"Expert" Truther compares skyscrapers...to cardboard boxes

[video=youtube;DFVoencqfZw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFVoencqfZw[/video]

This is the level of science that they comprehend.

This is the level of science they are dealing with.

His knowledge and understanding of physics and strength of materials, is clearly very weak & lacking.



Unbelievable that anyone takes these guys seriously.

 

About on par with Sofia's...

[video=youtube;z6QdZVp3wg4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6QdZVp3wg4[/video]

 

wow this is for real??????

 

"Oh my God!" it didn't fall!

I'm sure his clients have new-found confidence in their projects.

 

I'd don't think I'll ever get bored of hearing that.

 

Start watching this at the 1:15:10 time mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mDXHn_byA#t=2720
"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version (2/3)


Here are parts #1 and #3.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DegLpgJmFL8

 

oh my, that...is funny!!!!

 

It only takes about 60 seconds from that point before the watcher is assaulted by idiocy. On what planet is a building that has been struck by a jetliner and has been burning for an hour a "perfectly healthy steel structure?"

 

on which planet are cardboard boxes the same as 110 story skyscrapers?

Trutheria, that's which planet.

 

At the 1:19:25 time mark it gets to the meat of the issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mDXHn_byA#t=2720

 

And what about his easily refutable claims do you find compelling?

 

The Math teacher in the video is wrong, secondly your video clearly shows that the building wasn't falling at free fall as there is some of the debris falling as much as 20 stories below the destruction wave.

 

those pieces of the building were moving faster than the rest of the building, cause they were fired from secret NWO cannons installed in the towers the night before, by the secret Mossad demolition teams.

 

As a supporter of Israel I cannot confirm or deny that we have secret NWO cannon technology in buildings around the country just in case.

 

Completely!!

1. The example of two cars hitting each other is not analogous to the WTC towers. A. They are both moving (the WTC Towers were one dynamic force vs. once static force). B. They are no longer being accelerated after impact (the WTC debris cloud was still being accelerated downward by gravity).

Two bullets might stop each other in flight. But a bullet hitting a stationary target usually goes right through the target.

2. The upper floors did not magically disappear once they had disintegrated. In fact, by that point they were about half of a debris cloud that consisted of thousands of tons of structural steel, concrete and other material hurtling downward. The Math teacher seems to imagine that once the upper floors disintegrated, the material would magically stop falling. That's just weird.

 

If they're so easily refutable, let's hear you refute them.

Start watching at the 1:22:30 time mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mDXHn_byA#t=2720

They don't say "Freefall speed". They say "Near-freefall speed". This would be consistent with debris falling below the destruction wave.

 

Tell me precisely which (other) ones you want me to refute and I'm happy to oblige.

Which of course pretty much lends the lie to the usual truther contention (repeated at least a dozen times in threads here today alone) that the buildings fell at free fall speed.

Of course, they weren't "near free fall speed" either, actually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

 

They're just using the term loosely. The difference is really inconsequential as the destruction would have been grossly different without explosives.

Watch this from the 1:19:30 time mark to the 1:20:00 time mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mDXHn_byA#t=2720

 

That could be the most idiotic thing said by the math teacher. The material was still there and falling. The energy comes from gravity as everything is being pulled down.

 

That issue is dealt with in the video. They say that if that were the case, the speed of the fall couldn't have been what it was. It would have been much slower.

You're trying to mislead the viewers who don't take the time to watch the video.

I urge all viewers who don't have time to watch this video to withhold judgement until you can watch it and not be swayed by rhetoric.

"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mDXHn_byA#t=2720
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DegLpgJmFL8

The part about the towers starts in part 2 at the 45:16 time mark.

If anyone watches the video and still maintains that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, he or she would watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xzmprkpxac

If this link goes dead, do a YouTube search on, "Why Can't They See The Truth? Psychologists Help 9 11 Truth Deniers".

 

Thus rendering their resulting claims flaccid, misleading and ultimately false.

The core truther stupidity is that any explosives were involved whatsoever. Anybody with any genuine experience with military style explosives (i.e. the sort used in controlled demolitions) knows first hand the complete impossibility of the truther fantasy.

 

It cannot have possibly been much slower than it actually was. The laws of physics dictate that simple truth. Of course, it helps that it actually was significantly slower than free fall speed.

Says the guy rather obviously misled by the video itself.

Of course, understand that this will be hours of your life you will never get back.

 

so if the twin towers were made of cardboard the plane would have flown through them and only knocked a small piece over and the rest would still be standing..ok so lets make all high rises out of cardboard now

 

This side-by-side video showing the collapse of WTC7 next to a confirmed controlled demolition proves that you are lying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwFAnP7_RtY

I have so far read eight of your posts today, and every single one of them has contained statements which are so ludicrously false, that they could not possibly be passed off as accidental mistakes. You are consistently making false and derogatory statements because you are untruthful.

 

Brother, the laws of physics are the same for steel as they are for cardboard.