Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

[alienentity]

Chorduroy - well put and welcome!

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The correct expressions are: "inability to understand" and "denial of the facts". Maybe you should sign up to one of your wife's English grammar classes and refrain from posting until you can write properly.

I'm sorry, is the no-planer/space-beamer trying to act like he's educating people?

 

[TruthersLie]

I'm sorry, is the no-planer/space-beamer trying to act like he's educating people?

He is trying...

But then again, he is correct... I shouldn't get on here to smack around truthers after 6 drinks... it throws my grammar and spelling to ****.

But then again after all the schooling I have given him, I'll allow him to try to be "cute."

 

[Miragememories]

BBBZZZZTTTTT!!!! Wrong. It most certainly could.

Can you show us a CD that has a period of FFA? We'll wait.......

Any of the WTC7 collapse videos will do nicely.

Proof of FFA courtesy of the NIST.

MM

 

[Justin39640]

Any of the WTC7 collapse videos will do nicely.

Proof of FFA courtesy of the NIST.

MM

I believe they were looking for more examples to compare to the WTC7 collapse. You knew that and yet you play your games. No wonder no one takes any truthers seriously. Time wasting circle talkers.

 

[Miragememories]

"Nobody here is "ignoring" thermite. Evaluating the available evidence leads most rational people to determine that thermite is clearly an extremely unlikely candidate to have been the cause of the collapse of WTC7."

Actually, given the pervasive evidence of its existence throughout the WTC dust, it is an extremely likely candidate.

"The reason is because while it might be true that you don't have to "prove" how it was used, you do have to make a persuasive argument that some method of its use is plausible based on EVIDENCE."

The evidence is in the result and in the dust residue.

"You can't. That's why you don't try. You just keep parroting the same garbage ad nauseum, trying to distract people from the inescapable FACT that there is ZERO EVIDENCE of anything other than a collapse due to fire. NONE. PERIOD"

And Official Conspiracy Theory believers keep telling themselves that like its a mantra.

Well I'm sorry to tell you this, but saying it and seeing it in nice cosy text in a web forum doesn't make it so!

MM

 

[Justin39640]

Dave,
You missed this.
The lower part of the north wall did NOT collapse prior to the FFA.

Will you acknowledge that your statement is incorrect?
"There were 2 seconds of free fall at world Trade Center 7 but that's because the collapse took 16 long seconds and by the time those 2 seconds happened the part of the building underneath had collapsed already."

It kicked out as shown in the simulation. The global collapse started when the lower part buckled outwards towards the north (from watching the sim and your own screenshots of it)

I made a few very simple sims myself last year (via Blender). All exhibited the same kick out and a brief moment of little to no support.




More on my YT page

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

He is trying...

But then again, he is correct... I shouldn't get on here to smack around truthers after 6 drinks... it throws my grammar and spelling to ****.

But then again after all the schooling I have given him, I'll allow him to try to be "cute."

I never drink. My own spelling and grammar sucks naturally. Because of this, as a rule, I don't harp on spelling or grammar unless it is especially egregious or hilariously ironic.

But against truthers in general, no-planer/space-beamers in particular, I don't need to.

 

[pgimeno]

There is a problem with your logic.

You don't need FFA in a CD, but you do need CD to have FFA, because it can't happen naturally. Nobody here has been able to show in any feasible way how it could.

The top of that building falls unimpeded at a certain point, as the bottom provides negligible support.

(The video also features a dust flow similar to that of the towers. Yes, that one which is claimed to be like "pyroclastic flow" by Gage. Please remember to direct your association to fix that blatant and obvious mistake. Thanks.)

 

[pgimeno]

Why do you keep saying that Sunder is speaking of the 2.5 seconds of free fall when he is CLEARLY addressing the collapse as a whole?

There's more. In this QA NIST clarifies the scope and reasoning of the previous assertion in more detail. The relevant excerpt (trying to be brief, but not to misquote, go to the link to verify):

In the draft WTC 7 report [...], NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds [...]. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions.

[...]

The analyses of the video [...] revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below.
​

So Christopher7 is applying a quote with a scope which covers the first 5.4 seconds as a whole, to the second stage where the building fell "essentially in free fall" (which is not the same as "exactly in free fall", no matter how often he tries to push that).

 

[pgimeno]

Actually, given the pervasive evidence of its existence throughout the WTC dust, it is an extremely likely candidate.

How come none was found in any column whatsoever, then? Was it not applied to the columns at all?

ETA: Or girders or trusses or connections or... you get the point

 

[Chorduroy]

Actually, given the pervasive evidence of its existence throughout the WTC dust, it is an extremely likely candidate.

The evidence is in the result and in the dust residue.

Thermite's supposed pervasiveness throughout the dust is based on the assumption that the Harrit et al paper is remotely honest. It's not.

Harrit himself declared on the Coast to Coast debate that "anyone with a brain and two eyes" could tell that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. He had arrived at his conclusion WELL BEFORE looking at the evidence. By definition, his conclusions are flawed because of his bias. A real scientist would have reserved judgement until the experiments were carried out, and let them guide his conclusions.

 

[triforcharity]

Any of the WTC7 collapse videos will do nicely.

Proof of FFA courtesy of the NIST.

MM

Not a CD. Try Implosionworld.com or CDI's webiste, hey have quite a few.

 

[uke2se]

I enjoy Tony's "correction" of my logic,

Question: Could FFA occur without a CD?

Twoofer answer: No.

Question: Does FFA occur in a CD?

Twoofer answer: No.

How's that for logic?

 

[triforcharity]

So Tony,

Can you show us another know CD that achevies a period of FFA?

We're all waiting.....

 

[lapman]

Actually, given the pervasive evidence of its existence throughout the WTC dust, it is an extremely likely candidate.

Not even close. It has to be proven that it can do the job first. Since thermite in any form has yet to be used in any confirmed demolition done before or since 9/11, it is still a non-candidate.

The evidence is in the result and in the dust residue.

No. There is something that has been manipulated to making sheeple like you believe it's nanothermite.

And Official Conspiracy Theory believers keep telling themselves that like its a mantra.

Like you terrorist apologists keep telling yourselves that a mythical substance was used to bring down the building since reality doesn't suite you?

Well I'm sorry to tell you this, but saying it and seeing it in nice cosy text in a web forum doesn't make it so!

MM

Pot meet kettle. Provide some actual evidence, not fantasy materials.

 

[Christopher7]

Actually, given the pervasive evidence of its existence throughout the WTC dust, it is an extremely likely candidate.

The evidence is in the result and in the dust residue.

And Official Conspiracy Theory believers keep telling themselves that like its a mantra.

Well I'm sorry to tell you this, but saying it and seeing it in nice cosy text in a web forum doesn't make it so!

MM

Well said. Thank you.

 

[Christopher7]

Not even close. It has to be proven that it can do the job first.

Wrong!
This is a denial tactic. "Tell me something you could not possibly know or I will ignore the evidence we do have."

Since thermite in any form has yet to be used in any confirmed demolition done before or since 9/11, it is still a non-candidate.

Another reason to deny the evidence.

No. There is something that has been manipulated to making sheeple like you believe it's nanothermite.

Given the molten steel and the iron spheres, thermite in some form is indicated.

Like you terrorist apologists

You are guilty of what you are accusing us of doing.

 

[Christopher7]

So Tony,

Can you show us another know CD that achevies a period of FFA?

We're all waiting.....

That question has been asked and answered many times. It is irrelevant and a waste of space.

 

[dc1971]

Hey, can somebody teach me how to embed a YouTube (so you click the JREF disclaimer and then you're watching it)?

Or is that something only super-duper-master-wizard-demigods can do?

Meanwhile, here's my YouTube on the outrageous stuff Gage pulled at the end of the debate. Enjoy.

Dave

In other words, Gage was trying to put words in your mouth. Typical Truther, he is!

The man is desperate for attention, no?