 7 is impossible.QuoteAny push or pull is a force. To describe a force, you must know two things. You must know the size of the force and the direction of the force. Suppose two teams are playing tug of war. Each team is pulling with equal force, but in opposite directions. Neither team can make the other team move. Forces that are equal in size but opposite in direction are called balanced forces.Newtons third does debunk the idea of a fire induced natural collapse of wtc 7, no doubt about that.QuoteIf two forces are in opposite directions, then the net force is the difference between the two forces, and it is in the direction of the larger force. Consider two dogs playing tug of war with a short piece of rope. Each is exerting a force, but in opposite directions.So we could look at gravitational potential energy, inertia and structural resistance to calculate the predicted fall acceleration of wtc 7 if the NIST conclusions were correct and the collapse was progressive starting with the failure of column 79 on floor 13.Spoiler.It isnt 2.25 seconds of very close to 9.8m/s2.If I'm going to put in the effort show me it's worth it.
Unbalanced forces are a problem aren't they.
Unbalanced forces are forces that cause a change in the motion of an object.
Any push or pull is a force. To describe a force, you must know two things. You must know the size of the force and the direction of the force. Suppose two teams are playing tug of war. Each team is pulling with equal force, but in opposite directions. Neither team can make the other team move. Forces that are equal in size but opposite in direction are called balanced forces.
If two forces are in opposite directions, then the net force is the difference between the two forces, and it is in the direction of the larger force. Consider two dogs playing tug of war with a short piece of rope. Each is exerting a force, but in opposite directions.
If you cannot cite what you claim please dont make the claim in the future.Thanks.
Quote from: disputeone on October 31, 2017, 07:03:46 PMIf you cannot cite what you claim please dont make the claim in the future.Thanks.So, not allowed to express an opinion...ok, got it.
After I was harrassed by symptom about it. This thread is about 9/11.Specifically how the entire core of wtc 7 had to fail simultaneously to match observations which is incompatible with the NIST report.You are correct in asserting the rules aren't enforced.
Quote from: disputeone on October 30, 2017, 06:08:08 AMAfter I was harrassed by symptom about it. This thread is about 9/11.Specifically how the entire core of wtc 7 had to fail simultaneously to match observations which is incompatible with the NIST report.You are correct in asserting the rules aren't enforced.Lol, "harrassed".
Harasstransitive v. To irritate or torment persistently.transitive v. To wear out; exhaust.transitive v. To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.
Quote from: Symptom on November 01, 2017, 08:12:33 PMQuote from: disputeone on October 30, 2017, 06:08:08 AMAfter I was harrassed by symptom about it. This thread is about 9/11.Specifically how the entire core of wtc 7 had to fail simultaneously to match observations which is incompatible with the NIST report.You are correct in asserting the rules aren't enforced.Lol, "harrassed". >what is asking the same question in every thread a user posts in regardless of the topic after they already answered?QuoteHarasstransitive v. To irritate or torment persistently.transitive v. To wear out; exhaust.transitive v. To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.
5. Flaming and Harassment Do not use insulting or denigrating personal attacks against other members. Harassment or bullying of other members is forbidden.
6. Profanity Do not use excessive profanity, or create threads with profane titles.
7. Troublemaking Do not post or behave in a manner obviously intended to start a fight, get a reaction, or cause problems (e.g. making facetious complaints, adjusting/creating a profile so as to impersonate other members, etc.).
8. Low-content Posting/Derailment Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.
A fair few.
Yeah never bothered keeping count.
More times than you've had sex with a woman that wanted you.
Turtles
Beware the Turtles!