Anaxagoras
Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
He is giving you good advice. These guys learned the hard way that certain things have specific answers and when you are in over your head its best to drop it before you bury yourself ass deep in your own shit.
When I was a young kid, I took a traffic ticket to court and got my ass bounced out after the prosecutor said 3 words. Little did I know that what the prosecutor said completely wiped out my standing. I was not able to connect those dots and argued away while the judge was bored to fucking tears tossing his pen drinking coffee etc.
You should take these guys advice because the same thing just happened to you. as the saying goes in lego land you had the ax planted between your eyes and never seen it coming. 
Horseshit, piss and blustering hot air. Whats the fucking point in writing such toss. Next...
quote:
Here I will give you one benefit of a doubt.
See this is the way it works; The building if at any point in its course to the ground comes down at freefall speed that means there is NOTHING supporting it during that period of time.
Yes, that is indeed the point I had made. It is also the point NIST made... 
quote:
Now unless you have some alien from mars of moonbeam or even if you are smoking some really good shit, it is impossible for ANY reasonably properly constructed building to freefall in a natural collapse as is being claimed by official story spinners.
Let me say this once again. It did not go down in free-fall, other than for a two-second period out of some sixteen seconds because there was no load bearing structural support whatsoever for the tower on five or so floors due to the buckling of the structure underneath. While this is akin to a demolition where there is no support and it goes into free-fall because the supports have been destroyed, the marked contrast here is that a true planned demolition destroys all supports at once so the entire building goes into free-fall throughout its decent. This simply did not happen with Tower 7. Now do you see the contrast? lol Thought not because I have made this simple elemental point time and time again.
quote:
So: HINT; that is the ax sticking out of your head right now.
An old man acting like a childish infant is pretty sad even for a fruit and nut conspiracist. If you were semi-compos mentus you would be embarassed.
If you can show even one instance of a natural collapse in freefall then you will have managed defy the most basic laws of physics. BUt hey good luck with that anyway.
quote:
You have to show that something natural could have happened to cause global (that means simultaneous) failure of ALL supporting structure and columns.
Global failure did not occur throughout the building so I don't have to show that. It would be like asking for proof a truck killed a man when a bullet did. It is of no relevance. If global failure had occurred it would go into free-fall throughout the descent. If such a thing had happened I would give conspiracists credence but it didn't so you loose buddy. 
quote:
The software NIST uses does not allow for freefall! imagine that!
I suspect that is more bullshit from the fantasists who just seem to invent when it suits. NIST plotted free-fall for the 2 seconds indicated in their computer simulations, which are explained in their November 2008 final edition of their report: http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610
quote:
LEAD NIST INVESTIGATOR: Freefall time ;
"WOULD BE A FALLING OBJECT THAT HAS NO ah... STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT" (video 3)
I tried to give you food for thought when I posted this I so much as said it but you simply do not get it.
That quote sounds like just more de-contextualised batshit. This is more or less what Shyam Sunder said according to one conspiracist website:
quote:
… a free fall time would be an object that has no … structural components below it...And that is not at all unusual because there was [emphasis in original] structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had … a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous.
He was not saying that basic bricks and mortar prevented free-fall because that also takes place in demolitions where the support structures are destroyed. Clearly when he talked about "structural components below it", he is referring to the structural supports, as is amply illustrated in the report itself (see link above: part 3.6 - page 44.) and the FAQ. The point he made is that free-fall took place in one event in a sequence of structural failures. True global free-fall outside of any sequence of varying collapsing events did not occur.
quote:
•Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
•Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
•Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm
BTW you are also wrong to claim there was mention of free-fall in parts one and two of the final report.
quote:
That means that freefall is impossible in a naturally collapsing building. There are no if's and's or but's. Air tight case!
Once again you distort the meaning of free-fall. If one says a building collapsed in free-fall, that obviously means in its entirety. It did not do that.
It is also very dubious to use the term impossible. A building collapsing in free-fall naturally is arguably possible but highly improbable. Extremely improbably phenomena have occurred naturally and I'm sure hypotheticals could be devised but that isn't at all relevant to this case anyhow. It that is a side issue not relevant to the case NIST puts.
quote:
Further that means the fall time arguments beyond determining freefall are a bullshit diversion and are negated by the FACT that it DID IN FACT freefall for ~2 seconds and that has been VALIDATED BY NIST.
NIST validated two seconds of free-fall as I repeatedly pointed out but you like other conspiracists have conveniently moved the goal posts by changing the meaning of actual free-fall collapse, and now claim that meaning is a diversion. lol The fact remains that a free-fall collapse is a global structural event happening in unison. No such thing happened here.
quote:
Now unless you can entertain some means OTHER than demolition to GLOBALLY, simultaneously, remove ALL the supporting structural components to the tune of 28 columns over a span of 300 feet all at the exact same time to make it fall with a nearly perfectly level roof line then be my guest and lay it on us.
IT FREEFELL HENCE DEMOLITION OCCURED, that is the argument so try sticking to the matter at hand.
This is comical because after changing the meaning above in order to a mislead, you are actually now describing the proper understanding of free-fall, as understood with regard to overall collapse and demolition. Once again true global free-fall did not occur or the building would have collapsed in 6.5 secinds, not 16 or so seconds.
quote:
All other arguments are huff and puff bullshit and my ears are closed to bullshit.
You aint no daisy
Translation: "my ears are closed to any other view except your own, which I will dismiss with contempt." Oh yeah and I guess you regard yourself as hot shit! Whats new?
|
RE: There was a plane! - 
Profile
You don't know anything about physics or mathematics. You didn't even know what QED meant! 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread