Lateral ejection of debris trash

28th Kingdom said:
You have eight sides to account for... with the video available from 9/11... I'm sure it won't be a problem for you to show me the other 7 sides bowing.
Click to expand...
Please show us video of the Mossad agents planting the therm?te devices in WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7.
 
28th Kingdom said:
Your appeal to authority tells you that a guess from an, "expert," has more value than a guess from a layman. If an assertion is supported by nothing more than an assumption, than it must be viewed as equal, regardless of who is making it.
Click to expand...
Since you have NEVER until now responded to any of my direct questions to you, this will be my only response to you. My example was Stephen Hawkins versus Stanley Pons. In the first place, assuming you are referring to Hawkins as an expert, we see you think Stanley Pons is a layman? You are severely deluded. Considering the debacle regarding Pons and cold fusion, why should I accept anything he says over another scientist that has not made such an error in science. Same thing with the woowoos. So now kindly add me to your growing ignore list woowoo.
 
I assume that you chaps have seen the calculation over at 911myths.com; I have to admit I can't be arsed translating it all into metric but it seems quite reasonable.
 
Mancman said:
You are 100% wrong.

Trusses sagging and columns bowing is confirmed by photographic evidence.
Click to expand...

No, you are 100% wrong. Photographic evidence isn't scientific evidence. I have presented tons of video footage... and invariably I am asked to show the scientific proof behind my claims.

If NIST's report rests on nothing more than one video... than I can safely say their theory is not based in science.
 
~enigma~ said:
If the woowoos had been using science, logic and math since 9/11, I wouldn't have different criteria for them. Just as I would have different criteria for reading Stephen Hawkins versus Stanley Pons. So is that an ad hominem?

ETA - So was you asking me to change my critical thinker tag just a logical fallacy you made?
Click to expand...
yup:D
 
28th Kingdom said:
No, you are 100% wrong. Photographic evidence isn't scientific evidence. I have presented tons of video footage... and invariably I am asked to show the scientific proof behind my claims.

If NIST's report rests on nothing more than one video... than I can safely say their theory is not based in science.
Click to expand...

Photgraphic evidence and other observations are used in scientific proof.

Standing alone they are nothing. They need to fit in a scientific hypothesis
 
Last edited:
babazaroni said:
Well, since the top tilted toward the bowing side, the balls back in your court.
Click to expand...

And, since there are two towers with different degrees of damage and different size upper masses, and only one of the upper masses tilted... but both towers collapsed in the exact same fashion... now, the ball is back in your court.
 
At the risk of a rap over the knuckles from the mods:

28th - what a fanny.





(NB "fanny" is used in the UK sense)
 
28th Kingdom said:
And, since there are two towers with different degrees of damage and different size upper masses, and only one of the upper masses tilted... but both towers collapsed in the exact same fashion... now, the ball is back in your court.
Click to expand...

If your arguement depends on us not finding photos of bowing columns on the impact sides, you should stop right now.

You do know that the top of both towers tilted right?
 
Last edited:
28th Kingdom said:
No, you are 100% wrong. Photographic evidence isn't scientific evidence. I have presented tons of video footage... and invariably I am asked to show the scientific proof behind my claims.

If NIST's report rests on nothing more than one video... than I can safely say their theory is not based in science.
Click to expand...

And isn't it odd how all the scientists in the world (minus a handful from Scholars for 9/11 Truth) don't make the slightest bit of fuss about the NIST report?

I'd rather not get my opinion of science from someone who calculates the time for a steel beam to fall 415 metres by multiplying the time it would take to fall 100 metres by 4.15. Someone, who when this ignorance of basic science is pointed out to them, goes back and edits their post and then accuses the people who quoted it of making it up and 'black propaganda'. In short, a scientific illiterate and a LIAR. No, I'd rather not get my opinion of science from you.

You don't have anything to say here 28k, why don't you go out and change the world? Go on, prove us all wrong...
 
28th Kingdom said:
And, since there are two towers with different degrees of damage and different size upper masses, and only one of the upper masses tilted... but both towers collapsed in the exact same fashion... now, the ball is back in your court.
Click to expand...

Both towers titled. Check your facts.

Here is photographic evidence of WTC1 tilting to the south:
6-11_wtc1-collapsing-wnbc.jpg


Wow, it happens to be leaning towards those columns that were bowing inward by upto 55 inches:
6-45_wtc1-south-face.jpg


You might have known this if you had actually read the NIST reports.
 
28th Kingdom said:
A guess is a guess is a guess is a guess. It doesn't matter who is making the guess... it is still a guess. Your appeal to authority tells you that a guess from an, "expert," has more value than a guess from a layman. If an assertion is supported by nothing more than an assumption, than it must be viewed as equal, regardless of who is making it.

Trusses sagging is a guess. It cannot be proven with a scientific equation. Columns bowing is an assumption, it cannot be proven with a scientific equation. Therefore... these assertions hold no more water than a layman saying explosives brought down the towers. It's yer ego (elitist attitude) and prejudices that distort your viewpoint... by telling you that all opinions are not created equal.

NIST's report is a whitewash. None of the theories in it, can be proven with science. You cannot prove that trusses actually sagged on both towers, or that they (trusses) caused the outer columns to bow... or that this bowing caused all four sides on each tower to fail simultaneous... These are all guesses... based out of a cornucopia of scientific improbabilities.
Click to expand...

You left forever! Who is this? No facts yet?
 
28th Kingdom said:
And, since there are two towers with different degrees of damage and different size upper masses, and only one of the upper masses tilted... but both towers collapsed in the exact same fashion... now, the ball is back in your court.
Click to expand...

What school system failed you?

With 248 tons of TNT energy available; Gravity gives us massive collapsed and chaos.

Questions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom