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

[WildCat]

Number 1 I wouldn't be able to support the static load of an SUV anyway, lol!

How about a 100 lb. weight? Now, if that 100 lb weight were dropped on top of you from a height of 10 feet how much do you think you'd be able to slow it down?

 

[Disbelief]

Completely wrong. Reeeeeeally wrong wow! WTC7, try watching the video. the roof line fell evenly and symmetrically, impossible without demolition.

Another move of the TM, evade the other questions and scurry to a different topic. How about you just provide your conservation of momentum calculations and then work through the other issues after that has been resolved.

 

[dtugg]

Completely wrong. Reeeeeeally wrong wow! WTC7, try watching the video. the roof line fell evenly and symmetrically, impossible without demolition.

Let's just pretend for a second that it was symmetrical. Prove that such a thing is impossible without demolition. Go!

 

[SabreTruthTiger]

You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

What we're asking is for you to appeal to evidence, and that's what you're refusing to do.

Dave

wrong, you're asking me to present complex physics equations to prove something very basic and intuitively obvious. Only a physicist would be able to do this, thus you're implying that only a qualified physicist is entitled to comment on this matter thus you're appealing to authority

 

[SabreTruthTiger]

Ah, quote mining. Are there any other common truther styles of lying you'd like to try out while you're here?

Dave

Please address the facts presented.

Thank you

 

[Crazytimes]

wrong, you're asking me to present complex physics equations to prove something very basic and intuitively obvious. Only a physicist would be able to do this, thus you're implying that only a qualified physicist is entitled to comment on this matter thus you're appealing to authority

So what happens when an actual physicist disagrees with you ? There are some on here ya know. Although they may be paid by the government to post here.

 

[SabreTruthTiger]

How about a 100 lb. weight? Now, if that 100 lb weight were dropped on top of you from a height of 10 feet how much do you think you'd be able to slow it down?

To make an analogy to WTC collpases you'd have to drop it from a height of 1 cm

 

[dtugg]

wrong, you're asking me to present complex physics equations to prove something very basic and intuitively obvious. Only a physicist would be able to do this, thus you're implying that only a qualified physicist is entitled to comment on this matter thus you're appealing to authority

For some odd reason, this is only obvious to someone who knows nothing about physics.

 

[SabreTruthTiger]

So what happens when an actual physicist disagrees with you ? There are some on here ya know. Although they may be paid by the government to post here.

lol yes many a true word spoken in jest. If a scientist wants to throw equations at me, there's not much I can do, however if he wants to talk in layman's terms that would facilitate a more constructive dialogue.
I must admit I'm enjoying this as many here are discussing it rationally (with the odd bit of ad hominem) I feel rather outnumbered but it sure beats youtube.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The pancake progression was not even looked at by NIST because they knew they wouldn't be able to find a plausible explanation.

Evidence please.

The Structural steel beams would have provided ample resitance and if they remained stndng then the lack of resistance would have had more credibilty but somehow the main columns disintegrated.

Evidence please.

NIST were forced to acknowledge the weakness of the pancake theory when they tested steel samples from the World Trade Center.

Evidence please.

"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th," concluded NIST in their Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers.

Context please.

You're making things up, then stating them as verifiable fact, and never backing up your claims. You've posted one quote, out of context, which I'm sure doesn't mean what you'd like to claim it means. At the moment, you're coming across as a vanilla frothing-mouthed truther sheep, obediently parroting whatever nonsense the cult has programmed into your head but unable to muster the self-critical faculties to understand that the unsupported word of an anonymous internet poster on a discussion forum carries no weight whatsoever without something - anything - to back up those assertions.

Dave

 

[SabreTruthTiger]

Let's just pretend for a second that it was symmetrical. Prove that such a thing is impossible without demolition. Go!

right (I started my stopwatch) Any structural damage from impacts such as the masonry colliding that gouged holes in one side of WTC7,create inequality in the structural integrity, so any resistance would be uneven and collapse would occur more toward the points of weakness. Any such inequalities are accumulative and result in tearing forces which often lead to partial collapse. In order for symmetric collapse, every structural support must be removed simultaneously across each floor, for every floor, with localised random structural weaknesses this is impossible. I've yet to see or hear of a non-CD modern building that collapsed symmetrically and completely

 

[Unsecured Coins]

right (I started my stopwatch) Any structural damage from impacts such as the masonry colliding that gouged holes in one side of WTC7,create inequality in the structural integrity, so any resistance would be uneven and collapse would occur more toward the points of weakness. Any such inequalities are accumulative and result in tearing forces which often lead to partial collapse. In order for symmetric collapse, every structural support must be removed simultaneously across each floor, for every floor, with localised random structural weaknesses this is impossible. I've yet to see or hear of a non-CD modern building that collapsed symmetrically and completely

 

[SabreTruthTiger]

Evidence please.



Evidence please.




Evidence please.




Context please.

