Breaking news! Truther Ignored by Senator!

[Drudgewire]

Honestly; it's like listening to someone with dementia tell you a boring anecdote for the 50th time as if it's the first time.

Or even worse, like listening to someone with dementia tell you a boring anecdote for the 50th time as if it's the first time.

 

[twinstead]

Or even worse, like listening to someone with dementia tell you a boring anecdote for the 50th time as if it's the first time.

But not nearly as bad as listening to someone with dementia tell you a boring anecdote for the 50th time as if it's the first time.

 

[djlunacee]

But nothing is as bad as listening to someone with dementia tell you a boring anecdote for the 50th time as if it's the first time.

 

[PS13]

But nothing is as bad as listening to someone with dementia tell you a boring anecdote for the 50th time as if it's the first time.

Maybe, maybe not... I'll tell you what's real bad though...





















































... listening to someone with dementia tell you a boring anecdote for the 50th time as if it's the first time.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Well actually, "their crap" is worth looking into. Both Twin Towers collapsed at a constant rate of acceleration, meaning crash zones, which we have been told caused the collapses, offered no less resistance than undamaged sections of those buildings, which isn't possible.

No... fragments of the Twin Towers that had broken away from the building are seen in photographs of the collapses outpacing the main collapse wave by hundreds of feet. The WTC collapses were most definately not "free fall".

Also, WTC 7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds even though steel offers a minimum amount of resistance to collapse. This is also not possible if only the only dead load is WTC 7's own components.

WTC7 was the largest office building fire in history. Dozens of first responders reported seeing massive raging fires throughout the structure, some even reporting fires visible on all floors as it came down. Since we know that steel loses more than 90% of its structural strength at temperatures easily reachable by common house fires, this easily accounts for the lack of resistance seen in videos of the sixteen second collapse of WTC7.

Thus, no further inquiry into the collapses of 9/11 is necessary or warranted.

 

[Thunder]

Thus, no further inquiry into the collapses of 9/11 is necessary or warranted.

but...what about all the unanswered questions, like:

is it not an incredible coincidence that Larry Silverstein sealed the deal for the WTC just 2 months before 9-11, and bought billions in terrorism insurance?????

 

[tempesta29]

Or that you didn't take the earlier advice to use the search feature and see if your particular questions have been answered on here over and over again... and take 10 minutes to see that is the case and that we don't simply go through the same motions every time a "new" (*snicker*) member just jumps in to declare he KNOWS we're nothing more than sheep who blindly swallow everything THE GUBMINT tells us to.

Hmmmm, who wants to place odds on which it is?

I think we both know that reading through countless pages searching for specific arguments and counterarguments isn't logistically feasible, especially in a 10 minute span. Frankly, this is the 9/11 sub-forum, so your complaints about my posting in here really have no place. I wonder how many pointless attacks against individual truthers have been waged redundantly. I'm guessing this isn't the first one.

First, if the upper sections of the Twin Towers had actually crushed the lower sections, then there would have been measurable decreases in the rates of acceleration of said upper sections after they had passed the weakened crash zones and began impacting floors below that hadn't sustained structural damage. There is no measurable decrease in these rates, according to Chandler's data, which anyone is certainly free to refute, therefore the upper sections of these towers were not responsible for destroying the lower sections.

Secondly, WTC 7 experienced roughly 2.25 seconds of free fall during its collapse. Steel offers a measurable, minimum amount of resistance to collapse. WTC 7's dead loads were its own components, i.e. the building itself. The only circumstances that could explain free fall of this building are a) controlled explosives or b) WTC 7's own components being so overwhelming to its support structure that it collapsed in such a fashion as to be immeasurably slower than free fall acceleration. I assume, since you've clearly argued this, and allegedly debunked it, that you were able to demonstrate how WTC 7's own dead load produced free fall results, i.e. that WTC 7 was the most poorly-constructed steel-framed high rise in history.

 

[tempesta29]

No... fragments of the Twin Towers that had broken away from the building are seen in photographs of the collapses outpacing the main collapse wave by hundreds of feet. The WTC collapses were most definately not "free fall".

7,000+ posts and you're still guilty of the straw man. I never claimed the Twin Towers collapsed at free fall.

WTC7 was the largest office building fire in history.

Any evidence for this? Only the south face was considerably involved in fire. The other 3 faces of this building were virtually undamaged, both by fire and debris. Why qualify building with "office"? Do you commercial buildings burn differently than residential?

Dozens of first responders reported seeing massive raging fires throughout the structure, some even reporting fires visible on all floors as it came down. Since we know that steel loses more than 90% of its structural strength at temperatures easily reachable by common house fires, this easily accounts for the lack of resistance seen in videos of the sixteen second collapse of WTC7.

How many floors had fire on them is irrelevant. 47 floors of burning bags of poo will elicit little more than laughter. From the north side, during collapse, there is little to no evidence of any fire taking place or ever having taken place. 90% of strength due to a common fire? That seems high. Even so, free fall implies a 100% loss of strength, so you still lose.

Thus, no further inquiry into the collapses of 9/11 is necessary or warranted.

Yawn.

 

[tempesta29]

I haven’t been a member of JREF for very long, but I’ve been here long enough to have seen many of your type show up and leave with a bloody tail.
You come on this thread thinking that you have something that we need to consider, but lay nothing on the table to consider. If you have something, lets hear it, or be quiet and learn something.

I'm not really concerned with people's needs. I'm here as a user, posting in the forum. And what is it you propose I learn from this thread? That it's enjoyable to attack people whom you perceive to be pitiful? What could we have learned from this discussion that I apparently interrupted? The site appears to be about critical thinking, but nothing in this thread seems to be true to that mission statement. It seems as though I've interrupted little more than a schoolyard bullying. So for that, I'm sorry. I'll go back to the swingset. If the principal asks, I didn't see anything.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

7,000+ posts and you're still guilty of the straw man.

So you admit you're a sock puppet.

Just can't stay away from JREF no matter how many times you've been banned. You just gotta keep coming back.

Obsessive-compulsive much?

47 floors of burning bags of poo will elicit little more than laughter. From the north side, during collapse, there is little to no evidence of any fire taking place or ever having taken place.

The firefighters were there, you weren't. They say there was FIRE. You lose.

90% of strength due to a common fire? That seems high.

It was in the Popular Mechanics article on 9/11. They interviewed firefighters and metallurgists.

Even so, free fall implies a 100% loss of strength,

Things that lose 90% of their strength break easily. Having broken, they offer zero resistance.

Seriously... what are you? 8?

Yawn.

Indeed.

 

[The Big Dog]

2.25 seconds of free fall during its collapse. Steel offers a measurable, minimum amount of resistance to collapse. WTC 7's dead loads were its own components, i.e. the building itself. The only circumstances that could explain free fall of this building are a) controlled explosives or b) WTC 7's own components being so overwhelming to its support structure that it collapsed in such a fashion as to be immeasurably slower than free fall acceleration. I assume, since you've clearly argued this, and allegedly debunked it, that you were able to demonstrate how WTC 7's own dead load produced free fall results, i.e. that WTC 7 was the most poorly-constructed steel-framed high rise in history.

Or you could spend ten minutes and learn that the entire building did not collapse at free fall.

But you are a busy man.

 

[A W Smith]

Since tempesta is too lazy to read through the threads ive linked to

Chandler debunked,








physics tempesta29 is ignorant about

Weight and Weightlessness | MIT Physics Lecture

Collisions and the Center of Mass | MIT Physics Lecture


Eyewitness Accounts of WTC 7 Fires

 

[AZCat]

First, if the upper sections of the Twin Towers had actually crushed the lower sections, then there would have been measurable decreases in the rates of acceleration of said upper sections after they had passed the weakened crash zones and began impacting floors below that hadn't sustained structural damage. There is no measurable decrease in these rates, according to Chandler's data, which anyone is certainly free to refute, therefore the upper sections of these towers were not responsible for destroying the lower sections.

I think the fact that the total collapse time for the towers was greater than the duration of free fall indicates the rate of acceleration of the upper sections was, at some point(s) during the collapse, less than the rate of acceleration seen for an object in free fall.

 

[tempesta29]

So you admit you're a sock puppet.

Just can't stay away from JREF no matter how many times you've been banned. You just gotta keep coming back.

Obsessive-compulsive much?

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of Rule 12.

I've never posted on JREF in my life before my initial post in this thread. Even if I were what you're insinuating I am, it has no bearing on the argument itself. It sounds like you're just looking for an out.

The firefighters were there, you weren't. They say there was FIRE. You lose.

That's your second straw man in this thread alone. I never said there wasn't fire. Photographs depict a different story than you're telling, however. Fire fighters also describe Earth-shaking explosions in the basement, so take your pick.

It was in the Popular Mechanics article on 9/11. They interviewed firefighters and metallurgists.

Things that lose 90% of their strength break easily. Having broken, they offer zero resistance.

Is this a joke? First, very few of the columns of WTC 7 were even involved in fire. Of the 236 samples of steel from the WTC that NIST analysed, only 3 had been exposed to temperatures over 500 F.

And frankly, your "break easily" riff is an insult, even to your own kind.

 

[A W Smith]

You are in the process of replying to this thread already tempesta29? you couldnt possibly have viewed the physics lessons, fire witness testimony, the chandler debunking videos i have just moments ago posted. This tells me your ignorance is deliberate.

 

[tempesta29]

Or you could spend ten minutes and learn that the entire building did not collapse at free fall.

The building was in free fall for 2.25 seconds. If you inferred otherwise from my posts then I suggest you re-read.

I think the fact that the total collapse time for the towers was greater than the duration of free fall indicates the rate of acceleration of the upper sections was, at some point(s) during the collapse, less than the rate of acceleration seen for an object in free fall.

I said nothing about free fall in relation to the Twin Towers.

So far, there are serious reading comprehension issues becoming evident.

 

[tempesta29]

You are in the process of replying to this thread already tempesta29? you couldnt possibly have viewed the physics lessons, fire witness testimony, the chandler debunking videos i have just moments ago posted. This tells me your ignorance is deliberate.

I'm not going to wade through a video series that may or may not have any relevance to my argument. If you have specific information that relates to this argument then I suggest typing it like respectful people do.

I'm not in a position to watch videos anyway. I'm listening to music.

 

[AZCat]

I said nothing about free fall in relation to the Twin Towers.

So far, there are serious reading comprehension issues becoming evident.

You mentioned "measurable decreases in the rates of acceleration of said upper sections". The difference between actual collapse duration and free fall duration indicates a decrease in the rate of acceleration for some periods during the collapse. Since we can measure the collapse duration and can calculate the free fall duration (and therefore the difference between the two), the decrease is "measurable".

 

[Drudgewire]

And frankly, your "break easily" riff is an insult, even to your own kind.

The sword_of_creamy_desserts has never been more ashamed of him.

 

[A W Smith]

Is this a joke? First, very few of the columns of WTC 7 were even involved in fire. Of the 236 samples of steel from the WTC that NIST analysed, only 3 had been exposed to temperatures over 500 F.

.

Strawman. They could only identify and verify the locations of the 3 samples that were near the impact floors. There was plenty of steel samples that were exposed to heat far in excess of "500 degrees F". (your claim)