• 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.

Truthers...what is your best piece of evidence ?

SabreTruthTiger said:
Trying to speculate on the techniques used is moot, as the physics of the collapses themselves prove demolition. You don't need to know who a car's driver is to know a car is being driven around the racetrack
Click to expand...

Really ?

So how much weight was a floor in the WTC able to support? static or dynamic will do, take your pick
 
SabreTruthTiger said:
There is no refuting that the kerosine fires in dirty burns are only ever 500-700 F Steel has extremely high thermal conduction properties and would have drawn heat away quickly. The fact that people wer standing in the gash just before the tower collpased and the smoke had been black for a while with very little flame visible shows that the steel had cooled substantially, thus steel weakened by heat could not have caused the collapse
Click to expand...

why did the jet fuel used in the natgeo special reach over 2,000 degrees then?
 
WildCat said:
The fact is those people jumped to their deaths after they could withstand the heat no longer.

[qimg]http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/edna_cintron.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/edna_falling.jpg[/qimg]

Why do you think she jumped STT? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Some people can't take the heat in saunas before they pass out, the residual heat would still be too intense for people while still being massively below the point required to weaken steel.
 
SabreTruthTiger said:
I'm afraid claiming the argument was debunked years ago is not a refutation. Nor is an arbitrary statement on what people did or didn't hear
Click to expand...
In other words, you cannot come up with anything with the sound of explosives. Again, no sound of explosives = no explosives.
 
SabreTruthTiger said:
Some people can't take the heat in saunas before they pass out, the residual heat would still be too intense for people while still being massively below the point required to weaken steel.
Click to expand...

Please address the fact that over 1000 windows were opened by the fires in WTC1 when a twoof movement engineer says this requires at least 700 C (1300 F).
 
Because it's a propaganda piece, and untrue. Also even IF (it didn't) but even IF the fire burned hot enough to weaken steel the initiated collapse of the top section would not be enough to smash through the intact, unweakened steel floors below built to withstand 5 times the static load above, certainly not at that speed.
 
SabreTruthTiger said:
Trying to speculate on the techniques used is moot, as the physics of the collapses themselves prove demolition.
Click to expand...

No, they don't. Everything observed in the collapses is easily explained using the physical assumption that the initiation was due to fire and impact damage, and the sole energy source for propagation of collapse was gravitational potential energy. Have you read everything at http://www.911myths.com yet, as I suggested? You'll find detailed refutation of most, if not all, of your points there.

Dave
 
SabreTruthTiger said:
You don't need to know who a car's driver is to know a car is being driven around the racetrack
Click to expand...
It's an established fact that race cars are driven by drivers. It is not an established fact that explosives used in CDs are shielded against extreme heat and protected against damage. It is also not an established fact that the sound of high explosives can me muted.
 
SabreTruthTiger said:
It would be more productive however if you could address the violation of the law of conservation of momentum for starters
Click to expand...

OK, let's start with that one. Post your calculations showing that the collapses violate the law of conservation of momentum, and I'll be happy to take a look and tell you where you've got it wrong.

Dave
 
SabreTruthTiger said:
Because it's a propaganda piece, and untrue. Also even IF (it didn't) but even IF the fire burned hot enough to weaken steel the initiated collapse of the top section would not be enough to smash through the intact, unweakened steel floors below built to withstand 5 times the static load above, certainly not at that speed.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep saying 5 times, even though Dave Rogers took the time to point out this is a false claim? Second, what was the dynamic load of the top floors falling?
 
SabreTruthTiger said:
Because it's a propaganda piece, and untrue. Also even IF (it didn't) but even IF the fire burned hot enough to weaken steel the initiated collapse of the top section would not be enough to smash through the intact, unweakened steel floors below built to withstand 5 times the static load above, certainly not at that speed.
Click to expand...
Really? Please provide your calcualtions that prove this.
 
Explosions were heard, and by the way only cutting charges are necessary to initiate the collapse more powerful explosives could be disguised by the sound of the collapse
 
lapman said:
Really? Please provide your calcualtions that prove this.
Click to expand...
aah yes, the old shill tactic appeal to authority. The physics are simple and equations are not needed if it can be expalined in layman's terms. If I saw a man decapitated in a train accident would I need a Medical degree to ascertain if he's dead? The evidence is very basic and intuitively obvious.
 
Cutter charges going off sound like this:



Nothing like this was recorded on 9/11. I wonder why?
 
stateofgrace said:
Really ?

So how much weight was a floor in the WTC able to support? static or dynamic will do, take your pick
Click to expand...

SabreTruthTiger said:
Because it's a propaganda piece, and untrue. Also even IF (it didn't) but even IF the fire burned hot enough to weaken steel the initiated collapse of the top section would not be enough to smash through the intact, unweakened steel floors below built to withstand 5 times the static load above, certainly not at that speed.
Click to expand...

Is this your answer? Five times, it own weight? I take you do understand the differance between static and dynamic, right?

Maybe it is time for you to run away and do some more google investigations.
 
SabreTruthTiger said:
Explosions were heard, and by the way only cutting charges are necessary to initiate the collapse more powerful explosives could be disguised by the sound of the collapse
Click to expand...
Then you should have no problem providing a video of a CD that was done before or since 9/11 that backs your claim. In the one I posted, the first set of explosions were the cutter charges, The second set of explosions pushes the columns in the direction the engineers want them to go. Again, the onus on you is to prove that the sound of explosives would not be recorded by every audio recording device in the area.
 
SabreTruthTiger said:
aah yes, the old shill tactic appeal to authority. The physics are simple and equations are not needed if it can be expalined in layman's terms. If I saw a man decapitated in a train accident would I need a Medical degree to ascertain if he's dead? The evidence is very basic and intuitively obvious.
Click to expand...

In other words, you've got nothing. Why didn't you just say so?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom