Common Sense

[R.Mackey]

We Truthers... actually adhere to scientific laws, probability and common logic and reason... to piece everything together in a very clear and detailed image of what actually happened on 9/11. We certainly don't throw our hands up in the air and go... 8474 happens man. Planes hit buildings... and now we have three magical collapses... and new laws of physics to document...

If that's so, then why have you not yet answered my last post, like you promised you would? Especially if you're so sure that you "adhere to scientific laws," while I apparently "throw my hands up in the air?" What's the delay?

Or did I scare you off with my credentials? Having answered your question, I expect you to provide me with yours in your reply. I would also be glad to go into more detail about my training, if you would like.

 

[Skibum]

"at the sake of sounding like a genius" is just the icing on the cake, lol

True, I'm pretty sure my six year old daughter has a better grasp of reality than 28th.

 

[Architect]

True, I'm pretty sure my six year old daughter has a better grasp of reality than 28th.

I'm damned sure my 5 year old has.

 

[Skibum]

I'm damned sure my 5 year old has.

I just asked her a few relevant questions, she answered correctly. So I am certain she does now.

I did get a few odd "why are you asking me these simple questions" looks from her though.

 

[Mancman]

We Truthers... actually adhere to scientific laws, probability and common logic and reason... to piece everything together in a very clear and detailed image of what actually happened on 9/11.

Damn, a week too late for the 'best denier quotes of 2006' thread.

 

[Architect]

Damn, a week too late for the 'best denier quotes of 2006' thread.

But getting in at the top if anyone fancies a 2007 thread!

 

[28th Kingdom]

Show me a video that has the full collapse happening in 9.2 seconds, and we can talk about freefall speeds. As for the near freefall argument (near freefall not being a scientific term), I am assuming a generous 15 seconds

which is a little more than a third of the actual value. This is with the generous time estimate (in YOUR favor). With real times I'm sure you aren't even in the same order of magnitude. This is not near freefall. This is the value of g for mars.

Okay...let's break down what you said... firstly, near freefall isn't a scientific term... agreed. And, then you claim that 15 seconds compared to 9.2 seconds is NOT near freefall speeds. So, who endowed you with this judgment? So, scientifically speaking... what time would be near 9.2 seconds. 10 seconds? 11 seconds? 12 seconds? What definition of "near" are you working with?

You understand if the towers had fallen in 9.2 seconds... it means a synthetic catalyst had to of been used, right? So you add 4-6 seconds to this... factor in probability and common logic... and what do you get?

 

[JimBenArm]

Wow. Just when I think 28 can't get any stupider, he goes and outdoes himself. He's truly a treasure, someone who can actually suck the intelligence from a thread just by showing up!

 

[Bell]

Wow. Just when I think 28 can't get any stupider, he goes and outdoes himself. He's truly a treasure, someone who can actually suck the intelligence from a thread just by showing up!

I imagine 28IQ buying a CD that costs $15.00 and trying to pay with a $10 bill. Well, 10 dollar is near enough.

 

[babazaroni]

Okay...let's break down what you said... firstly, near freefall isn't a scientific term... agreed. And, then you claim that 15 seconds compared to 9.2 seconds is NOT near freefall speeds. So, who endowed you with this judgment? So, scientifically speaking... what time would be near 9.2 seconds. 10 seconds? 11 seconds? 12 seconds? What definition of "near" are you working with?

You've use the term. What is your definition?

 

[Pardalis]

28th, your explosives theory seems to be based on your argument that the building could have withstood the falling top section.

Please explain how this can be.

 

[Kage]

Did you even read my post? The effective g (acceleration due to gravity) for a collapse taking 15 seconds is 3.7 m/s^2. The actual acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2.

I said that 15 seconds was when the building was at a height of 750 feet. The actual collapse took more like 30 seconds. Did you even read my post?

 

[Skibum]

You understand if the towers had fallen in 9.2 seconds... it means a synthetic catalyst had to of been used, right? So you add 4-6 seconds to this... factor in probability and common logic... and what do you get?

A building whose collapse was initiated due to structural failure due to a plane crash and fires and continued because there was no way to stop it, just like the wtc towers?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Okay...let's break down what you said... firstly, near freefall isn't a scientific term... agreed. And, then you claim that 15 seconds compared to 9.2 seconds is NOT near freefall speeds. So, who endowed you with this judgment? So, scientifically speaking... what time would be near 9.2 seconds. 10 seconds? 11 seconds? 12 seconds? What definition of "near" are you working with?

You understand if the towers had fallen in 9.2 seconds... it means a synthetic catalyst had to of been used, right? So you add 4-6 seconds to this... factor in probability and common logic... and what do you get?

well your the one who says they fell near free fall, what do you think near is? how fast did they fall? i asked you for a number on the last page

did i get added to the ignore list?

 

[CHF]

28th Kingdom,

you stated that you can "piece everything together in a very clear and detailed image of what actually happened on 9/11."

So give me your narrative.

I don't want endless stupid questions or "this doesn't look right."

I want you to tie all your evidence together into a logical narrative. You'd be the very first twoofer to do it.

 

[Architect]

Ask him what the shear loads on the lower structure were at the point of impact of the dynamic upper load, esp. with respect to design capacity.

On ye go....

 

[babazaroni]

You understand if the towers had fallen in 9.2 seconds... it means a synthetic catalyst had to of been used, right? So you add 4-6 seconds to this... factor in probability and common logic... and what do you get?

He adds it because that is what the timing on the video shows.

Show us your video and how you calculate your time.

Do you understand the enormous difference between 9.2 seconds and 15 seconds?

 

[28th Kingdom]

Let me show you how completely selective you are when it comes to scientific laws...and applying them only when you think it confirms you theory.

A lot of you try to debunk the free fall speeds... by saying the debris landed first... and so that means the towers didn't fall faster than free fall.

Free fall in its strictest sense is the condition of acceleration which is due only to gravity. In other words, the objects undergoing free fall experience only one force: their own weight.

Um, you know the debris wasn't just falling... it was projected outward with energy released from explosives...so maybe that energy sort of like had something to due with increasing the speed at which the debris traveled to the ground.

You've officially been DEBUNKED!

 

[babazaroni]

Let me show you how completely selective you are when it comes to scientific laws...and applying them only when you think it confirms you theory.

A lot of you try to debunk the free fall speeds... by saying the debris landed first... and so that means the towers didn't fall faster than free fall.

Free fall in its strictest sense is the condition of acceleration which is due only to gravity. In other words, the objects undergoing free fall experience only one force: their own weight.

Um, you know the debris wasn't just falling... it was projected outward with energy released from explosives...so maybe that energy sort of like had something to due with increasing the speed at which the debris traveled to the ground.

You've officially been DEBUNKED!

Horizontal velocity has no impact on how gravity will pull on object down.

It just means the object will hit the ground farther away from the start.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

You understand if the towers had fallen in 9.2 seconds... it means a synthetic catalyst had to of been used, right?

you realize that if the towers had fallen in 9.2 seconds it would violate the laws of physics, right? synthetic catalyst or no synthetic catalyst for the towers to fall in perfect free fall the entire tower would have to fall as a unit, but it didnt, therefore there are 2 possible explanations in they fell in 9.2 seconds

1: gravity was stronger than normal in manhattan that day
2: they didnt fall in 9.2 seconds