911 Mr Demo says: Will the REAL COLLAPSE please stand up

you are simply hell bent on discussing everything nonrelevant

 

If you didn't want to discuss the graphic, why did you post it? I agree your graphic is not relevant, I'm just trying to explain to you why.

 

well then you either are uninformed or dont know what you are talking about or willfully spreading disinformation, which is it?

and since you seem to consider yourself the resident expert of all things physics why do you continue to duck the OP challenge?

 

I'm not ducking anything. I'm directly addressing the very first image you posted. On the subject of being uninformed you have made no argument at all. If anyone is obfuscating it's you.

The image you posted comparing various buildings collapsing next to the collapse of the WTC7 shows buildings of different heights. You assert that they all hit the ground at the same time. What does that say about the difference in speed at which those building collapsed?

 

on the contrary NOTHING you have done so far is in the context of the OP.

next your whole premise is completely ill framed. Nothing like coming in and answering your own irrelevant questions to prove an irrelevant point that has nothing to do with the minimal substantial elements required to factually describe the nature of the event.

your shooting at an invisible target and hitting it is worthless and I have no reason to debate your red herrings.

If you do not already see your error I have no reason to believe anyone or anything will change that.

~Time


However we can set this one aside for the moment and simply leave it at we disagree, and move on to the remaining images since you have stepped up to the challenge.

 

The only context that your first image shows is the rate at which the builds fell. How could discussion of the rate not be in context? In order to answer your question, a logical person would attempt to determine the rate at which the building fell. Are you suggesting that the analysis of your photographs is not appropriate in order to extract information from them? Thank you for proving that truthers just look at pictures and guess, rather than actually attempting to study and understand the things they are looking at.

 

lets not get our panties in a twist.

we know the rate at which it fell, seems to me nist said under 7 seconds.





I would agree the initiation point could have been more precisely drawn but you claim it took nearly 3 times nist numbers?

so you claim nist is lying then, hence you would agree the official "story" is in fact bogus


(note he is still dodging the challenge)

 

The only lie here is that lie of omission that the graphic you posted illustrates observation of the top 18 floors visible in (ironically) the footage you posted in your very first image. NIST does not claim the collapse took less than 7 seconds. Just think about your claim here a second. The graph ends at 5.5 seconds. You're trying to somehow claim that the building took 5.5 seconds to fall through the first 18 floors and 2 seconds to fall through the remaining 29 stories. Does that make sense to anyone?

Also, the graph you post shows that the building only fell at free fall speed during stage 2. Stage 1 and stage 3 are considerably slower than free fall speed. This means that the building was SLOWING DOWN by the time it got through the first 18 stories. It wasn't speeding up. Did you need a lesson in reading graphs?

 

nice try!

for horshoes

it does not say for 18 floors

so once again your resultant claim that nist is incompetent

however you are sliding off point again.

The point being that it dropped perfect freefall, total time not notwithstanding

then again maybe you have some proof how long it really took?

 

Again, you should simply try reading. I suggest NCSTAR 1A PGS 44-47 where that graphic is used to illustrate narrative.





Please note where it says:

"An initial analysis compared the observed time it took for the roofline to fall approximately 18 stories to the free fall time under the force of gravity."

"The time that the roofline took to fall 18 stories or 73.8m (242 ft) was approximately 5.4 s."

"As noted above, the collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall for the first 18 stories of descent."

 

I saw the message you deleted. Did you delete because you realized it was dumb? Because I was definitely all

 

No nut jobs are conspiracy THEORISTS who believe 19 muslims did it.



AGAIN, conspiracy REALIST dont deny reality like you do.to deny reality is being a nutcase.you know it,I know it,your just too afraid to admit it. you lost your crediblity BIG TIME on that JFK thread defending the warren commission that oswald was the lone assassin.your funny as hell because even the HSCA investigation in the 70's,even they concluded the warren commission was wrong that there was at LEAST a second shooter.hahahahahahahahahaa

you cant account for the multiple unnaccountable bullets fired like the one that struck the chrome of the door,the bullet on the sidewalk an FBI agent was seen picking up walking off with in phots taken,the one in the freeway sign police officers said they saw which was replaced a couple days later ,or the windshield bullet hole that forensic experts said was an ENTRACE shot from the front.

Like a coward,you ran off from that video when challenged to refute it the same way you are here.lol. you would be laughed out of a debating hall in minutes if you debated the same way there you do here as we BOTH know.lol.

you sure post moronic crap all the time to try and save face and defeat.

 

There lies the crux of the matter. Truthers like CuckooForCocoaPuffs and the morons at Let's Roll ignore science and instead rely on amateur video and photo analysis. They spam all these useless over pixelated GIFs -- many of them manipulated to show what they want to see.

When someone confronts them with science and facts they pretend that the other person "doesn't get it" and it is "hopeless to try to explain it to them" which is a pretty sure sign that the truther has no idea what the hell he is talking about and is trapped.

All of the BADA BOOM BADA BING WALLA WALLA BING BANG CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG filler in in the world can't hide the fact that truthers really don't understand the science behind what they are claiming.

 

No because I had a better idea. I timed it, 8 seconds and change start to ground, (*)(*)(*)(*) the 18 floor (*)(*)(*)(*). Measured correctly from the initial movement of the north roofline.

Hell with it lets just round it up to 9 seconds and call it good enough.

once again your whole position is pointless since it freefell after about 1 second to the ground.

 

what do you think nist did? stand there with a tape measure and stop watch while they demo'd them?

How to shut up qa trough in 1 quick lesson;

So show us what troughers use!

 

You are reading your own chart wrong. The collapse slows in stage 3, and you've completely assumed what happens in the period after 5.5 seconds.

 

no I used a stop watch (start to ground)
added 3 floors and a full second just for (*)(*)(*)(*)s and giggles and still its only 9 rounded up


again wtf is your point.

If you are trying to make a case that it is not a demo then you have to prove it by comparison, if you cant then you have nothing!

Otherwise it looks like a demo, smells like demo, measures like a demo hence it is a demo case closed.

 

You measured what from start to ground? Are you talking about the freefall collapse of your argument? You can't be talking about the WTC7 because I know of no video that shows the entire collapse of the WTC7.

My point is that at every turn we find that you have no clue what you are talking about.

I don't have to prove anything by comparison. I prove things with evidence and logic. When we're done with your first graphic, and you admit that the buildings are all falling at different rates because the buildings are all different heights, then we can move on to the next animated GIF.

 

I don't need to prove anything and I'm not trying to prove anything. I just let people like you talk in circles while proving nothing.

 

How about linking to a site that has something to say.

 

Why? All you do is ignore what you are shown if it disproves your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims. I've shown you hundreds of pieces of evidence. You ignored all but two pieces and pretended those were the only two that counted. Then, when you were shown wrong yet again, you just moved on to another bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claim.

So tell us, Jango. Why should anyone take an active interest in proving something to someone who doesn't want the truth?

 

Why don't you read for yourself what NIST did?
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

Or better yet, given the way you write, why don't you have someone read it to you?

How to shut up a truther in 3 quick words.

Evidence Logic Science

 

only in your mind is nothing proved because as we both know,you only see what you WANT to see and close your eyes to evidence that doesnt go along with your version of events. I provided proof there, you didnt even try and counter it,you jast made some stupid comment and left.You would be laughed out of a debating hall in minutes if you debated there the same way you do here just like all these paid shills would the way they change the subject and evade facts all the time.well you clearly dont know how to debate so dont expect me to give you anymore time.

 

What an amusing,and somewhat whiny post!

 

I'm not attempting to debate. It amuses to see conspiracy theorists try to make their points. I'm saying things to provoke people like you.