I found the missing Jolt.

Why do people waste time with people like ff? He's not to be taken as a serious, objective rational person. He's yanking everyone one who bites at his bait. Ignore him...
 
JSanderO said:
Why do people waste time with people like ff? He's not to be taken as a serious, objective rational person. He's yanking everyone one who bites at his bait. Ignore him...
Click to expand...

Have done. It saves a load of screen real estate apart from anthing else.
 
JSanderO said:
Why do people waste time with people like ff? He's not to be taken as a serious, objective rational person. He's yanking everyone one who bites at his bait. Ignore him...
Click to expand...

The fun is seeing what new stupidity he will post, you can't pay for comedy this good.
 
Dave Rogers said:
If you'd been paying attention, you'd realize that, no, he doesn't. He's not even too clear on the meaning of AVERAGE.

Dave
Click to expand...

I know. It was a rhetorical question. After all if an average, or a best fit on a graph of point accelerations is g, then it REQUIRES that some points have acceleration greater than g.
If acceleration exceeded g then an additional force was in play. There are ways that falling systems of connected objects can exceed g by transferring forces acting on one part, to another.
Since it's obvious that the measured locations on WTC7 exceeded g and since there is no evidence that rocket motors were attached to the rooftop corners, then internal forces were transferred to exterior components to speed them up in addition to gravity.

Since this is in play it cannot be assumed that the system of connected structural members of the building would act as a Newtonian point mass.

Thus free fall does NOT imply CD.
 
FalseFlag said:
From your link:

"design of connectors & switches, including the failure analysis & process re-spec for the main power transfer switch for the space shuttle & Inertial Upper Stages.

design of fuel metering valves for large turbine generators, including explosion-proof electronics."

There you go. You have a background working for the government in some capacity. That is how "they" got to you. Can I prove this? No. Even though I can't prove it, I am going to make the claim. You outted yourself, buddy, not me. Oops. Wait for it...
Click to expand...

You are match for the subjects that these professionals study:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11329097#post11329097
 
JSanderO said:
Why do people waste time with people like ff? He's not to be taken as a serious, objective rational person. He's yanking everyone one who bites at his bait. Ignore him...
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? His posts are comedy gold. Every time he posts, the truth movement looks a little dumber and that's saying something considering the morons participating in that movement over the years.
 
skyeagle409 said:
Considering the total collapse time of 17 seconds for WTC 7, someone is incorrect and it isn't me. Have you seen the WTC 7 video? If so, then provide us with the total collapse time for WTC 7.
Click to expand...
Why does the total collapse time matter? I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm just asking why you keep emphasizing it. Is it because you want to deflect attention away from the 2.25 seconds that were at freefall?

I could care less when you start measuring the collapse. I could care less when you stop measuring. Just admit that somewhere in between whatever arbitrary start and end times you choose, there were 2.25 seconds of freefall.

Oh, wait. You're a skeptic and you won't admit anything that contradicts your fantasy.
 
tfk said:
Do you think that "writing patently absurd, idiotic statements" wins you debating points?
Click to expand...
I don't know. Does using an obviously fraudulent computer model win you any debating points?

Let me answer that for you.

No. No, it doesn't. In fact, it proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that you are committing fraud.

Every thing that NIST wrote HAS BEEN questioned.
Several times.
By competent, experienced structural engineers.
Click to expand...
This might actually be true.

The issue is whether or not NIST honestly answered the questions.

NIST's report has been found to be convincing by the only people that really matter: competent structural & mechanical engineers willing to commit fraud.
Click to expand...
FTFY
 
FalseFlag said:
skyeagle409 said:
Now, let's do a quick review of the facts from a demolition expert.

You say expert.
I say fraud.
Click to expand...

Amazing that you would call one of the world's top demolition expert a fraud when in fact, architects, structural engineers, demolition companies and experts, and even firefighters have confirmed the WTC buildings were brought down by fire, not explosives.

I might add that he is backed by physical evidence as well, which simply means you claim is unfounded and not supported by the facts.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
skyeagle409 said:
Amazing that you would call one of the world's top demolition expert a fraud when in fact, architects, structural engineers, demolition companies and experts, and even firefighters have confirmed that the WTC buildings were brought down by fire, not explosives.

I might add that he is backed by physical evidence as well.
Click to expand...
Really?

I would love to see the official, peer-reviewed reports from each of the groups you have mentioned.

What physical evidence supports their claims?
 
FalseFlag said:
Why does the total collapse time matter? I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm just asking why you keep emphasizing it. Is it because you want to deflect attention away from the 2.25 seconds that were at freefall?

I could care less when you start measuring the collapse. I could care less when you stop measuring. Just admit that somewhere in between whatever arbitrary start and end times you choose, there were 2.25 seconds of freefall.

Oh, wait. You're a skeptic and you won't admit anything that contradicts your fantasy.
Click to expand...

What the hell would you know about it?

You proudly claim that you are not an expert and have no education in physics.
 
FalseFlag said:
Why does the total collapse time matter? I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm just asking why you keep emphasizing it. Is it because you want to deflect attention away from the 2.25 seconds that were at freefall?
Click to expand...

That is not evidence of explosives. You were duped into believing explosives were responsible, but the seismic data and witnesses accounts and experts have dismissed explosives.

To sum it up, you were duped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom