• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

WTC Discussion: Core Column Temperature & Failure.

28th Kingdom said:
Are you standing in front of a mirror? You must be.
Click to expand...

What a fiendishly clever retort!!

Couldn't have happened on WTC 7. Whoopsie. NIST gots nothing on WTC 7. It's the smoking gun, and once they put out their report...I think even the left-brainers will have no choice but to accept the truth i.e. 9/11 IS AN INSIDE JOB
Click to expand...

Sorry to say, but this just shows how poor your investigative skills are. The mere fact that the final report isn't out doesn't mean they don't have the answer. And it certainly doesn't follow that 9/11 was an inside job.

Otherwise, the fact that you haven't written an autobiography means you're a communist collaborator!
 
Belz... said:
Was that sarcasm ?
Click to expand...

Well, you can call it sarcasm if you want to, but I call it LOGIC! The video shows conclusively, using scientific stuff like equations and graphs, that wtc7 fell faster than gravitational acceleration within earth's atmosphere can explain. So some other explanation is needed!

The key point, though, is that falling faster than can be accounted for by gravity rules out the "deliberate demolition" theory just as much as it does the "structural failure due to extensive structural damage and fire" theory. Neither can explain a 100m 4.5-second fall. Demolition charges could only have increased the local ambient atmospheric pressure (and by only a minute amount for a very short time). Something else must have accelerated the fall, either a temporary vacuum that removed the air resistance, or some other force.

I considered several other theories before concluding that implosives were responsible. The tidal forces from a passing black hole on the far side of the earth would have set off seismometers worldwide. Attaching heavy weights to the building's frame, I concluded after some careful analysis, could not have caused a fall any faster than freefall. A giant electromagnet hidden underground would have attracted ferromagnetic debris from the nearby tower sites. Huge steel springs could have been stretched from major support members to anchors in the ground, but springs are unpredictable; from watching many cartoons I know that springs sturdy enough for the job would have caused the whole building to go bouncing around the city for several minutes after it fell, making deafeningly loud "boinnng-oinnnng-oinnng" sounds as it did so.

Therefore, even though the whole concept of "high implosives" violates several important rules of chemistry, thermodynamics, and fluid mechanics, and even though I can provide not one iota of supporting evidence for my assertions (except for Horatius's video, which proves I'm right), I am confident that implosives are the only possible explanation, for the rapid collapse of wtc7 and possibly the towers as well. (Didn't they fall "faster than gravity" too?)

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
Well, you can call it sarcasm if you want to, but I call it LOGIC! The video shows conclusively, using scientific stuff like equations and graphs, that wtc7 fell faster than gravitational acceleration within earth's atmosphere can explain. So some other explanation is needed!

The key point, though, is that falling faster than can be accounted for by gravity rules out the "deliberate demolition" theory just as much as it does the "structural failure due to extensive structural damage and fire" theory. Neither can explain a 100m 4.5-second fall. Demolition charges could only have increased the local ambient atmospheric pressure (and by only a minute amount for a very short time). Something else must have accelerated the fall, either a temporary vacuum that removed the air resistance, or some other force.

I considered several other theories before concluding that implosives were responsible. The tidal forces from a passing black hole on the far side of the earth would have set off seismometers worldwide. Attaching heavy weights to the building's frame, I concluded after some careful analysis, could not have caused a fall any faster than freefall. A giant electromagnet hidden underground would have attracted ferromagnetic debris from the nearby tower sites. Huge steel springs could have been stretched from major support members to anchors in the ground, but springs are unpredictable; from watching many cartoons I know that springs sturdy enough for the job would have caused the whole building to go bouncing around the city for several minutes after it fell, making deafeningly loud "boinnng-oinnnng-oinnng" sounds as it did so.

Therefore, even though the whole concept of "high implosives" violates several important rules of chemistry, thermodynamics, and fluid mechanics, and even though I can provide not one iota of supporting evidence for my assertions (except for Horatius's video, which proves I'm right), I am confident that implosives are the only possible explanation, for the rapid collapse of wtc7 and possibly the towers as well. (Didn't they fall "faster than gravity" too?)

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Nominated! And not just because he mentioned me in it, although that helped :)

Can two related posts both win?
 
28th Kingdom said:
Left-brained people are so unbelievably naive. If they only knew what the world really looks like.
Click to expand...

What colour is the sky in your world?

28th Kingdom said:
The problem is that left-brain people...although genius-like in certain aspects of sciences and studies...have absolutely NO common sense. And, I mean NONE!

That's why there is such a problem with our communication...we see the world in two entirely different ways. Right Brain people...SEE THE WHOLE FORREST i.e. the big picture. AND left-brained people only see parts of the forest i.e. THE TREES

Right-brain people...can look at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Ask a few questions like...what type of building...how tall, what type of damage. 47 story, steel structured high rise, with a few scattered fires, and some exterior damage (on one side) from falling debris. We take in this basic information, watch the video a few times...and, conclude...that the building couldn't have physically collapsed the way it does from the damages reported. It doesn't take any degree in structural engineering...it just takes common sense.
Click to expand...

28th Kingdom said:
Just call me Sense. Common Sense. Are you even familiar with WTC 7?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

You do realize that three buildings collapsed on 9/11, right?
Click to expand...

I have a question for you that common sense should be able to answer.

Have you ever driven a motorcycle?

Let's say you're driving a motorcycle straight at 30 mph when suddenly a small dog runs out and stops directly in front of you. You quickly and suddenly push hard on the right handlebar.

In which direction does the motorcycle swerve?


28th Kingdom said:
What's gonna happen if NIST's WTC 7 report - concludes that explosives are what brought it down? Hahahahahaha - Are you gonna disagree with them?

Worlds are colliding, Jerry.
Click to expand...

When 'ifs' and 'buts' are candies and nuts it'll be Christmas every day. -- Dutch proverb
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
Well, you can call it sarcasm if you want to, but I call it LOGIC! The video shows conclusively, using scientific stuff like equations and graphs, that wtc7 fell faster than gravitational acceleration within earth's atmosphere can explain. So some other explanation is needed!

The key point, though, is that falling faster than can be accounted for by gravity rules out the "deliberate demolition" theory just as much as it does the "structural failure due to extensive structural damage and fire" theory. Neither can explain a 100m 4.5-second fall. Demolition charges could only have increased the local ambient atmospheric pressure (and by only a minute amount for a very short time). Something else must have accelerated the fall, either a temporary vacuum that removed the air resistance, or some other force.

I considered several other theories before concluding that implosives were responsible. The tidal forces from a passing black hole on the far side of the earth would have set off seismometers worldwide. Attaching heavy weights to the building's frame, I concluded after some careful analysis, could not have caused a fall any faster than freefall. A giant electromagnet hidden underground would have attracted ferromagnetic debris from the nearby tower sites. Huge steel springs could have been stretched from major support members to anchors in the ground, but springs are unpredictable; from watching many cartoons I know that springs sturdy enough for the job would have caused the whole building to go bouncing around the city for several minutes after it fell, making deafeningly loud "boinnng-oinnnng-oinnng" sounds as it did so.
Therefore, even though the whole concept of "high implosives" violates several important rules of chemistry, thermodynamics, and fluid mechanics, and even though I can provide not one iota of supporting evidence for my assertions (except for Horatius's video, which proves I'm right), I am confident that implosives are the only possible explanation, for the rapid collapse of wtc7 and possibly the towers as well. (Didn't they fall "faster than gravity" too?)

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...
:D
Hey, Belz, with all due respect, gotta get your sarcasmometer in to the shop!
 
28th Kingdom said:
Not surprising...to see a Doublethinker... with a proclivity for paradoxical phrases. :)

To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.
Click to expand...

I found another one:

The following statement is false.
The previous statement is true.

And, you think CTers are wacky... There's nothing more psychotic than a person who speaks in paradoxes.
​
 
28th Kingdom said:
I found another one:

The following statement is false.
The previous statement is true.

And, you think CTers are wacky... There's nothing more psychotic than a person who speaks in paradoxes.
​
Click to expand...

So this is what you're reduced to? Ignorant and uneducated analysis of people's sigs?

Why don't you take a shot at mine, since you seem to like "psychotic" writing so much?
 
28th Kingdom said:
I found another one:

The following statement is false.
The previous statement is true.


And, you think CTers are wacky... There's nothing more psychotic than a person who speaks in paradoxes.​
Click to expand...

Really?

Can you imagine the following statement to be true? There is a machine on this planet that is so powerful it controls your everyday live.

Can you imagine that? In your common sense layman’s views can you possibly imagine such a powerful machine? Something so extraordinary it defies belief?

Please let me explain what this machine does. It has a shaft that spins, upon which are coils of metal. This shaft spins inside other coils of metal. This is all this machine does. Yet attached to this machine are other bits of metal which unbelievably transmit at the speed of light energy (power). This power can do many things. It can light your home, it can heat your home, it can power the very computer your have stitched on, even the monitor is powered by this unseen machine. This machine defies all common sense, how is it possible that a machine that simply does nothing other than spin is capable of driving so many other things?

This is where layman’s common sense falls over and science kicks in. For science has figured out years ago that such a machine is practical. Science has devised ways of running this machine from fossil fuel, solar power, wind and even tidal changes.

Yet common sense would have us believe that such a machine could possibly exist. Common sense would tell me that something that is spinning miles away from where I live could not possibly heat my home, not could it illuminate my home. Yet they do. These impossible machines do so and much more.

Science, my friend will kick in to touch all your common sense believes. Because common sense would have us believe that such things as generators do not exist. Common sense would tell us that when I switch a light on in my house it is simply magic, whereby science says differant.Science sussed it all out for you, science simply decimates your silly theories. Science is not on your side.

28th you and your common sense would drag us all back to the Stone Age.

Welcome to the real world.


3.gif
 
Last edited:
Just thought this might interest people.

Foolmewunz said:
Oliver, sorry to disturb your holiday, but it seems that you've fallen behind on the "Ignore by 28th Kingdom" badges.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom
Arkan...I asked nicely not to quote people on my ignore button...sorry friend, now you are on my ignore button as well. Just to recapitulate...here are the people on my ignore button. My list was accidentally erased one time, so I had to go back and add some of these:

Architect
Arkan_Wolfshade
Arus808
beachnut
Foolmewunz
HeyLeroy
Horatius
Kiwiwriter
Regnad Kcin
solidslade
stateofgrace

If you are one of these members...please don't direct comments towards me, because I promise I can't see them. You're only cluttering up the threads for the other people who actually have an interest in discussing the issues at hand.

This board has LOTS of other places to play... so please just do everyone a small favor and stop cluttering up my threads with your comments that I can't see.
I love the way he went to the trouble to put the list in alphabetical order! He's so completely anal that Preparation H is naming a new product line after him!
"The Only Cure for Head Up Your Ass Pain! New Improved 28K Suppositories!"
Click to expand...
 
OOH i finally earn a badge? cool! I didn't have the heart to sign up at the LC forums, so I can't get that one
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom