The people with the highest qualifications agree that the WTC didn't collapse due to explosives or nano-thermite.
We may very well see how bright I am in due time. But we do not have to wait at all to see how dim you are. That demonstration has already been made in spades.
The more qualified & experienced one is with engineering & architecture, the more likely one is to understand that the WTC didn't collapse due to explosives or nano-thermite. Believing such a thing is due to ignorance & inexperience with the subject matter. - - - Updated - - - what are your engineering/architectual qualifications? where did you get your masters degree in engineering or architecture? are you a licensed architect or professional engineer?
Why appeal to authority? You can actually do the math yourself. The buildings did not collapse at freefall speed. Wait... no. You probably can't do the math yourself. So if you need somebody to hold your hand, let me know.
Because the NIST WTC Lead Investigator, told the world that the WTC buildings came down in freefall collapse. I don't buy it. It is your guy saying it. That's your guy, not mine.
Good grief. See post #60. Quoted. Over and out until at least Friday maybe Sunday. You are tiring because you don't even have a fundamental understanding of physics and you don't have the balls to present your superiors with "Experts Speak Out" about Newton's third law of motion.
Dude, that is how long it took stuff from the top to hit the street, not the entire collapse. Anything else wads Newton into a ball and flushes him.
all you have is spamming the forum with the same Youtube videos, over and over again. its getting boring, dude.
My guy? I don't have a guy. The towers did not fall at free-fall speed. This is a simple, incontrovertible, easily determinable fact. Like I said... if you are personally unable to do the math and then compare it to the video and seismic evidence, I'd be happy to hold your hand through the process.
he doesn't make any actual arguments. he just spams the forum with the same conspiracy theory Youtube videos, over and over again. He's posted the same 9-11 video at least 50 times and the same JFK video over 100 times.
Do you mean the video of the high rise building experts? Why are you so afraid of the truth? I post the "Experts Speak Out" video for the benefit of others who may not have watched it in fear of being called a truther. It is not so bad being someone seeking truth. One has to take a lot of ridicule like Jesus did, but still the truth is worth seeking. MOD EDIT>>>SPAMMING <<<
That would be one of them, yes. Though I would put the word "experts" in quotation marks. Assumes facts not in evidence. The videos are useless to you as they are pathetic appeals to authorities who on closer examination prove to be not very authoritative. If any of them want to come here to this forum, I'm happy to argue with them and would undoubtedly be able to expose their specific incompetencies. But they're not here. You are. And arguing with you apparently places me in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. Here. Let's give you an easy one; no math skill required. I will post a picture that in and of itself (and there are countless others just like it) proves incontrovertibly that the WTC towers did not collapse at free fall speed. Look at it for a moment. Tell me what you see.
I know they did not fall at free fall speed. That is a false claim you are making. Shyam Sunder NIST's WTC Lead Investigator made that claim. That is the official story... not mine.
I am not going to discuss this topic any further with you. I have made statements and claims and you completely dismiss my claims and then claim I made statements I never made. That is a dishonest debate tactic so you will have to simply accept I refuse to debate dishonestly. Have a great Thanksgiving. I refuse to debate with dishonest people.
Well,I knew it was only a matter of time till one of you troothers lost it......comparing yourself to Jesus now?
Oh my. That's quite a retreat since last night. Then you were all full of yourself and promising "But when I get the opportunity I am going to address all you silly nonsense." Here I have given you an opportunity to so and instead huff and puff and then tuck tail? What changed overnight other than that you realized how far over your head you have gotten? I fully understand why you regretted the feeble arguments you made once you realized how pathetically worthless they were. But you know, the "paper trail" remains here for all to see and you cannot actually deny what is there in black and white. I directly addressed your claims (the painfully few you actually made), and you responded by slapping wildly like a schoolgirl, offering responses that were so weak you immediately began to run away from your own words. If you don't relish trying to defend yourself, I fully understand. LOL... what debate? There has been no debate here. There has only been (on one side) you posting Youtubes that you apparently do not even understand, certainly that you cannot defend. On the other side there have been at least two people who actually are grounded in physics, engineering and the mechanics of materials who have shredded you incompetent pronouncements without breaking a sweat. You call that a "debate?" Do you also call lizards "alligators?" That's the same excuse all the poltroons eventually fall back on. Buh-bye.
What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? Nothing. Newton's law is still obeyed that much is true. What you have shown is that if the force of the hammer is greater than the push back force of the can, then the can will crush. The can had less structure than the force above. The can tried to its limit to push back and couldn't do it so the hammer crushed the can. That is not an accurate representation of what occurred with the Twin Towers on 9/11. The force above was not at all like a hammer crushing down on the lower stories. My statement about Newton's third law of motion is not wrong. You have not made a correct analogy to the Twin Towers. A correct analogy would be to stack cans on top of each other. That would be representative of WTC buildings. The stories above were of the same design as the stories below. The same with the stacked cans. The cans above are of the same design as the cans below. If one stacks ten cans on top of each other then the lower cans are pushing back on the upper cans so a column is made. If any one of those cans in the middle of the stack are destroyed then the column still stands but it loses one can in height. That is all that happens. The entire can column does not collapse. That is a correct analogy. If the WTC towers had lost a floor above it would behave much like the can column I described above the floors below will still hold the floors above. One floor would be lost but it would not, it could not, crush the entire building. It's impossible because Newton's third law of motion is a natural law that can not be violated. This is the last I am going to comment on this particular topic because it is obvious that too few people understand Newton's third law of motion, and Perilica grad Ameriku claims I made statements that I did not make. That is dishonest debate and I will not engage in dishonest debate. I will not try and teach physics on this forum. If you do not understand Newton's third law of motion, and you would like to understand it, then take a physics class. It is elementary physics.
Nothing but dishonesty from Perilica grad Ameriku. - - - Updated - - - More than once. Which time are you referring to?
