Jesus was truth,he didn't have to seek anything It's contemptable that you'd equate your sleazy claims with any of the gospel..
Then its a very good thing that we're not discussing the price of rice in China. We are discussing the collapse of the WTC towers, and it has everything to do with your vacuous argument regarding Newton's third law. Close. And even though that would actually be enough (since the force of the falling upper floors also was vastly greater than the "push back force" of the lower floors) the argument offered is even more detailed... something you would have noticed had you absorbed the tiniest fragment of comprehension from the engineers you claim to have worked with. The "push back force" is qualified by two critically relevant factors, both of which you deliberately ignore. They are 1) that the structure was designed to "push back" against static forces, not dynamic forces of the sort experienced that day, and 2) the "push back force" is dependent on structural integrity across the entire framework. Once that integrity has been compromised so is the ability of the structure to support even its designed static loads. This is engineering 101. Not only was the force above exactly like a hammer, it was like a hammer that actually grew and picked up both speed and momentum the further it flew. Nobody with a competent understanding of Newton's third law would agree with you. Now... I can't resist lovingly pointing this out... you were previously so offended by what you claimed was my misrepresentation of your attempt to improve on my analogy. You take a second swing at it here, and in so doing prove that my previous critique of your failed attempt was right on the money. You write: There it is. Right there. You are saying that the floors are like cans, and that they are "pushing back." That is absolutely the explicit claim that the floors (cans) are what's holding up the building. Why would you say again that which you just a few hours ago were stamping your feet regarding and hollering that you never said in the first place? Then you went on further to confuse the stacked floors with "columns" (an equivocation that I suspect is not deliberate), a goofy thing to do since there already are columns holding up the floors, not the other way around. And the columns extend the length of the building, each member extending through many, many floors. It is the failure of those columns that collapse a building. The floors just come along for the ride. Again... the floors actually have little to do with it (other than requiring a certain amount of energy to pulverize the concrete). When a supporting member fails it takes out all the floors that it is supporting above the point of failure. In your hopeless variation of the analogy, that means that if any one can in the middle of the stack gets taken out, every can above it gets destroyed. And the more cans that get taken out, the bigger the hammer to crush the remaining cans underneath. So, back to the analogy I offered which is one can. Like the WTC towers, a can is mostly empty. The support structures of the towers are equivalent to the sides of the can. They give it its shape and structural integrity. The curvature of the sides and their thickness distribute the loads they support across the entire structure, just like the components of a building. As long as all points of the can's sides are intact, they are capable of supporting rather a lot of static force (the hammer resting on top). But any significant compromise of that integrity can cause the entire can to collapse. Let's not even talk about static vs. dynamic forces for a second. Try this at home. Compare how easy it is to crush a can from end to end that has it's sides completely intact. It's pretty hard to do. Now make just a little dent in one side with your thumb. Try again. Wow. Much easier. If you have a rifle handy, shoot a whole through a third can, and see how easily you can crush it. You might learn something. And finally, just take another completely intact can and crush it with that hammer. That is what happened on 9/11.
Hammers grow? I never even used the word floor. You are being dishonest. I never said anything of the sort. I never even used the word "floor" and then you claim I said something I did not say. Your inability to comprehend what you read is why I refuse to discuss this issue any further. You completely misrepresent what I claim and then you go off on a tangent and tell me I am wrong when I never made the claim you claim I made.
Jesus also scolded and cast out the evil-doers and liars, just as Debunkers do. Jesus sought to bring truth and knowledge to the people, just as Debunkers do. Jesus sought to end hate and lies, unlike what Truthers do.
In the case of the WTC towers, absolutely. No. The word you used was "stories." Now... we must either conclude that you are a blithering idiot who does not know that "story" and "floor" are exact synonyms, or we we must conclude that you are deceptive quibbler. Please, settle that issue for us all. Which one are you? "Story" = "floor." Which is it BJ? Idiot or quibbler? When you run away from an argument, you are on the tangent. Not the argument.
A floor is what people walk on. A story is the entire vertical distance from the bottom of the floor to the bottom of the floor above it. Two completely different building concepts. If you don't even have that fundamental understand of building construction, then why do you feel justified to call me an idiot?
Ah... the quibble continues. Okay, lets pretend for a second that your distinction here is true. Since the difference between those two examples of furious hair-splitting is... wait for it... empty space, how exactly do you hallucinate this imagined "difference" helps your idiotic argument? I did not call you an idiot. I asked you to tell us whether you were an idiot or a quibbler? I am just realizing that the two are not mutually exclusive.
I am not going to play "pretend" with you. You completely misunderstand what I write, then you claim your misunderstanding as fact. There is no point in responding to you anymore.
You've consistently demonstrated you can't play with me out all. That's why you keep sputtering and tucking tail. You keep saying that, and then you keep coming back. Don't you think that's a bit pathetic?
The upper section of the twin towers did not CRUSH the bottom section. Why do you keep lying? The upper section sheared the components which made up the towers as it descended. If you really and truly want to debate this, then explain to me how the load of the descending upper section was applied to the lower section. How was that load transferred through the structural "system". I'll SHOW you where your thinking is flawed.
He doesn't know, all he does is refer you back to a half baked youtube video by Jonathan Cole. Then when you challenge the information in the video you are told it is because you dont know enough and go take a physics class
You have to first demonstrate elementary reading skills. I never claimed that. You lie about what I write and then call me a liar. Nice work debunker of truth.