You're making things up, then stating them as verifiable fact, and never backing up your claims. You've posted one quote, out of context, which I'm sure doesn't mean what you'd like to claim it means. At the moment, you're coming across as a vanilla frothing-mouthed truther sheep, obediently parroting whatever nonsense the cult has programmed into your head but unable to muster the self-critical faculties to understand that the unsupported word of an anonymous internet poster on a discussion forum carries no weight whatsoever without something - anything - to back up those assertions.

Dave

The NIST report is well known to have only deal with collapse initiation. They then came up with the pancake theory which they later discarded. Now I hear they've come up with a new mathematical theory that NIST claims explains the collapse. I haven't read it and I'm not sure I'd understand it if I did. It does seem a long time coming though, and at a convenient time when the truth movement is gaining momentum

 

[dtugg]

right (I started my stopwatch) Any structural damage from impacts such as the masonry colliding that gouged holes in one side of WTC7,create inequality in the structural integrity, so any resistance would be uneven and collapse would occur more toward the points of weakness. Any such inequalities are accumulative and result in tearing forces which often lead to partial collapse. In order for symmetric collapse, every structural support must be removed simultaneously across each floor, for every floor, with localised random structural weaknesses this is impossible. I've yet to see or hear of a non-CD modern building that collapsed symmetrically and completely

Sorry, your uneducated speculation is not proof. You fail.

And you thing there was a bomb, or superdupernanothermite, or whatever on every stuctural support in the entire building? LOL. [infinite number of laughing dogs]

 

[Dave Rogers]

Completely wrong. Reeeeeeally wrong wow! WTC7, try watching the video. the roof line fell evenly and symmetrically, impossible without demolition.

I've seen the video. The collapse began with one penthouse, progressed across to the other, then a kink developed in the roofline and the facade fell middle first, with the sides following later. From a different angle, and from the way the north wall covers the debris pile, it's clear that the building rotated to the south as it fell. Neither even nor symmetric, and all this is abundantly clear from videos of the collapse.

wrong, you're asking me to present complex physics equations to prove something very basic and intuitively obvious. Only a physicist would be able to do this, thus you're implying that only a qualified physicist is entitled to comment on this matter thus you're appealing to authority

I'm saying that there is nothing intuitively obvious about your conclusions, and this is clear from the fact that you are utterly incapable of advancing any kind of line of reasoning beyond simple repetition of an unsupported assertion. Unless you can present actual numbers, you have no basis on which to make a conclusion other than "well it just looks funny", which isn't going to convince anyone. Evidence, please, not just unsupported claims.

Please address the facts presented.

Please present some.

So what happens when an actual physicist disagrees with you ?

That would be me.

lol yes many a true word spoken in jest. If a scientist wants to throw equations at me, there's not much I can do, however if he wants to talk in layman's terms that would facilitate a more constructive dialogue.

Please explain your reasoning in layman's terms, then. You haven't even done that yet.

Dave

 

[WildCat]

Please address the facts presented.

Thank you

And when will you be presenting some facts?

 

[SabreTruthTiger]

Evidence please.



Evidence please.




Evidence please.




Context please.

You're making things up, then stating them as verifiable fact, and never backing up your claims. You've posted one quote, out of context, which I'm sure doesn't mean what you'd like to claim it means. At the moment, you're coming across as a vanilla frothing-mouthed truther sheep, obediently parroting whatever nonsense the cult has programmed into your head but unable to muster the self-critical faculties to understand that the unsupported word of an anonymous internet poster on a discussion forum carries no weight whatsoever without something - anything - to back up those assertions.

Dave

The second to last quote provides the context for the last.
The fact that the steel structural beams disintegrated is at odds with the speed of collapse and thus the law of conservation of momentum.

 

[WildCat]

To make an analogy to WTC collpases you'd have to drop it from a height of 1 cm

No, you don't scale gravitational acceleration. 10 feet it is. Now answer the question: How much do you think you'll be able to slow down a 100 lb weight dropped on top of you from a height of 10 feet?

 

[Dave Rogers]

The NIST report is well known to have only deal with collapse initiation. They then came up with the pancake theory which they later discarded. Now I hear they've come up with a new mathematical theory that NIST claims explains the collapse.

This is completely untrue. You have absolutely no idea of what NIST has done or in what order. If your understanding of events is so poor, I'm not surprised you think there's something suspicious going on. I suggest you cure your ignorance before continuing this discussion.

It does seem a long time coming though, and at a convenient time when the truth movement is gaining momentum

You mis-spelled "long dead".

Dave

 

[lapman]

Completely wrong. Reeeeeeally wrong wow! WTC7, try watching the video. the roof line fell evenly and symmetrically, impossible without demolition.

100% false if you watch the entire collapse instead of the cut one provided by your TM gods. The east penthouse falls in first. The rest of the roof structures collapse into the building from east to west FASTER than the perimeter walls are collapsing. I have asked numerous times over the past 3 years for any example of a CD done before or since 9/11 that does anything similar to the collapse of WTC 7. So far, nothing has been presented. Will you be the first?