Collapse vs Demolition
in [Physics]
|
From: Henry on 19 Jul 2010 12:04 Ray Fischer wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Ray Fischer wrote: >>> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon(a)live.com> wrote: >>>> From the bleachers it appears that you and Ray are the wackos. >>>> Henry sticks to the issues, you two engage in character assassination. >>> In one post he claimed that the building couldn't not collapse as fast >>> as it did because stell columns were designed to support "several >>> times [their] own weight". >> I said the steel frame was designed to support several times the >> weight of the structure, and that's exactly correct. > And you're too stupid to figure out how it could fall down, even > though you refer to the melted beams in the wreakage. You've again failed to comprehend clear English. I explained and proved to you that the molten and vaporized steel was the result of demolition. Are you just pretending to be this stupid? >>> The her referred to the "melted and >>> vaporized steel columns" in the wreakage. >> Right. That was the result of demolition. >> http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf >> Here's proof that fires couldn't have caused it. >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw&feature=player_embedded > No demolition, kook. So, what do you "think" caused this steel column to vaporize, nut job? http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf Here's proof that fires couldn't have caused it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw&feature=player_embedded (this is where crazy Ray gets even more stupid and again runs away from a challenge to address the hard evidence and expert research) Thanks for proving my point again, ya helpless, pitiful, clueless, and deluded sheep... <chuckle> -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 19 Jul 2010 12:08 Ray Fischer wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Please explain how WTC7 could have dropped at the rate of free fall >> Proof of free fall is documented below in several short videos. >> http://cms.ae911truth.org/index.php/evidence/35-key-facts/275-nist-admits-freefall.html >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw >> Videos from: http://www.911speakout.org/ > Easy. It didn't. The fact that a known liar and imbecile says it didn't, makes it far more likely that it did, nutter. Tell us where you "think" NIST and 9-11 truth experts are wrong in the videos above. They both agree that WTC7 did, in fact, accelerate at the rate of free fall. (this is where crazy Ray gets even more stupid and again runs away from a challenge to address the hard evidence and expert research) Thanks for proving my point again, ya helpless, pitiful, clueless, and deluded sheep... <chuckle> -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 19 Jul 2010 12:30 Ray Fischer wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Ray Fischer wrote: >>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >>>> Ray Fischer wrote: >>>>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >>>>>> Focus on WTC7. It accelerated at free fall with near perfect symmetry. >>>>>> It also had melted and vaporized steel columns in the rubble. That's >>>>> Why? >>>> You deleted the answer when you quoted my post. Here it is again. >>>> Let us know if you disagree with any of the facts, research, and >>>> evidence, and if so, what and why, exactly. >>>> Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure >>>> or object encounters no significant resistance. >>> "no SIGNIFICANT" resistance. >> Well, technically, no resistance at all. Even air resistance will >> reduce the rate of acceleration to less than free fall, but the >> change can be so minor that it's difficult to observe. > Really?!? So you admit that you could be wrong? The rate of falling > could be "difficult to observe"? WTC7's free fall was very easy to observe. Neither NIST nor 1000s of 9-11 Truth experts are wrong when they say that WTC7 accelerated at a rate that is indistinguishable from free all. If you "think" they are, you should cite your "research", nutter. Or, like a helpless, confused, pitiful, lying coward, *simply* run away again. That'll prove our point just as well.... <chuckle> Proof of free fall is documented below in several short videos. Let us know if you dispute any of the research and findings, and if so, why. http://cms.ae911truth.org/index.php/evidence/35-key-facts/275-nist-admits-freefall.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw Videos from: http://www.911speakout.org/ -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Ray Fischer on 20 Jul 2010 23:30 Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >Ray Fischer wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >>> Ray Fischer wrote: >>>> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon(a)live.com> wrote: > >>>>> From the bleachers it appears that you and Ray are the wackos. >>>>> Henry sticks to the issues, you two engage in character assassination. >>>> In one post he claimed that the building couldn't not collapse as fast >>>> as it did because stell columns were designed to support "several >>>> times [their] own weight". > >>> I said the steel frame was designed to support several times the >>> weight of the structure, and that's exactly correct. > >> And you're too stupid to figure out how it could fall down, even >> though you refer to the melted beams in the wreakage. > > You've again failed to comprehend clear English. I explained >and proved to you that the molten and vaporized steel was the >result of demolition. No demolition, kook. >>>> The her referred to the "melted and >>>> vaporized steel columns" in the wreakage. > >>> Right. That was the result of demolition. > >>> http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf > >>> Here's proof that fires couldn't have caused it. > >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw&feature=player_embedded > >> No demolition, kook. > > So, what do you "think" caused this steel column to vaporize, > > http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf How about the obvious, lunatic? The fire? And if there was a demolition then why weren't there MANY steel beams that showed the effects of explosives? > Here's proof that fires couldn't have caused it. > > http://www.youtube.com You really are a crackpot. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 20 Jul 2010 23:35
Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >Ray Fischer wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >>> Ray Fischer wrote: >>>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >>>>> Ray Fischer wrote: >>>>>> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: > >>>>>>> Focus on WTC7. It accelerated at free fall with near perfect symmetry. >>>>>>> It also had melted and vaporized steel columns in the rubble. That's >>>>>> Why? > >>>>> You deleted the answer when you quoted my post. Here it is again. >>>>> Let us know if you disagree with any of the facts, research, and >>>>> evidence, and if so, what and why, exactly. > >>>>> Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure >>>>> or object encounters no significant resistance. > >>>> "no SIGNIFICANT" resistance. > >>> Well, technically, no resistance at all. Even air resistance will >>> reduce the rate of acceleration to less than free fall, but the >>> change can be so minor that it's difficult to observe. > >> Really?!? So you admit that you could be wrong? The rate of falling >> could be "difficult to observe"? > > WTC7's free fall was very easy to observe. So you're contradicting yourself yet again. > Neither NIST >nor 1000s of 9-11 Truth experts are wrong when they say that You have no credibility. Nothing less than actual quotes counts. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |