View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

9/11 debate on C2C I consulted on for Richard Gage

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby ProfWag » 20 Jul 2010, 02:51

stundie wrote:Sorry Edx but attributing quotes from firefighters to make out the building was a raging inferno when there is no video or photographic evidence to support this position is not ignoring it. lol

How can you say "...there is no video or photographic evidence to support this position...?" I'm assuming you didn't watch the video I posted? I don't blame you, I don't like videos either, but you won't need the sound on and, if you want to be quick about it, just start at 3:40 and watch the last 15 seconds.

Please, again, explain your position that there is no video evidence to support the building was a raging inferno.
Thanks
Wag
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby ProfWag » 20 Jul 2010, 02:58

Chemist wrote:
Sorry Edx, but verinage works on a 50/50 divide and even though it has been pointed out twice to you, you keep on fooling yourself that one portion is much larger than the other for it to be a comparator. lol


Sigh!

Looks like we need a math lesson since stundie doesn't understand the difference between dynamic load and static load:

Consider the average height of a story to be about 4 meters.

Therefore it takes about 0.9 seconds for any falling object from rest to fall 4 meters using the free fall equation:

d = 0.5 g · t^2

At which time, the velocity will be about 9m/s
according to the equation:

v=g·t

Now how much force is involved to crush a story to about half a meter into dust?

Well, while it's crushing the floor and being resisted, velocity must decrease. We go from 9 m/s to zero in half a meter, or 1/18 of a second.

During this time average velocity turns out to be half of the initial velocity, so the crunch time is 1/9 second. So the acceleration is -9 m/sec divided by 1/9 sec = -81 m/sec2, which works out to be 8 g's of force if you know your physics.

That means every story above the collapse zone is going to feel like 8 stories when it's moving. So in the case of the North tower, with ten stories above the impact zone, it will feel like 80 stories. Which is very close to the height of the entire building. And things look even worse for the south tower. 25 stories will feel like 200 stories, or the force of almost two towers!

Do you think the lower structure can resist those forces? If you do, stundie, I have some ocean-front property in Iowa to sell you.

And this is on the conservative side (assuming a one-story drop). The impact zones seem to be a few stories in height. Why don't you plug 12 meters into those equations and let me know what you get, eh?

And let's keep in mind that you don't need to "crush" the stories underneath, the building is mostly air. You just need to stress them until the rivets and welds break (which should be only a few millimeters deformation) and then THAT floor turns into a free falling object adding it's mass to the collapsing floors and bearing down on the remaining stories.

By the time you get to ground level, you are feeling forces 100's of times larger than a free standing building.

So no, you DON'T need a 50/50 divide.

Stay in school, kids!

Logic is a wonderful thing. Wish I had your math skills Chemist!
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Chemist » 20 Jul 2010, 03:05

What puzzles me about the truthers position is that I had assumed that the general public knows how steel reacts in a fire. That's why we insulate it in buildings and other structures.

Here's another recent example of what happens to steel in fire started by fuel and raging out of control. It's the I-580 bridge collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp69PmhE ... L&index=11
Chemist
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Jul 2010, 05:13

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Chemist » 20 Jul 2010, 03:09

Logic is a wonderful thing. Wish I had your math skills Chemist!


High praise coming from a professor
Chemist
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Jul 2010, 05:13

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 20 Jul 2010, 03:44

Edx wrote:No it doesnt, you didnt watch to the end of the video I gave you.
I watched the whole of the video.
Edx wrote:You can clearly see that there's about 3 to 4 floors crushing at least 13 with ease and falls in "near free fall speeds".
No there isn't...lol
Edx wrote:Why didnt the bottom resist the top half?
Because you are making it up. lol
Edx wrote:You still havent explained why you think one floor can hold up the entire weight of the upper block once the weight has misaligned and is no longer being supported by load bearing connections.
I haven't explained it because I have never argued that one floor can do this?? lol
Edx wrote:Forget it, others can understand.
Of course, only you and the debunkers understand it yet everyone else is just too stupid.
Edx wrote:Find any firefighter on 911, the only example you could give is Schroeder who didnt even know that the South Tower collapsed first.
Sorry but I don't do desperate debunking by using logical fallacies such as appealing to the masses. lol
Edx wrote:You pick a small fraction of the collapse time and then claim the entire thing fell in free fall, you are dishonest.
Seeing as you can't find an example of where I claim the ENTIRE BUILDING FELL IN FREE FALL, then you are the one being dishonest.

Especially when you consider that in my very 1st post on this thread to Scecop I said that the only building which I think fell at NEAR FREE FALL was WTC 7!! lol
Edx wrote:They did not fall in free fall, only a small fraction fell in free fall.
I know, you keep repeating this even though it was me that pointed this out to you debunkers.
Edx wrote:Why do you think free fall matters?
Because there is no resistance,.
Edx wrote: Does that mean WTC 1 and 2 arent demolitions because they didnt collapse in free fall?
No because the WTC 1 & 2 were demolished differently, that is why the collapses look different. Although according to your logic, all building collapses look the same or something?? lol
Edx wrote:You are so set on free fall here claiming it proves explosives, but then you also claim WTC1 and 2 were demolitions so where is the free fall there?
Unless you can think of any other way a building can fall at free fall speeds, then I'm all ears.

Now I know you want to include WTC 1 & 2 into the equation to help you get out of answer my tricky question but it's not working. lol
Edx wrote:Verinage fits exactly with those firefighter descriptions of the collapses describing pancaking floors.
Pancaking?? hahahahahahahaha!!

You need to get your groupthink updated. There was no pancakes!! lol
Edx wrote:What we dont see on any videos anywhere on 911 are any sounds of all these steel flinging and pulverising that is meant to be occurring in the collapses yet such things can easily be heard on any ACTUAL explosive demolition.
Looking for reason to ignore and deny the fact the building fell at free fall speeds (for 2 seconds!) doesn't actually help your cause. lol
Edx wrote:See, you're being dishonest. I never said it looked exactly like one, I said thats what a building resembles when it collapses.
Building do not collapse straight down unless they have been brought down via demolitions.
Edx wrote:But if you look any closer its clearly very very different.
No it's not! lol
Edx wrote:One of the main characteristics of an explosives demolition is that of HUGE earth shaking explosive detonations.
That is a typical demolition but just because that is how they are typically done, doesn't mean the WTC were done this way.
Edx wrote:Yet, you claim that there was even more intense explosives on 911 flinging steel around which isnt even used in normal demolitions, yet we cant hear these detonations in any videos of the collapses.
I think you are confusing me with Richard Gage and you cherry picked video. lol
Edx wrote:The firefighters SAID it was a raging inferno, again this means they are stupid, incompetent, delusional or liars. Take your pick.
Or mistaken seeing as there is no video or photographic evidence at any point showing the building to be a raging inferno. lol
Edx wrote:And once again explosions doesnt necessarily mean bomb.
I know it doesn't. But it doesn't mean we rule out the possibility until we have a source for the explosion.
Edx wrote: And since you seemed to accept there were plenty of others sources for "explosions" that people could have heard, then its your burden to prove that these were - specifically - explosIVES rather than anything else.
Ahh but you are the one who claims it is NOT explosions so the burden of proof is on you. Me on the other than accept it could be explosions or something else. I do not know for sure but what I don't do is what you fake debunkers do and CLAIM they are explosions but CLAIM they are something else.
Edx wrote:The fact that no one had any blast injuries at all and the fact that truthers dont give a crap about even trying to find out says it all.
HAHAHAHAHA!! You and this blast injuries even though its been pointed out to you time and time again it doesn't prove anything.

And if truthers don't give a crap, why are they the only ones who demand a new investigation while morons like you claim there is no need because you have the answers to all things 9/11?? lol

Talk about irony....lol
Edx wrote:I disproved you and you move the goal posts and dont admit you were wrong.
I haven't moved any goal posts. lol [/quote]

You said that no one said they were misquoted, you said no one was taken out of context and you said no one realised later what it was. You were wrong, I showed you where.

Edx wrote:You dont need to know that.
I do need to know......lol Thats the whole blank point right there mate! lol
Edx wrote:There's plenty of things that could cause someone to describe it as an explosion, Ive given you loads of examples.
Of course there is, but do we then conclude that this = no explosion?? lol

Because that's your position. lol
Edx wrote:People in the Empire State Building described a elevator cable snapped as "like gunfire", does that mean gun fire should be looked into?
Well did anyone get knocked over by the gunfire?? Did the empire state building collapse??

I didn't think so! lol
Edx wrote: Or how about that giant crane collapsing being described as "like two explosions?" [/qoute]That didn't sound like an explosions to me. lol
Edx wrote:If you had ANYONE that has blast injuries that would go a long way to proving your point and yet no one sustained any blast injuries, no one found any explosive damage to the columns, no one found any explosive remains.
That is because no one looked for explosives.
Edx wrote:If you want to say that what people experienced was specifically an explosive rather than the multitude of other things it could be then the burden of proof is yours.
It could be an explosion, it could be something else.

But you are the one who wants to say that people didn't experience an explosion but rather something else without any burden of proof. So until you have some evidence, then we can't rule out explosives as a possibility.

No matter how much you cry about it. lol
Edx wrote:Just because you put "lol" at the end of all your comments doesnt make you look smart it makes you look stupid. :lol:
I never declared it made me look smart or stupid, I just put them on the end to convey how I feel this conversation is going.

The debunking is nothing short of a joke and your debunking makes you look stupid! lol
Edx wrote:Firstly no other video of controlled demolitions seem to have this problem of the mic "overloading" to the point where you cant hear anything.
That is because the video and the mics are set to capture the explosions. lol
Edx wrote:Secondly, if these explosions start from above then you should be able to hear the explosions 110 stories up quite easily in the videos of the collapses before it gets so loud that, according to you, it overloads this mic.
That depends on the location of the video in relation to the towers and the size of the explosives.
Edx wrote: Again, this never happened either. Thirdly, you have multiple cameras in multiple positions all over the place and no one caught any such explosive detonations on tape.
That is because most of them are overloaded with the sound of the rumble of the collapse.
Edx wrote:Lastly, these explosives are meant to be much more intense that a normal demolition, normal demolitions aren't trying to fling steel around. So that means they should be even louder.
[/quote]Who said they were "more intense!" oh that's right I didn't.

You are fighting with the figments of your imagination again aren't you Edx?? lol :lol:
Last edited by stundie on 20 Jul 2010, 03:52, edited 1 time in total.
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 20 Jul 2010, 03:46

Edx wrote:In fact it started even earlier than that because you can see internal collapses proceeding up the east side below the penthouse before the penthouse collapses, indicating massive internal collapse of floors.
hahahahahaha!! How did you see the internal collapses?? X-Ray vision!! lol

A stundie nomination if I ever saw one! lol
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 20 Jul 2010, 03:51

Chemist wrote:
Sorry Edx, but verinage works on a 50/50 divide and even though it has been pointed out twice to you, you keep on fooling yourself that one portion is much larger than the other for it to be a comparator. lol


Sigh!

Looks like we need a math lesson since stundie doesn't understand the difference between dynamic load and static load:

Consider the average height of a story to be about 4 meters.

Therefore it takes about 0.9 seconds for any falling object from rest to fall 4 meters using the free fall equation:

d = 0.5 g · t^2

At which time, the velocity will be about 9m/s
according to the equation:

v=g·t

Now how much force is involved to crush a story to about half a meter into dust?

Well, while it's crushing the floor and being resisted, velocity must decrease. We go from 9 m/s to zero in half a meter, or 1/18 of a second.

During this time average velocity turns out to be half of the initial velocity, so the crunch time is 1/9 second. So the acceleration is -9 m/sec divided by 1/9 sec = -81 m/sec2, which works out to be 8 g's of force if you know your physics.

That means every story above the collapse zone is going to feel like 8 stories when it's moving. So in the case of the North tower, with ten stories above the impact zone, it will feel like 80 stories. Which is very close to the height of the entire building. And things look even worse for the south tower. 25 stories will feel like 200 stories, or the force of almost two towers!

Do you think the lower structure can resist those forces? If you do, stundie, I have some ocean-front property in Iowa to sell you.

And this is on the conservative side (assuming a one-story drop). The impact zones seem to be a few stories in height. Why don't you plug 12 meters into those equations and let me know what you get, eh?

And let's keep in mind that you don't need to "crush" the stories underneath, the building is mostly air. You just need to stress them until the rivets and welds break (which should be only a few millimeters deformation) and then THAT floor turns into a free falling object adding it's mass to the collapsing floors and bearing down on the remaining stories.

By the time you get to ground level, you are feeling forces 100's of times larger than a free standing building.

So no, you DON'T need a 50/50 divide.

Stay in school, kids!
I tell you what Mr Chemist lets keep this simple.

We have 2 trucks and there heading for a 70mph head on collision.

Truck 1 is 10 ft long with a cabin for the driver right at the back.
Truck 2 is 90 ft long with a cabin for the driver right at the back.

Seeing as I'm a gentleman, I would prefer to drive truck 2 but seeing as I'm a gentleman, I'll let you choose.

Which truck would you want to drive and why?? lol
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby ProfWag » 20 Jul 2010, 03:52

Chemist wrote:
Logic is a wonderful thing. Wish I had your math skills Chemist!


High praise coming from a professor

I'm a management professor. Ask me how to properly use a SWOT analysis to increase profit, which contingency theory to use for a given situation, or how to formulate an ishikawa diagram and I'd be all over it.
Math, on the other hand, well...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 20 Jul 2010, 03:55

ProfWag wrote:
stundie wrote:Sorry Edx but attributing quotes from firefighters to make out the building was a raging inferno when there is no video or photographic evidence to support this position is not ignoring it. lol

How can you say "...there is no video or photographic evidence to support this position...?" I'm assuming you didn't watch the video I posted? I don't blame you, I don't like videos either, but you won't need the sound on and, if you want to be quick about it, just start at 3:40 and watch the last 15 seconds.

Please, again, explain your position that there is no video evidence to support the building was a raging inferno.
Thanks
Wag
I can't watch the last 15 seconds at 3:40 seeing as the video is 3:47 long. lol

I looked at the video and we can see a close up of two floors on fire on the corners?

2 floor out of 47 = Raging inferno......lol

How is that a raging inferno?? lol
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 20 Jul 2010, 03:57

So any of you debunkers going to address the question I posed??

How does a building have no resistance from a fire/single column failure collapse??

I know you want to avoid addressing the issue by burying it with many other pointless points, but it's not going away and seeing as you support the official story, it should be easy for you to explain.......lol

p.s. Don't do that stupid debunker thing of claiming it as already been explained because it hasn't! lol
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby ProfWag » 20 Jul 2010, 04:00

stundie wrote:Seeing as you can't find an example of where I claim the ENTIRE BUILDING FELL IN FREE FALL, then you are the one being dishonest.

Had you read my post on the previous page stundie? Probably not, but this is a reminder...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 20 Jul 2010, 04:04

ProfWag wrote:
stundie wrote:Seeing as you can't find an example of where I claim the ENTIRE BUILDING FELL IN FREE FALL, then you are the one being dishonest.

Had you read my post on the previous page stundie? Probably not, but this is a reminder...
Seeing as you were the one who asked me to source where the building fell at free fall speeds for 2 seconds and I pointed to the NIST, what did you do?? lol

You claimed that the building fell at 40% slower than free fall!! hahahahahahahahahaha!!

And then when I pointed out to you that you were looking at Stage 1 of the NIST collapse in which it accelerated 40% slower than free fall and that in stage 2 they said it fell at free fall speeds, you know want to claim that I have argued and claimed that the ENTIRE BUILDING FELL IN FREE FALL?? :shock:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

This debunking of your is truly pathetic.

Care to address how your theory explained the free fall speeds??

p.s. for 2.25 seconds of course!!
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby ProfWag » 20 Jul 2010, 04:18

stundie wrote:
ProfWag wrote:
stundie wrote:Seeing as you can't find an example of where I claim the ENTIRE BUILDING FELL IN FREE FALL, then you are the one being dishonest.

Had you read my post on the previous page stundie? Probably not, but this is a reminder...
Seeing as you were the one who asked me to source where the building fell at free fall speeds for 2 seconds and I pointed to the NIST, what did you do?? lol

You claimed that the building fell at 40% slower than free fall!! hahahahahahahahahaha!!

And then when I pointed out to you that you were looking at Stage 1 of the NIST collapse in which it accelerated 40% slower than free fall and that in stage 2 they said it fell at free fall speeds, you know want to claim that I have argued and claimed that the ENTIRE BUILDING FELL IN FREE FALL?? :shock:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

This debunking of your is truly pathetic.

Care to address how your theory explained the free fall speeds??

p.s. for 2.25 seconds of course!!

So you won't admit that you did say the entire building fell in free fall, even though I have shown at least 3 different quotes from you saying it did. At least you could admit that your comments were misleading. Unless, of course, you stand by your statements as is...
Oh, and it is not my "theory."
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Chemist » 20 Jul 2010, 04:37

stundie wrote:
Chemist wrote:
Sorry Edx, but verinage works on a 50/50 divide and even though it has been pointed out twice to you, you keep on fooling yourself that one portion is much larger than the other for it to be a comparator. lol


Sigh!

Looks like we need a math lesson since stundie doesn't understand the difference between dynamic load and static load:

Consider the average height of a story to be about 4 meters.

Therefore it takes about 0.9 seconds for any falling object from rest to fall 4 meters using the free fall equation:

d = 0.5 g · t^2

At which time, the velocity will be about 9m/s
according to the equation:

v=g·t

Now how much force is involved to crush a story to about half a meter into dust?

Well, while it's crushing the floor and being resisted, velocity must decrease. We go from 9 m/s to zero in half a meter, or 1/18 of a second.

During this time average velocity turns out to be half of the initial velocity, so the crunch time is 1/9 second. So the acceleration is -9 m/sec divided by 1/9 sec = -81 m/sec2, which works out to be 8 g's of force if you know your physics.

That means every story above the collapse zone is going to feel like 8 stories when it's moving. So in the case of the North tower, with ten stories above the impact zone, it will feel like 80 stories. Which is very close to the height of the entire building. And things look even worse for the south tower. 25 stories will feel like 200 stories, or the force of almost two towers!

Do you think the lower structure can resist those forces? If you do, stundie, I have some ocean-front property in Iowa to sell you.

And this is on the conservative side (assuming a one-story drop). The impact zones seem to be a few stories in height. Why don't you plug 12 meters into those equations and let me know what you get, eh?

And let's keep in mind that you don't need to "crush" the stories underneath, the building is mostly air. You just need to stress them until the rivets and welds break (which should be only a few millimeters deformation) and then THAT floor turns into a free falling object adding it's mass to the collapsing floors and bearing down on the remaining stories.

By the time you get to ground level, you are feeling forces 100's of times larger than a free standing building.

So no, you DON'T need a 50/50 divide.

Stay in school, kids!
I tell you what Mr Chemist lets keep this simple.

We have 2 trucks and there heading for a 70mph head on collision.

Truck 1 is 10 ft long with a cabin for the driver right at the back.
Truck 2 is 90 ft long with a cabin for the driver right at the back.

Seeing as I'm a gentleman, I would prefer to drive truck 2 but seeing as I'm a gentleman, I'll let you choose.

Which truck would you want to drive and why?? lol


False analogy.

Your example is negating the force of gravity which is constantly pulling and accelerating things downwards at a constant rate. Plus, you're two trucks aren't nearly as massive as the twin towers, so your analogy suffers from these apparent orders of magnitude.

Your truck example involves two object traveling at a constant velocity. That isn't how it works when it comes to gravity.

What? Math too hard for you?
Chemist
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Jul 2010, 05:13

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 20 Jul 2010, 04:38

I have always maintained that WTC 7 fell at near free fall speeds and it fell at free fall speeds for 2.25 seconds. This is what the videos show us and the conclusion of the NIST. This is was par of the premise of my 1st post here to Scecop.

What you have done is rather than agreeing that this has always been my position, what you are doing is changing the tactic by suggesting that I am misleading by saying that because it fell at free fall for 2.25 seconds, then I am therefore claiming the entire building fell at free fall when I have never once suggested this to avoid answer MY QUESTION which you keep skirting around with pointless rants.

If you believe I think that the WTC 7 fell at free fall then it is you that is misled and are arguing with yourself. lol

Now when are you going address the issue of the 2.25 second of free fall against the theory that is not yours, but you appear to support very strongly to the point you objected and hilariously denied that there was any free fall because it was 40% slower according to you, until the flaw was pointed out to you of coursr with no reconciliation of that fact? lol
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron