If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

pgimeno said:
Bump for PhantomWolf.
Click to expand...

The bolded text and line after appeared to make it sound like you were meaning that the falling block applied a greater force to the floor below than the floor below applied back. You clarified the answer. Was there a point to replying then?
 
FalseFlag said:
This motion is seen in the video you posted. You just deny it exists.

I'm not going to continue to waste my time debating people who refuse to accept facts. It's a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Please provide the time code that steel columns are seen being ejected horizontally from the building. Thanks.

This last statement is extraordinary denial. You are just trying to drag me into discussing topics which have already been discussed.
Click to expand...

Please provide physical evidence of the use of explosives on 9/11. Thanks.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Please provide the time code that steel columns are seen being ejected horizontally from the building. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

Please provide physical evidence of the use of explosives on 9/11. Thanks.
Click to expand...
If you supported a new investigation you might get the proof are asking for. It seems you want this really bad. If you want it really bad, then support the efforts of these guys.

www.ae911truth.org
 
FalseFlag said:
Irrelevant.

If you supported a new investigation you might get the proof are asking for. It seems you want this really bad. If you want it really bad, then support the efforts of these guys.
Click to expand...

A new investigation of what exactly?
 
FalseFlag said:
Provide the definitions and numbers I asked for and you will get your proof.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting evolution of technique, there, FalseFlag. You started out with all sorts of claims (mostly parroting Cole or some other idiot), and you failed at supporting any of them.

(How is that evidence of constant acceleration for the collapse of WTC 1 coming along?)

But, with your previous approach laid in ruin, you now ask (well, demand, actually) others carry your water.

As I said, an interesting evolution. Nonetheless, you are the one who wants to advance a theory, so it is your task to advance it, not ours.
 
jsfisher said:
This is an interesting evolution of technique, there, FalseFlag. You started out with all sorts of claims (mostly parroting Cole or some other idiot), and you failed at supporting any of them.

(How is that evidence of constant acceleration for the collapse of WTC 1 coming along?)

But, with your previous approach laid in ruin, you now ask (well, demand, actually) others carry your water.

As I said, an interesting evolution. Nonetheless, you are the one who wants to advance a theory, so it is your task to advance it, not ours.
Click to expand...

No, someone asked me a question. I can't answer that question unless someone, anyone, gives me enough information to answer it.
 
FalseFlag said:
Irrelevant.
Click to expand...

How is this irrelevant? You claim that Cole's model matched the motion of the WTC. In Cole's model we see the paper (steel) ejected quite a distance horizontally from the model before air resistance stops it. Since the steel sections are less prone to air resistance then for the same motion we should be horizontal motion of the steel columns for much greater distances than seen in the video, this would be very easy to show in any video.

If you supported a new investigation you might get the proof are asking for. It seems you want this really bad. If you want it really bad, then support the efforts of these guys.

www.ae911truth.org
Click to expand...

So I take it then that despite that at the close of the Staten Island Landfill mission:
• 1,462,000 tons of debris had been received and processed
• 35,000 tons of steel had been removed (165,000 tons were removed directly at Ground Zero)
• 806,000 tons of debris had been screened, an average of 75 tons per hour
• 14,968 workers had been through the PPE process
• 43,600 people (39,795 NYPD, 6,212 non-NYPD) had been through the Site Specific Indoctrination
• Over 1.7 million man hours had been worked
• Over 55,000 discrete pieces of evidence had been recovered
• 4,257 body parts had been recovered
• 209 victims had been positively identified.

not one single piece of evidence exists that explosives were used.

I take it then that you either believe that those nearly 15,000 people that worked the site were either incompetent, or in on it all too?

All these people?

• 55 FBI Evidence Response Teams worked the site -- over 1,000 agents -- plus FBI medics, safety officers, and other specialists
• New York Evidence Response Team members worked over 8,000 hours at the site, at the morgue, and at Ground Zero.
• 600 NYPD detectives, 50 FBI personnel...working tirelessly at Fresh Kills landfill.
• U.S. Customs Agency volunteers working search and inspection at Fresh Kills Landfill

Do you understand that the 9/11 Investigations were the biggest investigations in the US, they involved separate investigations by the NYPD the FBI, US Customs, the NTSB, the FAA, FEMA, the NYPA, OSHA, and a number of insurance companies including ACE Bermuda and AIG. Over 50,000 people were involved in these investigations, yet you still have exactly ZERO physical evidence of of explosives. Are they all in on it, or where they all just incompetent?

Honestly, after all of these investigations, what exactly do you think a new one is going to accomplish, and even if you did get it, when it came back with exactly what every single other investigation has, would you really suddenly accept it?

Also, please answer questions 1, and 3-8 I see you skipped them all.
 
PhantomWolf said:
not one single piece of evidence exists that explosives were used.
Click to expand...

Eyewitness testimony exists to the contrary.

Proof: https://youtu.be/MCSEDSSxdNs?t=1515

NIST did not test for explosives.

Proof: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm Point 22

Failure to test for explosives is not proof that explosives were not used.

Fact. Over 100 eyewitness reported explosions.
Fact. NIST did not test for explosives.

Conclusion, NIST ignored evidence and failed to perform a complete investigation.

Your denial of these facts is conclusive proof you are in denial.
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
Aerodynamic forces are necessary to explain flight. Cole is discussing downward motion. Those are two different concepts.
Click to expand...

Yes and you admitted that when an object falling encounters resistance to the falling mass, energy of the falling mass matters to the motion- impact!

Your hillarious.
 
FalseFlag said:
No, someone asked me a question. I can't answer that question unless someone, anyone, gives me enough information to answer it.
Click to expand...

Then don't answer it. Simple.

How is that evidence of constant acceleration of the collapse of WTC 1 coming?
 
FalseFlag said:
Eyewitness testimony exists to the contrary.

NIST did not test for explosives.

Proof: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm Point 22

Failure to test for explosives is not proof that explosives were not used.

Fact. Over 100 eyewitness reported explosions.
Fact. NIST did not test for explosives.

Conclusion, NIST ignored evidence and failed to perform a complete investigation.

Your denial of these facts is conclusive proof you are in denial.
Click to expand...

What would you have tested?

Oh and yes drywall does fly though the air, but steel doesn't fly like drywall.
 
FalseFlag said:
Eyewitness testimony exists to the contrary.
...
Click to expand...
That is a lie. Zero eyewitnesses saw explosives on 9/11. 9/11 truth lost the simile BS. You are too easy to debunk.


NIST does not do crime. FBI does crime, you must of missed it, the FBI did not find evidence for anyone doing 9/11 except 19 idiots who worked with UBL. Why would NIST test for something that did not happen?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom