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 stundie » 20 Jul 2010, 04:56

Chemist wrote:False analogy.
And how did I know this, make the trucks vertically, beautifully by this guy showing us dumbass twoofers cause we can't use common sense! lol

Chemist wrote:Your example is negating the force of gravity which is constantly pulling and accelerating things downwards at a constant rate.
Well spin it around and apply it then if it makes that much of a difference to the outcome. lol
Chemist wrote:Plus, you're two trucks aren't nearly as massive as the twin towers, so your analogy suffers from these apparent orders of magnitude.
Well apply the scale you need no doubt invoking squares law or something and reapply to the analogy I do not mind.
Chemist wrote:Your truck example involves two object traveling at a constant velocity.
Well make one stationary and make the other moving.
Chemist wrote:That isn't how it works when it comes to gravity.
Well turn them on the side, truck 1 is suspended above truck 2 and it applies even if it is a ridiculous notion for a brain exercise.
Chemist wrote:What? Math too hard for you?
Well seeing as I'm a burger flipper, the only math I need is how many burgers to chuck on and how long they take to cook.

So which truck did you want? lol And why? lol

I know why you won't answer? Admittedly it is not the best comparator but you won't answer because we all know you would logically want the larger one but revealing why reveals a flaw in your logic when it comes to the collapse of the WTC 1 & 2 (Not 7)
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, 05:22

stundie wrote:I
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

Yes, I freely admit that I originally read 40 percent longer than... and overlooked "first 18 stories." Sorry. Hang me.
However, that does not take away your statements of "near free fall." What, exactly, is "near free fall speed?"
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, 05:24

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


What questions? Your just handwaving...BADLY!

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


WTC 7 was built on a foundation that was already in place and was too small for it's size. To get around this limitation, transfer girders were installed that would transfer the load from the building on a series of core columns that would be placed in the center of the foundation. Because of this, the transfer girders had to span large open areas. The core columns were already bearing massive loads.

No doubt that when debris from the collapse of the North tower struck WTC 7, some of these transfer girders were compromised and the increased loads had to be redistributed to the core columns. Fires started, as we have seen, and the lack of fire supression from the fireman on site or the sprinkler system caused the fires to burn out of control.

It was evident that the building would collapse, it was just a matter of when. There have been many test fires done over the decades, and it hardly matters if it was NIST that conducted them, Underwriters Laboratories (UL) or the National Fire Protection Association. Fires in an office environment without a sprinkler system will fully consume an office space within 2-3 minutes. Unprotected steel beams begin to sag under their own weight withing 20-30 minutes. This is decades of testing and experience with steel framed structures (some of which have been smaller than WTC 7 and still collapsed). That's why we insulate steel.

Truthers want to convey that there were only a few trash fires at WTC 7 but this wasn't true at all. It was a misrepresentation.

Most certainly, the floors started to collapse first. The steel trusses only needed to be thick enough to support each floor's own weight. For instance, 30 minutes after the north tower was struck, a 911 call from an occupant trapped above the impact zone reported collapsing floors. The tower wouldn't collapse for another 20-25 minutes. In the case of WTC 7, which was burning for 7 hours, I'm sure floors were collapsing all through that time. You just don't see them because they are INSIDE. But you only want to say that a 2 second free fall is what's critical, don't you stundie?

The buildings in the WTC including WTC 7 were built using hollow tube construction. The floors provide a vital function of providing lateral support to the exterior columns. A sagging or failing floors will start pulling the exterior support columns inwards. Firemen on site were reporting bulges and buckling on the face of WTC 7. This was what was happening, stundie. The floors were collapsing at that time. And that was still hours before WTC 7 collapses. In light of this, focusing on a two second free fall is a little bit ignorant.


Now what would you expect would happen when one of those core columns fail, stundie? If one column fails, than the remaining columns must support a higher load. Each remaining column would be supporting exponentially higher forces as each one of them failed.

And let me tell you, these columns were huge! They won't fail quietly. Welds break and rivets pop. Makes quite a racket. And how would you expect people to describe this noise? Why wouldn't some of them say it sounds like an explosion. Some witnesses also described thunder claps (maybe WTC 7 was struck by lightening?). Others described creaking.

But truthers want to latch onto the word "explosion" and take it to literally mean that explosives were used. Except that thermite isn't an explosive and no traces of any explosive was found.

This doesn't boad well for a debate if you're going to claim that WTC7 and the twin towers were destroyed via controlled demolition.

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


I just explained it for you in several different ways. And the body of evidence supporting a fire assisted collapse is simply huge, while truther can't seem to find one witness.

I'd be less worried about what we have to say and more worried about finding those witnesses that can tell you when, where and how somebody was able to install enough thermite to bring down the three largest structures in downtown Manhattan without a million other eyewitnesses noticing.
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, 05:29

Well spin it around and apply it then if it makes that much of a difference to the outcome. lol


You're not following me.

To get the same forces of impact between those two trucks as the force you would get when one part of a building falls on another, those trucks would need to be traveling much faster than 70mph for it to be a fair comparison. And once they are driving fast enough, it wouldn't matter which cabin you were sitting in. You'd be just as dead.
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, 05:45

ProfWag wrote:Yes, I freely admit that I originally read 40 percent longer than... and overlooked "first 18 stories." Sorry. Hang me.
However, that does not take away your statements of "near free fall." What, exactly, is "near free fall speed?"
Thank you for admitting your error. See there is no shame in it ProfWag and you don't even need to swallow your pride because we are all human and humans make mistake as I have done.

Now I know you want to argue over what I mean by near, but the NIST use this too. The only reason is you want to get into a semantic debate about what consitutes as "near" free fall to avoid the question.

So I'll repeat again, how does the theory you support (A fire/single column theory) explain the fact that the building fell at free fall for 2.25 seconds?? In other words, with no resistance what so ever! lol

Asking me what I mean by near is not answering my question, it's a dodge and a pathetic one at that. 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, 06:41

Chemist wrote:What questions? Your just handwaving...BADLY!
How can I be hand waving a question that as not been answered?? lol
Chemist wrote:WTC 7 was built on a foundation that was already in place and was too small for it's size. To get around this limitation, transfer girders were installed that would transfer the load from the building on a series of core columns that would be placed in the center of the foundation. Because of this, the transfer girders had to span large open areas. The core columns were already bearing massive loads.
Great!
Chemist wrote:No doubt that when debris from the collapse of the North tower struck WTC 7, some of these transfer girders were compromised and the increased loads had to be redistributed to the core columns. Fires started, as we have seen, and the lack of fire supression from the fireman on site or the sprinkler system caused the fires to burn out of control.
Great!!
Chemist wrote:It was evident that the building would collapse, it was just a matter of when.
It was evident to firefighters on the ground but it is also evident that people were also saying that the building was going to blow up.
Chemist wrote:There have been many test fires done over the decades, and it hardly matters if it was NIST that conducted them, Underwriters Laboratories (UL) or the National Fire Protection Association. Fires in an office environment without a sprinkler system will fully consume an office space within 2-3 minutes. Unprotected steel beams begin to sag under their own weight withing 20-30 minutes. This is decades of testing and experience with steel framed structures (some of which have been smaller than WTC 7 and still collapsed). That's why we insulate steel.
Very interesting stuff and the steel at WTC7 was coated with Monokote. So it was rated for 2 hours if I remember correctly!
Chemist wrote:Truthers want to convey that there were only a few trash fires at WTC 7 but this wasn't true at all. It was a misrepresentation.
No, debunkers want to portray it as a raging inferno by taking quotes out of context and applying them to their version of events, even though photographic and video evidence shows no sign of a raging inferno at any point. Just a few floor on fires and in some of those floors, the fire wasn't throughout the entire floors.
Chemist wrote:Most certainly, the floors started to collapse first.
At 40% of acceleration to free fall and then onto free fall speeds?
Chemist wrote:The steel trusses only needed to be thick enough to support each floor's own weight.
I know but there is exterior and core columns holding carrying most of the load.
Chemist wrote:For instance, 30 minutes after the north tower was struck, a 911 call from an occupant trapped above the impact zone reported collapsing floors.
And some reported explosion too.
Chemist wrote:The tower wouldn't collapse for another 20-25 minutes.
I do not see the relevance here but anyways.....
Chemist wrote:In the case of WTC 7, which was burning for 7 hours, I'm sure floors were collapsing all through that time.
They might well have been although there are floors where the fires haven't collapsed because we can clear see the fires on each floor which would suggest that the floors are still intact.

Now lets just say that some of the floors start giving away from the fire affected areas, there is still plenty of unaffected areas where the Monokote is still protecting.

So even if there were floor collapsing, unless you are suggest that all the floor had collapsed before the exterior, I do not see your point.
Chemist wrote:That You just don't see them because they are INSIDE.
So if you don't see them, how can you tell all of this??
Chemist wrote:But you only want to say that a 2 second free fall is what's critical, don't you stundie?
Well it is critical because at that point, there was no support or resistance in that building. So how does fires and a single column collapse theory reduce a buildings structural capacity and resistance to nothing in a 40% slower acceleration to free fall speeds??
Chemist wrote:The buildings in the WTC including WTC 7 were built using hollow tube construction.
Great!!
Chemist wrote:The floors provide a vital function of providing lateral support to the exterior columns.
Why of course.
Chemist wrote:A sagging or failing floors will start pulling the exterior support columns inwards.
So it pulls the exterior support inwards. We do noe see any exteriors pulling inwards in the WTC 7.

Sound like you are trying to use the WTC 1 & 2 to explain how WTC 7 collapsed.
Chemist wrote: Firemen on site were reporting bulges and buckling on the face of WTC 7.
So firefighters saw bulges, buckling and this explains the free fall for 2.5 seconds??
Chemist wrote:This was what was happening, stundie.
Oh really!! lol
Chemist wrote:The floors were collapsing at that time.
What all of them before the exterior gave way?? lol
Chemist wrote:And that was still hours before WTC 7 collapses.
So the floors failed inside the WTC 7 hours before it actually collapsed.

Instead of 14 seconds for the collapse of WTC7 , maybe you should argue that it took hours?? No!! :lol:
Chemist wrote:In light of this, focusing on a two second free fall is a little bit ignorant.
No, watching you giving me lots of waffle but no explanation is ignorant and avoiding the issue.

Now doubt you have fooled yourself that you have addressed the issue of free fall when all you have done is point out the obvious and speculate about the interior state of the WTC 7 based on a hyper inflated fire which is burning on a few floors compared to a shitload of floors that were not burning. To explain that all the resistance and capacity explain the free fall??

I asked how fires and a single columns achieved this and so far. Nothing more than waffles! lol
Chemist wrote:]Now what would you expect would happen when one of those core columns fail, stundie?
The weight load to redistributed.
Chemist wrote:If one column fails, than the remaining columns must support a higher load.
Agreed.
Chemist wrote:Each remaining column would be supporting exponentially higher forces as each one of them failed.
But when this happens, it happens gradually because has the load is increased, not every single columns is going to give away at exactly the same time for there to be free fall speeds.

This is what happened and why your theory falls flat on it's face.
Chemist wrote:And let me tell you, these columns were huge! They won't fail quietly. Welds break and rivets pop. Makes quite a racket. And how would you expect people to describe this noise?
But wait a minute, you guys said that WTC 7 fell silently, therefore not a demolition, but now you are saying it would make a racket and probably expect people to describe the noise as an explosion.
Well they certainly woundn't sound like the explosion sound 6-7 seconds in here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ&NR=1
Chemist wrote: Why wouldn't some of them say it sounds like an explosion. Some witnesses also described thunder claps (maybe WTC 7 was struck by lightening?). Others described creaking.
Now where did I say that some of them wouldn't say they sound like an explosion?? lol

A truly appalling attempt at a Wuzel Gummage.

It could well be all of the things, but until there is a definitive source, then we can't rule out that it wasn't an explosions, seeing as you are struggling with the whole freefall concept and how a fire/single column theory makes this happen.
Chemist wrote:But truthers want to latch onto the word "explosion" and take it to literally mean that explosives were used.
That is possibly because lots of people report hearing explosions.
Chemist wrote:Except that thermite isn't an explosive and no traces of any explosive was found.
Another one can't grasp the concept that it is possible that both could have been used.
Chemist wrote:This doesn't boad well for a debate if you're going to claim that WTC7 and the twin towers were destroyed via controlled demolition.
What doesn't bode well is that you still haven't explained the free fall for 2.25 seconds or how goes from resistance to nothing.
Chemist wrote:I just explained it for you in several different ways.
No you havent!! What you have done is used cognitive dissonance as a great way for your mind to accept the free fall when it still doesn't explain how a 47 storey building is reduced to nothing.
Chemist wrote:And the body of evidence supporting a fire assisted collapse is simply huge, while truther can't seem to find one witness.
What is this huge body of evidence?? lol
Chemist wrote:I'd be less worried about what we have to say and more worried about finding those witnesses that can tell you when, where and how somebody was able to install enough thermite to bring down the three largest structures in downtown Manhattan without a million other eyewitnesses noticing.
Well I would be more worried about how a building collapses at free fall speeds and fire when there is plenty of undamaged, unaffected columns to provide resistance.

So according to you, there was these massive fires that the video evidence doesn't show, which caused failure of the interior columns which we can't see, many hours before the collapse and the floors failed one by one when eventually, the final one gave way that initiated the collapse, the other columns which were still intact and trying but failing to resist the collapse, all of a sudden disappeared for 2.25 seconds before coming back a little to provide a small amount of resistance towards the end?? lol

Do you not see the problem?? Of course you don't!! lol

Better try next time. lol
Last edited by stundie on 20 Jul 2010, 06:52, edited 2 times 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, 06:42

Chemist wrote:
Well spin it around and apply it then if it makes that much of a difference to the outcome. lol


You're not following me.

To get the same forces of impact between those two trucks as the force you would get when one part of a building falls on another, those trucks would need to be traveling much faster than 70mph for it to be a fair comparison. And once they are driving fast enough, it wouldn't matter which cabin you were sitting in. You'd be just as dead.
I am following you, but you are doing exactly what I predicted.

Turn them vertically and choose one.
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 Chemist » 20 Jul 2010, 08:27

stundie wrote:
Chemist wrote:
Well spin it around and apply it then if it makes that much of a difference to the outcome. lol


You're not following me.

To get the same forces of impact between those two trucks as the force you would get when one part of a building falls on another, those trucks would need to be traveling much faster than 70mph for it to be a fair comparison. And once they are driving fast enough, it wouldn't matter which cabin you were sitting in. You'd be just as dead.
I am following you, but you are doing exactly what I predicted.

Turn them vertically and choose one.


Your example is simply a version of Gates' ridiculous cardboard box demonstration, where he drops a small box on a larger box which stays intact and claims that the towers couldn't have collapsed. (He doesn't seem to realize that dropping the larger box onto the smaller box would yield the same results.

Your truck example and Gates' cardboard boxes are misleading the audience into thinking that the relative sizes is what dictates the possibility of a collapse. This isn't true. It's about momentum and kineteic energy, and to know that you need to no what the masses are and how fast they are moving. Slow moving massive objects (such as a collapsing building) will still have more kinetic energy than fast moving smaller objects (such as trucks and airplanes).

I don't have a mass for the parts of the towers above the impact zones which is why I expressed the forces in terms of g's (multiples of force due to gravity).

I also tried to illustrate that you don't need to crush the entire building, only the top floor and that's enough to cause a sequential collapse of the structure as it gains inertia.

Now the question is, can 10 stories in free fall collapse one story? The answer is yes.

To respond to your analogy, it would be like dropping your truck on a tin can.

It would be nice that if you were to participate in a physical discussion, that you would actually know physics!
Chemist
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Jul 2010, 05:13

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

Postby ProfWag » 20 Jul 2010, 09:37

stundie wrote:
Asking me what I mean by near is not answering my question, it's a dodge and a pathetic one at that. lol

As for your question, I am not the expert to ask. Perhaps you should do some unbiased research on your own to find out. It did, and since I'm not one of the engineers that built WTC7, I don't want to throw out an answer that you couldn't find on your own.
As for the other part, here's my point--for the last time--Free fall speed for WTC7 is just under 6 seconds. It took the building much longer to collapse (according to most reports I've seen, 16-18 seconds.) So I'll ask again, just what do you believe "near free fall speed" means?
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, 09:55

So according to you, there was these massive fires that the video evidence doesn't show, which caused failure of the interior columns which we can't see, many hours before the collapse and the floors failed one by one when eventually, the final one gave way that initiated the collapse, the other columns which were still intact and trying but failing to resist the collapse, all of a sudden disappeared for 2.25 seconds before coming back a little to provide a small amount of resistance towards the end?? lol


Not every column and every floor needs to fail. Just enough to cause an overload on the remaining structure. The specs on WTC 7 have been described in a number of sources. Hell, it's even on wikipedia!

I don't know why you are obsessing over a 2 second window of free fall. It's irrelevant to how WTC 7 failed.

Do you not see the problem?? Of course you don't!! lol


Well, the problem with the truther argument is that it's so Rude Goldberg in nature.

If explosives were good enough to bring down the towers and WTC 7 than why mess with thermite at all? Why risk with a completely unproven method of demolition, and why are there no witnesses reporting individuals setting charges. And if enough thermite was being used to explain the observed effects (because office fires aren't hot enough), people would be tripping over it. Why not just repeat the 1993 bombing? Much simpler and less witnesses, which means less opportunity for somebody to find out the truth.

It has also been suggested that 9/11 was staged to give the US an excuse to pursue and aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East. If so, why accuse Bin Laden? Why not accuse Saddam Hussein directly? And if staging 9/11 was possible than planting WMD's in Iraq should be child's play.

Yeah, there's problems. Not that the truther would want to address any of it.
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, 16:54

Chemist wrote:Your example is simply a version of Gates' ridiculous cardboard box demonstration, where he drops a small box on a larger box which stays intact and claims that the towers couldn't have collapsed. (He doesn't seem to realize that dropping the larger box onto the smaller box would yield the same results.
Its not about cardboard boxs you dipshit.....lol

Gages demonstration shows us that a smaller object can't crush a larger object yet according to your logic, a larger object can't crush a smaller object?? :shock: hahahahahahahaha!!

So how the blank do things get crushed??....lol

Maybe you should have a rethink before you start coming out with patently false debunks which highlight the idiotic nature of your argument. lol
Chemist wrote:Your truck example and Gates' cardboard boxes are misleading the audience into thinking that the relative sizes is what dictates the possibility of a collapse. This isn't true.
Righty oh!! lol We are misleading the audience....lol

This is too comical!! lol
Chemist wrote:It's about momentum and kineteic energy, and to know that you need to no what the masses are and how fast they are moving.
So now the masses do play a part because you need to know the masses to work out how much energy kinetic energy there is?? lol
Chemist wrote:Slow moving massive objects (such as a collapsing building) will still have more kinetic energy than fast moving smaller objects (such as trucks and airplanes).
What if the plane or truck is travelling at just below the speed of light?? lol
Chemist wrote:I don't have a mass for the parts of the towers above the impact zones which is why I expressed the forces in terms of g's (multiples of force due to gravity).
Thanks but your working outs do not explain the collapse of WTC7 , yet alone WTC 1 & 2 which you seem to be arguing.
Chemist wrote: I also tried to illustrate that you don't need to crush the entire building, only the top floor and that's enough to cause a sequential collapse of the structure as it gains inertia.
What a load of tosh, if the top floor is crushed, then that certainly isn't enough to cause a sequential collapse and neither will it gain inertia because there is still many floors of intact structure providing resistance.
Chemist wrote:Now the question is, can 10 stories in free fall collapse one story? The answer is yes.
Of course it can, so can 1 storey collapse a 10 storeys in a free fall collapse??
Chemist wrote:To respond to your analogy, it would be like dropping your truck on a tin can.
OK, we have a tin can and a truck, please choose which object you would be like to be seated in and why in our 70mph head on collision or even stood vertically so that the tin can free fall.
Chemist wrote:It would be nice that if you were to participate in a physical discussion, that you would actually know physics!
I'll happily admit I'm no expert on physics but if you want to believe I know nothing about physics while trying to explain how a smaller object can crush an object that is 10 times the size, then either you are not explaining yourself properly or as I suspect, you don't know that much about physics yourself. lol

So what is it to be, a tin can or the truck?? and more importantly 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 stundie » 20 Jul 2010, 17:12

ProfWag wrote:As for your question, I am not the expert to ask.
So pages of dodging for you to finally reveal you do not have the answer?? lol
ProfWag wrote:Perhaps you should do some unbiased research on your own to find out.
I have done with 2 structural engineers from opposing sides talking about WTC 1 & 2.

Your side lost very, very badly!!
ProfWag wrote:It did, and since I'm not one of the engineers that built WTC7, I don't want to throw out an answer that you couldn't find on your own.
I have given you an answer, free fall = no resistance and the the only known way for a building to have no resistance is via a demolition.

But you keep suggesting I am wrong even though you have now admitted you do not have the answer, so how can you say I am wrong when you do not know the answer yourself?? lol

This highlights that you are not interested in finding or discovering the truth regardless of what it might suggest, you just want to silent the conspiracy because frankly you find the prospect of a conspiracy to scary for you to believe.
ProfWag wrote:As for the other part, here's my point--for the last time--Free fall speed for WTC7 is just under 6 seconds. It took the building much longer to collapse (according to most reports I've seen, 16-18 seconds.)
Sorry but you are including the Penthouse which collapses before the rest of the building collapses.
ProfWag wrote:So I'll ask again, just what do you believe "near free fall speed" means?
Near = close to.
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, 17:34

Chemist wrote:Not every column and every floor needs to fail.
It does if it needs to achieve free fall speeds.
Chemist wrote:Just enough to cause an overload on the remaining structure.
If you are overloading the remaining structure, then there would be resistance and no free fall speeds.
Chemist wrote:The specs on WTC 7 have been described in a number of sources. Hell, it's even on wikipedia!
Great but doesn't address my question does it/ ;p;
Chemist wrote:I don't know why you are obsessing over a 2 second window of free fall. It's irrelevant to how WTC 7 failed.
Sorry but handwaving it away as irrelevant doesn't explain why the building had absolutely no structural resistance for 2 seconds.

The only reason why you find it irrelevant is because it highlights that your theory is a joke and doesn't explain it. lol
Chemist wrote:Well, the problem with the truther argument is that it's so Rude Goldberg in nature.
The problem is not with the truther argument but your interpretation of it. lol
Chemist wrote:If explosives were good enough to bring down the towers and WTC 7 than why mess with thermite at all?
To make it look less like a traditional demolition.
Chemist wrote:Why risk with a completely unproven method of demolition, and why are there no witnesses reporting individuals setting charges.
Yeah why risk with an unproven method such as fire hey Chemist?? lol

And your hilarious question, why are there no witnesses reporting individuals setting charges?? lol Oh I suppose these individuals should walk around with a big sign saying I'm setting explosive charges??

Seriously, this is not debunking but a cognitive exercise to avoid the free fall which you haven't answered yet.

Rather than be honest like ProfWag and admit you do not know, it's funny watching to you pretend to know and laughing at you every time your faceplant yourself with contradictory beliefs. lol
Chemist wrote:And if enough thermite was being used to explain the observed effects (because office fires aren't hot enough), people would be tripping over it.
Of course, it requires tons and tons of thermite, but just a few fires on a few floors. lol
Chemist wrote:Why not just repeat the 1993 bombing?
Bombing is not as much as a shock and awe as crashing jet liners into the building and making them collapse.
Chemist wrote:Much simpler and less witnesses, which means less opportunity for somebody to find out the truth.
It would raise many questions.
Chemist wrote:It has also been suggested that 9/11 was staged to give the US an excuse to pursue and aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East.
That's right because after 9/11, pursue and aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East.
Chemist wrote:If so, why accuse Bin Laden?
Cause Bin Laden was in Afghanistan where Unocal wanted to build their pipeline and they knew it wasn't safe because of OBL.
Chemist wrote:Why not accuse Saddam Hussein directly?
Because there would be no excuse for the pipeline in Afghanistan to be built.
Chemist wrote:And if staging 9/11 was possible than planting WMD's in Iraq should be child's play.
Really??? lol And where do you get WMD from?? lol And how do you get it to Iraq?? lol

Surely it's much easier to lie about it and then make out there was bad intelligence. Much cheaper and easier! lol
Chemist wrote:Yeah, there's problems. Not that the truther would want to address any of it.
I will happily address any problems that I think I can answer.

However what I won't do is try to pretend I can answer something if I don't really know.

Now this 2.25 seconds?? Are you going to carry on explaining it or admit that your theory doesn't account for the free fall speeds?? 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, 20:06

stundie wrote:]I have given you an answer, free fall = no resistance and the the only known way for a building to have no resistance is via a demolition.


How do you know this? If it was a demolition as you so proudly claim, how do you know that would be so different than a weakened structure resulting from fire and other damage?
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, 20:08

stundie wrote:
So how the fu%# do things get crushed??....lol

Please refrain from obsene language in this forum stundie.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests