Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read

tmd2_1 said:
Ok...we're getting to a point in this thread when we are just going around in circles. Most of the "debunking" to my OP was laughable at best. With the WTC 7 being a mistake. Yeah at 11:07 50 floors came down. Everyone knew it was going to come down yet it took NIST 7 years to explain. There were more that were even worse. OBL didn't buy the stocks so what does that say. Yeah that's good debunking right there. Most of the thread was about molten metal in which most people said they don't know if it's aluminum or not. Certainly reasonable doubt to what it is. This last exchange proved where we are it. Trying to make a statement I wrote and compare it to what Leslie Robertson wrote. Even if I spoke those words I wrote the meaning would be clear. For example if I were in a conversation about Joe Biden..and said President Biden, instead of President Biden..and not correct it, not a big deal. What could Robertson have been meaning to say? This discussion shows where this is going.

I don't know what more I can add, it's all here. If someone comes up with something new I'll respond..otherwise I think it has all been covered.
Click to expand...

You're right there butty. All your nonsense has been thoroughly covered with a layer of facts and truth.
 
tmd2_1 said:
No math is necessary. That building was 41 stories tall (where the bones were found). The south tower is likely where it came from (though it doesn't matter)
The greatest expansion or explosion(explosion being used as a term for what is happening to the bodies because of the weight of the collapse) of body parts should have been near the bottom. How does it shoot up 41 stories?
Click to expand...

That would be assuming the consequence logical fallacy. You're basing your conclusion on a false pretense. There is no reason it would HAVE to come from the bottom.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Ok...we're getting to a point in this thread when we are just going around in circles. Most of the "debunking" to my OP was laughable at best. With the WTC 7 being a mistake. Yeah at 11:07 50 floors came down. Everyone knew it was going to come down yet it took NIST 7 years to explain. There were more that were even worse. OBL didn't buy the stocks so what does that say. Yeah that's good debunking right there. Most of the thread was about molten metal in which most people said they don't know if it's aluminum or not. Certainly reasonable doubt to what it is. This last exchange proved where we are it. Trying to make a statement I wrote and compare it to what Leslie Robertson wrote. Even if I spoke those words I wrote the meaning would be clear. For example if I were in a conversation about Joe Biden..and said President Biden, instead of President Biden..and not correct it, not a big deal. What could Robertson have been meaning to say? This discussion shows where this is going.

I don't know what more I can add, it's all here. If someone comes up with something new I'll respond..otherwise I think it has all been covered.
Click to expand...

When are you going to give us a reason to doubt that members of Al Qaida were not the ones responsible for 9/11? You seem to be confusing your doubts with reasonable doubts. I can't understand why you feel as though your view is equal to ours.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Ok...we're getting to a point in this thread when we are just going around in circles. Most of the "debunking" to my OP was laughable at best.
Click to expand...
It's sad you believe that.


With the WTC 7 being a mistake. Yeah at 11:07 50 floors came down.
Click to expand...
Argument from incredulity logical fallacy noted.

Everyone knew it was going to come down yet it took NIST 7 years to explain.
Click to expand...
They were a little busy with the WTCs 1 & 2 investigation.


OBL didn't buy the stocks so what does that say.
Click to expand...
That you don't read any of the evidence presented to you.

Yeah that's good debunking right there.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

Most of the thread was about molten metal in which most people said they don't know if it's aluminum or not.
Click to expand...
Because it is impossible to tell just from looking, as has been explained to you on multiple occassion, which is the only evidence there is to go on. Nothing can be tested, therefore it cannot be accurately determined what it is.

Certainly reasonable doubt to what it is.
Click to expand...
Very much so. Therefore your claim it is steel is dishonest.

This last exchange proved where we are it. Trying to make a statement I wrote and compare it to what Leslie Robertson wrote.
Click to expand...
Except he didn't write it. Like you, he made an ill-spoken statement which he later clarified. Now you are even trying to up the dishonesty ante by stating he "wrote" it! Or would that be simply another "mistake" you would like to take back?

Even if I spoke those words I wrote the meaning would be clear.
Click to expand...
Where?

What could Robertson have been meaning to say?
Click to expand...
Again, argument from incredulity logical fallacy noted. But, thankfully, we actually have Robertson's words to clarify the record. It is only you who seem determined to deny him this right that you yourself ask for!

This discussion shows where this is going.
Click to expand...
No where fast for you.

I don't know what more I can add, it's all here.
Click to expand...
How about something resembling proof as opposed to supposition and speculation and misstatements.
If someone comes up with something new I'll respond..otherwise I think it has all been covered.
Click to expand...
Exactly. 9/11 truth; 10 years of failure.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
I don't appreciate you saying you have to dumb down anything. You have no idea what my background is, and I can assure you would be quite surprised.
Click to expand...
With due respect I do not care what your background is. I don't care if it's related to our discussion or not, and my comment frankly isn't related to it. All I "care" about is having you clarify why you're surprised by the results of two large buildings collapsing, wrt the people inside. It's not a mystery that when something with gigantic mass hits something like the human body, that there's not going to be much left.

tmd2_1 said:
There's no reason for body parts to be hurled as projectiles that far out.
Click to expand...

I can think of a few; like the derbris pushing things outward or the air being forced out of the buildings as they collapsed. Some fell from heights greater than the buildings they landed on. There are plenty of reasons it happened.


tmd2_1 said:
Imagine your house falling on you, do you think you will disintegrate into fine pieces 1/16th of inch, and hurled 400 feet away. I know your house is not the world trade center, but it's the same principle.
Click to expand...

The fact that my 1 story house isn't the same should be a red flag. It holds exponentially less potential energy than the WTC did, and thus releases exponentially less kinetic energy. The same goes for Kader.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Even if I spoke those words I wrote the meaning would be clear. For example if I were in a conversation about Joe Biden..and said President Biden, instead of President Biden..and not correct it, not a big deal.
Click to expand...

Huh? Is this entire paragraph some kind of retarded-stundie?
 
tmd2_1 said:
As far as the building...no there should have been a jolt. That cup example is horrible and you know that. To think that those amount of floors would go through one without any deceleration, as I would stepping on a cup, is just not true. That's the keyword no deceleration, it was constant and uniform acceleration. It is even worse in the north tower hardly any tilt essentially column on column and much less mass for the top block.
Click to expand...
Got math tmd2_1? Becauae you are making a mathematical claim.

If you cite Tony Szamboti you'll get the laughing dog.

tmd2_1 said:
No math is necessary.
Click to expand...
Oh dear... :eye-poppi
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
No math necessary. Do all twoofers have that tattooed on their body? Where did you study the physics of the highlighted part? You need math to prove your case. Bellman tactics do not work in the real world.
Click to expand...
Didn't Craig's see-saw analogy make all truther math unnecessary? :p
 
WildCat said:
Got math tmd2_1? Becauae you are making a mathematical claim.

If you cite Tony Szamboti you'll get the laughing dog.


Oh dear... :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

He has already said that it is all done with the eyes and that using your brain and math is superfluous.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Ok...we're getting to a point in this thread when we are just going around in circles. Most of the "debunking" to my OP was laughable at best. With the WTC 7 being a mistake. Yeah at 11:07 50 floors came down. Everyone knew it was going to come down yet it took NIST 7 years to explain. There were more that were even worse. OBL didn't buy the stocks so what does that say. Yeah that's good debunking right there. Most of the thread was about molten metal in which most people said they don't know if it's aluminum or not. Certainly reasonable doubt to what it is. This last exchange proved where we are it. Trying to make a statement I wrote and compare it to what Leslie Robertson wrote. Even if I spoke those words I wrote the meaning would be clear. For example if I were in a conversation about Joe Biden..and said President Biden, instead of President Biden..and not correct it, not a big deal. What could Robertson have been meaning to say? This discussion shows where this is going.

I don't know what more I can add, it's all here. If someone comes up with something new I'll respond..otherwise I think it has all been covered.
Click to expand...

The award for the word acting performance on a forum goes too...
 
tmd2_1 said:
Ok...we're getting to a point in this thread when we are just going around in circles. Most of the "debunking" to my OP was laughable at best.
Click to expand...
Do you think the Black Knight won this fight?

 
tmd2_1 said:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm This is the NIST faq the quote is question 11. It's been shown that normal office material would fall off the molten aluminum. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

As far as the building...no there should have been a jolt. That cup example is horrible and you know that. To think that those amount of floors would go through one without any deceleration, as I would stepping on a cup, is just not true. That's the keyword no deceleration, it was constant and uniform acceleration. It is even worse in the north tower hardly any tilt essentially column on column and much less mass for the top block.
Click to expand...

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.
Click to expand...

So you were wrong then. NIST clearly states that contaminants in the miz would be burning.
You were also wrong about pure aluminum as NIST points out the plane was aluminum alloy.
In addition, NIST indicates that there would be a slag on the surface of the material which according to you would include other contaminants.

Good on ya for debunking yourself, thank you.

The cup example is one in which the effect is exaggerated by the greater difference between force required to crush and force applied. The principle is the same, it too bad you cannot recognize that. In the case of the impact of upper towwer mass on the floor pans of the lowers section the dynamic force lower limit is approx 10X that which could be expected to be transferred via the trusses to the columns. LOWER LIMIT!

You also seem to have completely missed the fact that in BOTH towers the columns are NOT aligned at collapse initiation. They cannot be unless one is doing a Verniage type severing of columns and that is not in evidence nor supported by either side of this debate.

After collapse initiation the falling mass will primarily impinge upon the floor pans, in both towers. Having failed that floor pan the material then continues and unless it had come to a complete stop before failing the first floor pan it will now hit the next floor pan at greater velocity (simple high school physics that any science researcher would understand, even biologists) AND include the mass of the first failed floor minus any debris that exited to the side. To slow the collapse enough material would have to exit to the sides to offset the greater dynamic force cuased by increased velocity and increase in falling mass.
The vast majority of debris that fell outside the footprint of the towers consisted of lightweight/less dense material and material that began near, or at, the perimeter indicating that a great deal of that mass did remain inside to collapse floor pans.

BTW IIRC femr's calculations show that the acelleration was not uniform and constant but that it did vary.
Indeed even with a controlled demolition there is no way to have absolute uniform and constant acelleration unless one blows columns at all levels at the same time. Obviously that did not happen.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
As far as the building...no there should have been a jolt. That cup example is horrible and you know that. To think that those amount of floors would go through one without any deceleration, as I would stepping on a cup, is just not true. That's the keyword no deceleration, it was constant and uniform acceleration. It is even worse in the north tower hardly any tilt essentially column on column and much less mass for the top block.
Click to expand...



Why is it that so many truthers assume there must have been deceleration? It's like they view collision physics as a light switch. On or off. Accelerating or decelerating.

Why does it have to be deceleration?

Why do you not even mention the possibility or a reduction in the rate of acceleration?

Assume I have a falling mass, and it hits something that resists the fall.
Assume that the mass was initially falling at 8 m/s/s. Assume that the resisting object can only resist with enough force to effect a (momentary) 5 m/s/s change on the acceleration of the first object.
Will the falling object decelerate?
No.
Its rate of acceleration will be reduced to 3 m/s/s, before returning to it's free-fall rate.

No deceleration. Just acceleration. But reduced, momentarily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom