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

[tfk]

tmd,

Sorry that this is so long. It'll be my last post to you.

You're clearly not interested in learning anything.

And it ain't my job to turn you around. That's entirely your job.

I'm not sure where to begin with this. I'm really not. First of all you must have me confused with someone else. I never gave my qualifications, so I don't know where you got the architectural degree from.

First off, my apologies.

Yes, I had you confused with another new poster who joined in at about the same time as you, mrkinnies.

I asked him the same questions that I asked you. He answered here.

You declined to say.

But your comment ("I would be like "Why did you feel the need to lie…") tells me what I need to know about your age.

Now your first comment, this is what you said previously, "One troofer website citation after another.

"The incompetent leading the clueless.""

Now let's look at citation 35

[35] NIST Final Report, page xxxviii (He makes several other references to NIST as well)

What am I to conclude about your thought on NIST?

Now let's see what you say. "2. It cites other incompetents." Again your feeling on NIST.

I'm a working, professional engineer. NIST was produced by a bunch of working professional engineers, each of great accomplishment, and each contributing exactly in the field of their expertise.

"Listening to, and respecting, the opinions of real experts" has been the central theme in all of my posts to you. The fact that you still don't seem to get that is mystifying.

Let's be accurate.
The following 8 references were to sites that are credible.
6 debunking911
9 NIST
10 FEMA
12 University of Manchester Fire Sciences
15 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
24 Department of Homeland Security
35 NIST
36 NIST

The following 3 have some good info, but are jokes as references
7 iklimnet.com
8 iklimnet.com
11 wikipedia

The following 23 reference sites are bad jokes:
1 911research
2 youtube
3 911debunkers
4 911research
5 911research
13 PrisonPlanet ???
14 stopthelie.com
16 911research
17 911research
18 911research
19 JONES
20 JONES
21 911Review
23 Chris Sarns ????
26 youtube
27 youtube
28 youtube
29 JONES
30 JONES
31 911research
33 911research
34 911research
37 stopthelie.com

The following are dead links:
22
25

I'll leave you to guess from which sites Mr Taylor draws his conclusions.

Any publication that uses this many garbage sites is garbage.

And now we have a really great one. You said "2. You said, in an earlier post "free fall speed".
Anyone who says "free fall speed" immediately disqualifies themselves from the ranks of the competent."

Let's see what NIST says shall we? "In Stage 2, the north face descended at GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This FREE FALL DROP continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0m (105ft), the distance traveled between times t=1.75s and t=4.0s."

You must have a real low opinion of NIST.

Once again, that was a comment by mrkinnies. I apologize for attributing it to you.

But, apparently you don't get the gross error, any more than mrkinnies did. The ludicrous word in the expression "free fall speed" is "speed". NIST gets it exactly right: "free fall acceleration".

And, as a matter of fact, I have a great respect for the work that NIST produced.

But anyway, on to what I guess is your argument. Most of what you say is Bazant in an expert and Taylor is an idiot, so therefore Taylor is wrong.

I didn't say idiot. I said "clueless amateur".
Which is exactly correct.

That's a great argument.

Thank you. I know it is.

All Taylor does is mention other steel frame collapses and cite what was wrong with them. Known facts, like stuff FEMA may have mentioned, or some other body. He than compares it to the WTC. I really don't see what he did as wrong? I won't address this again, try addressing what's actually in the article.

I did address it. Now repeatedly.

I listed a bunch of his sentences that are incorrect. Did that slip by you somehow?

Now I guess I will answer your questions.

1. Why have you completely ignored the substance of my posts: that Bazant is a world expert and Taylor is a 20-something year old liberal arts student?? Do you disagree with either of those statements?

I agree, that Bazant is an expert and Taylor is a 20-something year old liberal arts student

2. Did you read my quote from Vincent Dunn? Do you think that he is qualified? He disagrees wholeheartedly with Mr. Taylor's conclusions. Any response?

I read it. He didn't say he disagrees with Taylor. I mean those exact words.

I am quite sure that Mr. Dunn hasn't the slightest clue about Mr. Taylor's existence.

Did you read the quotes from Mr. Dunn?
Do you have the understanding to put them into context?
Can you see how they contradict the fundamental thesis of Mr. Taylor?

I'll give you a hint.

A hunk of metal (structural steel or any other type) hasn't the slightest clue whether it is in a toy, a car, a spaceship or a building. Much less a skyscraper or a 5 story building or a 1 story building.

The factor that determines failure is simple: local stress. It doesn't matter if it's in a toy or a skyscraper.

When Mr Taylor says that all those other building fires are irrelevant to the towers, he is simply wrong. He is simply saying that he doesn't know how to correctly construct the analogy. That's what engineering is all about.

Every day, we translate the results that we get from pulling little "dog bones" apart in lab tensile testers to everything from toys to skyscrapers.

If those results were not relevant, then engineering would not exist.

THAT's how Mr. Taylor is wrong.

He's completely wrong.

I'm not sure how you can disagree with him, he just posts know facts about the buildings that collapsed.

Mr. Taylor posts ignorant truther woo.

3. On issues of structural engineering & fire effects on buildings, why do you give credence to a liberal arts undergrad student, when his conclusions disagree conclusively with 50 year career, accomplished, recognized experts in those specific fields? Are you daft?

He's simply reporting on known facts.

He's reporting incorrect nonsense.
You, like him, think that they are "facts".

And you are unequipped to understand how wrong they are.

Yet you won't ask pertinent questions. You won't listen to relevant explanations.

You surround yourself with an impenetrable wall of ignorance.

4. What motivates you? Politics? Iconoclasm? Paranoia?

I'm motivated to find the truth, we all (not just Americans) deserve to know the truth of that day. That day changed so many things, if we are living a lie it should stop.

Admirable, if true.

If that is true, I'd suggest you stop worrying about structural engineering, chemistry, explosives, etc. etc. etc.

There is only one field of study that you've got to apply yourself to, because your current accomplishment in it is pretty damn poor.

It's called epistemology.

Look it up.
Learn about it.
In great detail.
Start using it.

If you do, you'll come to see how silly your performance has been.

Good luck.

 

[Oystein]

...
I invite you to, no, I IMPLORE you to approach any qualified, experienced & unbiased structural engineer. Explain that person A is a truther, and person B is a 9/11 truth debunker.

Ask him, with only that piece of information, which of these people is more technically qualified.

Ask 10 of them at random.

Come back with your results.

I like that test!

 

[Oystein]

...
Now your first comment, this is what you said previously, "One troofer website citation after another.

"The incompetent leading the clueless.""

Now let's look at citation 35

[35] NIST Final Report, page xxxviii (He makes several other references to NIST as well)

What am I to conclude about your thought on NIST?

Now let's see what you say. "2. It cites other incompetents." Again your feeling on NIST.
...

You obviously missed this:

...
4. Just about the only time that he gets something right is when he quotes real experts, like NIST & U Manchester Fire studies program.
...

That was easy, wasn't it?

 

[jaydeehess]

Come on man you know what I meant.

NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor.

Yes I know what you meant. You meant to minimize anything that you possibly could. I explained exatly what NIST stated about the effect of the damaged south side whereas you tried to say that NIST said it played no role.

I didn't mean NIST forgetting WTC 7 I meant tri. His answers were to some of my points was that it didn't apply to the towers. I was saying "Yeah but it still applies to WTC 7"

My bad then....

I'm not saying they shouldn't concentrate on the towers, but they sure as hell should concentrate on WTC 7 too. It's inexplicable a building like that falling from fires, and at free fall speed for portions of it (as NIST admitted)

No its not inexplicable, if I understand what you refer to as "it". 'it' has been explained many times and you simply refuse to acknowledge 'it'.

 

[DGM]

No its not inexplicable, if I understand what you refer to as "it". 'it' has been explained many times and you simply refuse to acknowledge 'it'.

Not to mention "it" did exactly what "it" was designed to do under these conditions, allow enough time for all occupants to evacuate safely. I think "it" did very well indeed.


(and I think I'm more clear as to what "it" is)

 

[triforcharity]

Now your first comment, this is what you said previously, "One troofer website citation after another.

"The incompetent leading the clueless.""

Now let's look at citation 35

[35] NIST Final Report, page xxxviii (He makes several other references to NIST as well)

What am I to conclude about your thought on NIST?

No. Now, what I did, is went through and counted every conspiracy related link, versus the non-CT related.

Of the 37 that he cited, 24 of them is a CT related link. That is an ASTOUNDING 64.864%.

So, yes, he does in fact cite CT related material over and over.

The problem that he has with the other ones, is that he quotemines, and only posts a small part of the entire report.

For instance, the ikliment.com link is good. Too bad he only read a very small portion of that site, and if he had, he would have found some very disturbing information. For instance, he missed/left out these parts:

""Twenty months after the fire this building, one of Philadelphia’s tallest, situated on Penn Square directly across from City Hall, still
stood unoccupied and fire-scarred, its structural integrity in question."

And

""Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, firefighters noticed significant structural displacement occurring in the stair enclosures. A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel framing behind it. After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as three feet --under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage"

If he had read the USFA report on this fire, they were suprised that this building didn't collapse, and cited an "unusually good application of the SFRM" to it's not collapsing.

Now let's see what you say. "2. It cites other incompetents." Again your feeling on NIST.

See above.

And now we have a really great one. You said "2. You said, in an earlier post "free fall speed".
Anyone who says "free fall speed" immediately disqualifies themselves from the ranks of the competent."

Let's see what NIST says shall we? "In Stage 2, the north face descended at GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This FREE FALL DROP continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0m (105ft), the distance traveled between times t=1.75s and t=4.0s."

You must have a real low opinion of NIST.

You must have a real low comprehension level of basic english. Do you see the two words?

To make my point, what speed is free fall? 45 mph? 60? What is it?

2. Did you read my quote from Vincent Dunn? Do you think that he is qualified? He disagrees wholeheartedly with Mr. Taylor's conclusions. Any response?

I read it. He didn't say he disagrees with Taylor. I mean those exact words. I'm not sure how you can disagree with him, he just posts know facts about the buildings that collapsed.

And leaves ALOT to be desired. 64% he uses CT related material. Yeah, confirmation bias anyone?

You know the one he used the MOST?

911research.wtc7.net (Which, if you'll note, is the same one that I posted a complete desecration of because of his "misleading" statements.....

3. On issues of structural engineering & fire effects on buildings, why do you give credence to a liberal arts undergrad student, when his conclusions disagree conclusively with 50 year career, accomplished, recognized experts in those specific fields? Are you daft?

He's simply reporting on known facts.

And incorrectly interpreting them.

4. What motivates you? Politics? Iconoclasm? Paranoia?

I'm motivated to find the truth, we all (not just Americans) deserve to know the truth of that day. That day changed so many things, if we are living a lie it should stop.

Awesome. What are you doing? Posting on internet forums?

 

[tmd2_1]

tmd,

Sorry that this is so long. It'll be my last post to you.

You're clearly not interested in learning anything.

And it ain't my job to turn you around. That's entirely your job.



First off, my apologies.

Yes, I had you confused with another new poster who joined in at about the same time as you, mrkinnies.

I asked him the same questions that I asked you. He answered here.

You declined to say.

But your comment ("I would be like "Why did you feel the need to lie…") tells me what I need to know about your age.



I'm a working, professional engineer. NIST was produced by a bunch of working professional engineers, each of great accomplishment, and each contributing exactly in the field of their expertise.

"Listening to, and respecting, the opinions of real experts" has been the central theme in all of my posts to you. The fact that you still don't seem to get that is mystifying.

Let's be accurate.
The following 8 references were to sites that are credible.
6 debunking911
9 NIST
10 FEMA
12 University of Manchester Fire Sciences
15 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
24 Department of Homeland Security
35 NIST
36 NIST

The following 3 have some good info, but are jokes as references
7 iklimnet.com
8 iklimnet.com
11 wikipedia

The following 23 reference sites are bad jokes:
1 911research
2 youtube
3 911debunkers
4 911research
5 911research
13 PrisonPlanet ???
14 stopthelie.com
16 911research
17 911research
18 911research
19 JONES
20 JONES
21 911Review
23 Chris Sarns ????
26 youtube
27 youtube
28 youtube
29 JONES
30 JONES
31 911research
33 911research
34 911research
37 stopthelie.com

The following are dead links:
22
25

I'll leave you to guess from which sites Mr Taylor draws his conclusions.

Any publication that uses this many garbage sites is garbage.



Once again, that was a comment by mrkinnies. I apologize for attributing it to you.

But, apparently you don't get the gross error, any more than mrkinnies did. The ludicrous word in the expression "free fall speed" is "speed". NIST gets it exactly right: "free fall acceleration".

And, as a matter of fact, I have a great respect for the work that NIST produced.



I didn't say idiot. I said "clueless amateur".
Which is exactly correct.



Thank you. I know it is.



I did address it. Now repeatedly.

I listed a bunch of his sentences that are incorrect. Did that slip by you somehow?



I am quite sure that Mr. Dunn hasn't the slightest clue about Mr. Taylor's existence.

Did you read the quotes from Mr. Dunn?
Do you have the understanding to put them into context?
Can you see how they contradict the fundamental thesis of Mr. Taylor?

I'll give you a hint.

A hunk of metal (structural steel or any other type) hasn't the slightest clue whether it is in a toy, a car, a spaceship or a building. Much less a skyscraper or a 5 story building or a 1 story building.

The factor that determines failure is simple: local stress. It doesn't matter if it's in a toy or a skyscraper.

When Mr Taylor says that all those other building fires are irrelevant to the towers, he is simply wrong. He is simply saying that he doesn't know how to correctly construct the analogy. That's what engineering is all about.

Every day, we translate the results that we get from pulling little "dog bones" apart in lab tensile testers to everything from toys to skyscrapers.

If those results were not relevant, then engineering would not exist.

THAT's how Mr. Taylor is wrong.

He's completely wrong.



Mr. Taylor posts ignorant truther woo.



He's reporting incorrect nonsense.
You, like him, think that they are "facts".

And you are unequipped to understand how wrong they are.

Yet you won't ask pertinent questions. You won't listen to relevant explanations.

You surround yourself with an impenetrable wall of ignorance.



Admirable, if true.

If that is true, I'd suggest you stop worrying about structural engineering, chemistry, explosives, etc. etc. etc.

There is only one field of study that you've got to apply yourself to, because your current accomplishment in it is pretty damn poor.

It's called epistemology.

Look it up.
Learn about it.
In great detail.
Start using it.

If you do, you'll come to see how silly your performance has been.

Good luck.

Yo want to talk about my age or maturity level (because that's really what you are getting at? Aren't you the guy that had a pyramid of laughing dogs, in response to a post of mine? Yeah that's something most 10 year olds would respond with, not a professional and distinguished engineer as yourself.

In regards to references why don't you go to 911 research and see what he references they are mostly what you would consider a "good" reference.

I can answer most of your discussion (I guess if you want to call it that) about the article with a simple reference to it. In regards to Dogwood elementary school he states "The investigation carried out by the U.S. Fire Administration"

Than states this finding from the report "Dogwood Elementary School, as well as other schools of similar construction in Fairfax County, was not subject to current code regulations since it was built in 1974."

He goes on to state the report said Dogwood had a lack of sprinklers and firewalls. That is how most of the article is written, I fail to see what is so wrong with that?

In regards to freefall speed, or freefall acceleration, I'm a little puzzled by that. I mean did you expect it to reach terminal velocity? I'm really not sure what you could have meant.

 

[tmd2_1]

No. Now, what I did, is went through and counted every conspiracy related link, versus the non-CT related.

Of the 37 that he cited, 24 of them is a CT related link. That is an ASTOUNDING 64.864%.

So, yes, he does in fact cite CT related material over and over.

The problem that he has with the other ones, is that he quotemines, and only posts a small part of the entire report.

For instance, the ikliment.com link is good. Too bad he only read a very small portion of that site, and if he had, he would have found some very disturbing information. For instance, he missed/left out these parts:

""Twenty months after the fire this building, one of Philadelphia’s tallest, situated on Penn Square directly across from City Hall, still
stood unoccupied and fire-scarred, its structural integrity in question."

And

""Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, firefighters noticed significant structural displacement occurring in the stair enclosures. A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel framing behind it. After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as three feet --under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage"

If he had read the USFA report on this fire, they were suprised that this building didn't collapse, and cited an "unusually good application of the SFRM" to it's not collapsing.



See above.



You must have a real low comprehension level of basic english. Do you see the two words?

To make my point, what speed is free fall? 45 mph? 60? What is it?




And leaves ALOT to be desired. 64% he uses CT related material. Yeah, confirmation bias anyone?

You know the one he used the MOST?

911research.wtc7.net (Which, if you'll note, is the same one that I posted a complete desecration of because of his "misleading" statements.....




And incorrectly interpreting them.




Awesome. What are you doing? Posting on internet forums?

Let me start off by saying there's a difference between a compete collapse and a collapse. Sure a collapse could refer to a complete collapse, but we don't know that based on what's written. But most importantly it didn't collapse at all, something we can't quite say about WTC 7.

Now if you go to 911 research you can see he references a lot of what you would say are "good" sites.

You forgot to highlight the part of the NIST report that says FREE FALL drop.

As I said in the post above, he simply states a known collapse, states facts that were known to be wrong with them. I don't see anything wrong with that.

What am I doing? I am trying to hopefully get people to ask more questions. To not believe everything they hear. Always research things themselves, and see if it still makes sense. Those are some things I would like to do.

 

[triforcharity]

In regards to references why don't you go to 911 research and see what he references they are mostly what you would consider a "good" reference.

Not when I've already shown that your sources typically either quotemine something, or post "misleading {read : Lies} statements.

I can answer most of your discussion (I guess if you want to call it that) about the article with a simple reference to it. In regards to Dogwood elementary school he states "The investigation carried out by the U.S. Fire Administration"

Ok, point?

Than states this finding from the report "Dogwood Elementary School, as well as other schools of similar construction in Fairfax County, was not subject to current code regulations since it was built in 1974."

Oh, gee, didn't we discuss this already? The WTC Towers 1&2 were built BEFORE 1974, so that would put them EVEN FARTHER out of code.

7WTC, was built in the early 80's. Which, BTW, also puts them out of the current fire code regulations. Hell, the house I had engineered in 2008 that is almost complete, is out of current fire code regulations.

Do you have a point?

He goes on to state the report said Dogwood had a lack of sprinklers and firewalls. That is how most of the article is written, I fail to see what is so wrong with that?

Gee, if only 1,2,and 7 WTC had their sprinklers working and firewalls and break intact........

(all had their firewalls compromised. 1&2 when the 767 was parked in the side, and 7WTC when a huge piece of the Twin Towers fell on it, causing tremendous damage. {Makes it easier to spread vertically})

In regards to freefall speed, or freefall acceleration, I'm a little puzzled by that. I mean did you expect it to reach terminal velocity? I'm really not sure what you could have meant.

Exactly. We know. LOL!

 

[triforcharity]

Let me start off by saying there's a difference between a compete collapse and a collapse.

No ******* **** sherlock!?!?! Say it ain't so!! You mean to tell me the word complete changes the definition of the word collapse?

Holy ****, it's like a whole new world is opened to me......

(Yes, I'm making fun of your assinine statement, that really means absolutely nothing, and ignores the ENTIRE post that you quoted)

Sure a collapse could refer to a complete collapse, but we don't know that based on what's written.

Huh? I hilited the relevant parts.

But most importantly it didn't collapse at all, something we can't quite say about WTC 7.

Now if you go to 911 research you can see he references a lot of what you would say are "good" sites.

I've seen his "research". It's garbage. He takes things out of context, lies, distorts meanings of statements, and posts "misleading" statements.

Sorry, the 911 Research site is garbage.

You forgot to highlight the part of the NIST report that says FREE FALL drop.

You apparently didn't understand why I hilited the word "speed" in your post, and then hilited the word acceleation in the NIST quote.


BTW, I forgot to thank you for the stundie nom!! LOL!!

As I said in the post above, he simply states a known collapse, states facts that were known to be wrong with them. I don't see anything wrong with that.

You don't see anything wrong with leaving out the fact that the USFA attributed the lack of collapse on an unusually good application of the SFRM?

Wow. Foolish at the least.

What am I doing? I am trying to hopefully get people to ask more questions. To not believe everything they hear. Always research things themselves, and see if it still makes sense. Those are some things I would like to do.

So, kinda like you did? Oh, wait.....nevermind......

 

[tmd2_1]

No ******* **** sherlock!?!?! Say it ain't so!! You mean to tell me the word complete changes the definition of the word collapse?

Holy ****, it's like a whole new world is opened to me......

(Yes, I'm making fun of your assinine statement, that really means absolutely nothing, and ignores the ENTIRE post that you quoted)



Huh? I hilited the relevant parts.







I've seen his "research". It's garbage. He takes things out of context, lies, distorts meanings of statements, and posts "misleading" statements.

Sorry, the 911 Research site is garbage.




You apparently didn't understand why I hilited the word "speed" in your post, and then hilited the word acceleation in the NIST quote.


BTW, I forgot to thank you for the stundie nom!! LOL!!





You don't see anything wrong with leaving out the fact that the USFA attributed the lack of collapse on an unusually good application of the SFRM?

Wow. Foolish at the least.



So, kinda like you did? Oh, wait.....nevermind......

Ummmm I'm not sure what a "stundie" award is, and I really don't much care.

tfk made a mistake addressing me as the author of a post that mentioned free fall speed. So I really don't know the context of the conversation. But you do realize that the "speed" you are at during freefall is determined by how long you have been falling right? This is until you reach terminal velocity. Your acceleration does not change (I mean assuming it is done on the same body, like the moon instead of the earth). So I'm not sure what this is all about. So if you are insulting him, for saying speed instead of acceleration, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. 2 seconds of free fall does indeed have a speed, as well as the constant acceleration. I'm really not sure what this is about.

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

 

[The Platypus]

What am I doing? I am trying to hopefully get people to ask more questions. To not believe everything they hear. Always research things themselves, and see if it still makes sense. Those are some things I would like to do.

What a bunch of standard cult recruitment rhetoric bs. Why is everyone who claims to be "seeking the truth" only doing so by trolling for recruits to the cult. Very odd for people that are seeking the truth.

Research to 911 kooks is just a buzz word they are programmed to use to try to manipulate people into thinking they know what they are talking about when they don't. Research doesn't mean just buying into what a bunch of anonymous unqualified 911 kooks say when trolling forums, or on their websites and youtube videos, and then run around reciting it on the internet trying to convince more converts into the cult, which is all 911 kooks do.

It doesn't even take much real research to see that it's you 911 kooks make no sense and are just spewing lies and nonsense.

 

[Venom]

Molten steel? uhh....no.

There were no credible witnesses to technically "molten steel".
Please check your facts....

If that one was faulty, imagine how many more of your suspicions are faulty as well?

I count a couple.

proof beyond a reasonable doubt? no....not a reasonable one.

 

[triforcharity]

Ummmm I'm not sure what a "stundie" award is, and I really don't much care.

That's a good thing. It's not a compliment, that is for damn certain.

tfk made a mistake addressing me as the author of a post that mentioned free fall speed.

No, he didn't. Remember this?

I'm not saying they shouldn't concentrate on the towers, but they sure as hell should concentrate on WTC 7 too. It's inexplicable a building like that falling from fires, and at free fall speed for portions of it (as NIST admitted)

Maybe you should apologize to tfk, and myself, for trying to lie.

So I really don't know the context of the conversation. But you do realize that the "speed" you are at during freefall is determined by how long you have been falling right?

Really? What is that speed?

This is until you reach terminal velocity. Your acceleration does not change
(I mean assuming it is done on the same body, like the moon instead of the earth). So I'm not sure what this is all about.

This.

I'm not saying they shouldn't concentrate on the towers, but they sure as hell should concentrate on WTC 7 too. It's inexplicable a building like that falling from fires, and at free fall speed for portions of it (as NIST admitted)

So if you are insulting him, for saying speed instead of acceleration, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. 2 seconds of free fall does indeed have a speed, as well as the constant acceleration. I'm really not sure what this is about.

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

No, I am not really insulting you per se, more like making fun of you for posting inaccurate garbage.

Care to address the rest of my post? Or are you going to change the subject, like as if I forgot that you're making a fool of yourself.

 

[Venom]

Here's one for the defense (or prosecution if we're going against the Truth Movement):

You're suggesting that the events of 9/11 were not the result of years of terrorist planning, but rather...

Two planes being deliberately crashed into two New York skyscrapers while a third is intentionally landed into a field, creating suspicious results that, if reasoned accordingly, would seem like a very badly planned and OBVIOUS false flag.
A fourth is sent searing toward the Pentagon (apparently to kill the government's own people and destroy documents) and creates a fairly large impact (maybe a bit unimpressive to a die-hard truther).
Finally, a smaller, obscure tower called World Trade Center 7 is demolished in plain sight when it wasn't even obviously damaged very hard. But the evil Establishment decides to destroy it along with the towers even with everyone watching this bizarre fall. Now if this is true, then it is the worst planned and obvious (or maybe unplanned?) false flag in the history of the world.

"It just can't be true........it's NOT true..." just by that line of reasoning alone, OK?

Don't even consider the evidence yet and the Truther story is a little too easy to be true.....

 

[dtugg]

FSM, twoofers keep getting stupider and stupider.

 

[dafydd]

FSM, twoofers keep getting stupider and stupider.

All the intelligent ones came to their senses a while back.

 

[dafydd]

Ummmm I'm not sure what a "stundie" award is, and I really don't much care.

]

It's a monthly award given here for the stupidest post on this and other sites. You are well in the running. You should care.

 

[triforcharity]

It's a monthly award given here for the stupidest post on this and other sites. You are well in the running. You should care.

I think it might actually be a hot contender for first place, IMO.

 

[tmd2_1]

Here's one for the defense (or prosecution if we're going against the Truth Movement):

You're suggesting that the events of 9/11 were not the result of years of terrorist planning, but rather...

Two planes being deliberately crashed into two New York skyscrapers while a third is intentionally landed into a field, creating suspicious results that, if reasoned accordingly, would seem like a very badly planned and OBVIOUS false flag.
A fourth is sent searing toward the Pentagon (apparently to kill the government's own people and destroy documents) and creates a fairly large impact (maybe a bit unimpressive to a die-hard truther).
Finally, a smaller, obscure tower called World Trade Center 7 is demolished in plain sight when it wasn't even obviously damaged very hard. But the evil Establishment decides to destroy it along with the towers even with everyone watching this bizarre fall. Now if this is true, then it is the worst planned and obvious (or maybe unplanned?) false flag in the history of the world.

"It just can't be true........it's NOT true..." just by that line of reasoning alone, OK?

Don't even consider the evidence yet and the Truther story is a little too easy to be true.....

Ah a return to the original post. I was taking the position of a defense attorney defending OBL and AQ. I assumed they were guilty 100% guilty and provided evidence to establish reasonable doubt.

I have another thread on this board asking for evidence of the original story, of which there is very little.

To address your point. There are many people including me that take the position that it was not the U.S. government that did it. But rather a relatively small cabal inside of it, along with members from other countries as well as some "elite"

There are also many that say, and including me, that Flight 93 was meant for WTC 7. It was delayed at take off, which could have gave Jets time to scramble. There was a lot of confusion that day because there were war game scenario's taking place. But the fighters couldn't be held off forever. It would be headed to NYC on the guise that they wanted to hit a tower again, seeing they weren't there, just crashed into the next biggest building. So you had WTC 7 all loaded and ready to bring down. In essence it was all dressed up with no where to go. So they had to bring it down anyway.