• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Breaking news! Truther Ignored by Senator!

Just like all the rest--one big freakin' argument from incredulity. At least SOME truthers attempt the math...
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
Just like all the rest--one big freakin' argument from incredulity. At least SOME truthers attempt the math...
Click to expand...
As we all know, if some random uneducated person can't understand something it's because that somethig is impossible.
 
tempesta29 said:
That doesn't say what you want it to say. Once again, for the last time:


What you're quoting is simply referring to the reference point used to measure the velocity of WTC 7's descent. There is nothing about exclusivity there. NIST chose to use that point for its measurement.
Click to expand...

That's called a fallacy of composition.
 
Last edited:
tempesta29 said:
Your question is insulting because it is vague.
Click to expand...


I would've thought that the worst that could be said of a vague question is that it is well, vague. Vague answers, on the other hand...

BTW, have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effectWP?

Hope that question wasn't too vague for you.
 
triforcharity said:
That's called a fallacy of composition.
Click to expand...

In the end their own report states the north face descended at gravitational acceleration. There is no evidence to suggest that the north face fell faster than the south face. Let us also note that the south face was the only side damaged by debris and fire. Regardless, numerous columns would had to have failed to provide resistance for 2.25 seconds. This isn't possible. Steel columns will always provide some resistance.
 
NutCracker said:
For the sake of argument let us assume that it was not only a portion of the north face that was in free fall. Let us enter the hypothetical and assume that it was the entire north face, or that the south face also was in free fall. What would be the significance? I.o.w. so what? Please discuss.
Click to expand...

Because numerous industrial steel columns will provide more resistance to collapse than air can. That's just common sense. For 2.25 seconds WTC 7 fell as fast as a cinder block through the air, and you see nothing wrong with that? No red flag? This building had 80+ columns. The overwhelming majority of the structure never suffered from any fire damage. It literally fell like a house of cards. Not one of the individuals on this site educated in engineering and physics think that is troublesome?
 
tempesta29 said:
Because numerous industrial steel columns will provide more resistance to collapse than air can. That's just common sense. For 2.25 seconds WTC 7 fell as fast as a cinder block through the air, and you see nothing wrong with that? No red flag? This building had 80+ columns. The overwhelming majority of the structure never suffered from any fire damage. It literally fell like a house of cards. Not one of the individuals on this site educated in engineering and physics think that is troublesome?
Click to expand...


You are merely rewording a claim without explaining anything. What would be wrong with it? Why? What would be the conclusion? What red flag? Why? How? Conclusion?
 
tempesta29 said:
Not one of the individuals on this site educated in engineering and physics think that is troublesome?
Click to expand...

Why should someone educated in engineering and physics think it is troublesome just because YOU do? The world is FILLED with people educated in engineering and physics who don't find it particularly troubling. Building codes are being changed around the world because of the studies into the collapses.

In the real world, the collapses are still being studied. Here is a non-vague question: Why do you think that no respected engineering or scientific organization from anywhere on Earth has demanded a new investigation?
 
tempesta29 said:
Yet instead of simply proving me wrong, you post things like this.
Click to expand...
Your ideas have been proven wrong over and over and over again.

Over 9 years after 9/11, and the work published by truthers in engineering journals totals exactly ZERO.

So about that whole evidence thing... got any? Shouldn't you have some math to show by now?
 
If this Senator did anything BUT ignore him, I would question his intelligence, professionalism, loyalty, patriotism, and sanity.

Tempesta29- did you really come here just to have us prove you wrong? what's the point?

and if you came here just to deny all of our retutations, what's the point of that?

how does this achieve anything?
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Your ideas have been proven wrong over and over and over again.

Over 9 years after 9/11, and the work published by truthers in engineering journals totals exactly ZERO.

So about that whole evidence thing... got any? Shouldn't you have some math to show by now?
Click to expand...

Your ambiguous request for math is just perplexing. I've cited the NIST report's numbers on what it calls stage 2 of WTC 7's collapse. They're very clear.
 
NutCracker said:
You are merely rewording a claim without explaining anything. What would be wrong with it? Why? What would be the conclusion? What red flag? Why? How? Conclusion?
Click to expand...

I've already stated what's wrong with it. Steel offers resistance. This still did not. Why?
 
tempesta29 said:
I've already stated what's wrong with it. Steel offers resistance. This still did not. Why?
Click to expand...

The columns in an 8 story tall section of the building failed due to floors collapsing. And these columns had no lateral bracing once the floors collapsed. This significantly reduced the capacity of the columns. They then buckled elastically. And as columns that buckle elastically have very little post-yield strength, the building fell at about free-fall for those 8 stories.

You would have known that had you read the NIST report. It is explained within.
 
Thunder said:
If this Senator did anything BUT ignore him, I would question his intelligence, professionalism, loyalty, patriotism, and sanity.

Tempesta29- did you really come here just to have us prove you wrong? what's the point?

and if you came here just to deny all of our retutations, what's the point of that?

how does this achieve anything?
Click to expand...

I'm right there with you except Senator Cantwell is a woman. She's a very nice lady, met her once in Seattle. Not that we had a long talk but she didn't strike me as the kind of person who would waste time on this sort of nonsense.
 
tempesta29 said:
In the end their own report states the north face descended at gravitational acceleration. There is no evidence to suggest that the north face fell faster than the south face. Let us also note that the south face was the only side damaged by debris and fire. Regardless, numerous columns would had to have failed to provide resistance for 2.25 seconds. This isn't possible. Steel columns will always provide some resistance.
Click to expand...

Do you have anything OTHER than arguments from personal ignorance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom