Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

[Christopher7]

Funny that none of them ever said that they were from explosives. Many of them say: "it appeared", "seemed like", "I don't know what it was", "was like" & "I thought it was".

If they use a simile, it doesn't count.

Got it

As I said before the barrage, in a REAL investigation they don't think up reasons not to investigate something.

* * * * *
Getting back to the subject of this thread:

Dave's hypothesis for the collapse of the Trade Towers requires an instantaneous total failure of all the remaining 158 columns to allow for 12.5 feet of FFA. This is impossible as Tony has pointed out. But you don't need a college degree to figure out that 158 columns bending will provide resistance as they bend.

 

[Disbelief]

Getting back to the subject of this thread:

Dave's hypothesis for the collapse of the Trade Towers requires an instantaneous total failure of all the remaining 158 columns to allow for 12.5 feet of FFA. This is impossible as Tony has pointed out. But you don't need a college degree to figure out that 158 columns bending will provide resistance as they bend.

Bolding mine. Good to know that WTC7 is still standing then.

 

[Gamolon]

No. The exterior frame is buckling asymmetrically, providing resistance.

What?

The corner dropped 30 feet in 1 second.

You admitted that the corner dropped about 30 in that 1 second frame. How far would an object have to fall in one second to constitute free fall?

Now you're saying it's NOT free fall?

 

[BigAl]

If they use a simile, it doesn't count.

Got it

Correct.

 

[Gamolon]

Dr. Sunder was correct when he said:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it

Ok Christopher7.

Let's see if you can answer this honestly.

When Sunder mentions "a free fall time" in the statement above, what is he referring to? The 2.5 second free fall time or the entire collapse in the video?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Boldings mine:

If they use a simile, it doesn't count.

It does count if you have no evidence of explosives. So quit dodging!

Got it

I get that you love to lie your way out of an arguement in which you started. Why are you hiding your motives?

As I said before the barrage, in a REAL investigation they don't think up reasons not to investigate something.

Well in a real investigation if there's no evidence, then it simply can't be included in the report. Since CD experts didn't find any trace of a CD at GZ, it wouldn't be reported. You haven't learned anything!

* * * * *
Getting back to the subject of this thread:

Dave's hypothesis for the collapse of the Trade Towers requires an instantaneous total failure of all the remaining 158 columns to allow for 12.5 feet of FFA. This is impossible as Tony has pointed out. But you don't need a college degree to figure out that 158 columns bending will provide resistance as they bend.

I guess you would be Superman to look through the dust cloud when the buildings collapsed. You ain't fooling noone but yourself!

 

[tsig]

Double talk.

That does not preclude hearing any explosions. On the contrary, the qualifier "capable of cutting any of the columns" implies that they heard an explosion that sounded like something else, like a transformer perhaps.

Which is it? Did they hear an explosion or not? We can't be sure because the second hand account does not specify one way or the other.

The picture is a fake. The color has been added.

 

[Telltale Tom]

Truther Reasoning 101 - Rule 232: Using Similies as Evidence.

Statement: Man! I have to pee like a racehorse!

Normal Thought: I guess that guy really has to pee.

Truther Thought: This guy must have slipped up in his cover that he is part horse and is part of a goverment conspiracy to run centaurs in the next Kentucky Derby. Once the government gains control of the Triple Crown, they plan on taking over all other major sports leagues in the country and use them as breeding grounds for super-soldiers that will assist in taking over the world!

Truther Thought: Never before has a man pee'd like a racehorse. It must be an inside job.!

Jockey's for P-Truth.... Donate generously
Bladder Level ... 1,000 Peseos a month

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Jockey's for P-Truth.... Donate generously
Bladder Level ... 1,000 Ameros a month

That's Ameros to you mister... ...............

 

[riptowtan]

@Christopher 7
All you are doing is anomaly hunting. While you may believe that the anomalies are significant, most here disagree and for good reasons. The two second freefall gambit is never going to get the truth movement anywhere because it is a non-sequitur(for CDT). And so we are back to square one where we have massive amounts of evidence that the structure collapsed due to fires, and no evidence for CD. I've still seen no actual science that support your claims from anyone. And might I add that using NIST and FEMA's findings to back up your "theory" is logically absurd. In your world they are part of this fantastically huge conspiracy to cover up a demolition, but yet leave "clues" about what really happened in their papers. If they could cover up everything else, how could they be so incompetent when it comes to typing up their reports? You keep going on and on about how we're pulling out the denier's handbook, when you don't ever pull out anything. The points I have raised about why we can rule out explosives have not been addressed. (See post #1568) If there were bombs, everyone would have heard them, not just 9 eyewitnesses. (Whose accounts are taken out of context like others have shown)

 

[Sabretooth]

@Christopher 7
All you are doing is anomaly hunting. While you may believe that the anomalies are significant, most here disagree and for good reasons. The two second freefall gambit is never going to get the truth movement anywhere because it is a non-sequitur(for CDT). And so we are back to square one where we have massive amounts of evidence that the structure collapsed due to fires, and no evidence for CD. I've still seen no actual science that support your claims from anyone. And might I add that using NIST and FEMA's findings to back up your "theory" is logically absurd. In your world they are part of this fantastically huge conspiracy to cover up a demolition, but yet leave "clues" about what really happened in their papers. If they could cover up everything else, how could they be so incompetent when it comes to typing up their reports? You keep going on and on about how we're pulling out the denier's handbook, when you don't ever pull out anything. The points I have raised about why we can rule out explosives have not been addressed. (See post #1568) If there were bombs, everyone would have heard them, not just 9 eyewitnesses. (Whose accounts are taken out of context like others have shown)

^^^ what he said.

But why do I have the bad feeling that he will shift gears to something totally different...and that already been discussed...?

 

[triforcharity]

Where did Chris and MM go? This thread was really a good one.....

 

[beachnut]

Where did Chris and MM go? This thread was really a good one.....

Listening to Coast to Coast, where they can find some woo ...