Ventura’s 9/11 Questions Break Through Mainstream Media Dam - Page 4

Chanda · 04-25-08, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Prove that the video is in real time. And where in your kook link does it say that the terminal velocity and rate of fall of WTC would have been 6 seconds? Who backs up his assertion?

The "kook," David Heller, has degrees in physics and architecture. Do you? However long it took wtc7 to collapse, there is no scientific explanation for it.

Jray · 04-25-08, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chanda

Are you a physicist? Physicists say it isn't possible, except by controlled demolition:

Dave Heller, a builder with degrees in physics and architecture: "The floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?"

This guy only seems to exist on 911 truth websites (just like the "MIT engineer" Jeff King) so i doubt his credentials. But if you look at the collapse of the towers you see that they collapse from the top down. If they were falling simultaneously like he says, then the debris should start rising up from the collapse of the lower floors early on but it doesn't. Also if the floors fell simultaneously then you would see the entire building collapse simultaneously rather than it crumble from the top down.

Quote:

Physicist Steven Jones: "the Towers fall very rapidly to the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected debris which provide free-fall references . . . . Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum---one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors---and intact steel support columns---the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . [b]ut this is not the case. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9/11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and the fall times were not analyzed"

From F.R Greening's paper "Energy Transfer In the WTC collapse"

The towers collapsed far from free fall speed, giving more than enough time to account for the conservation of momentum. The observed collapse of the towers also is very similar to the theoretical collapse that Greening calculates.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 04-27-08, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chanda

The "kook," David Heller, has degrees in physics and architecture. Do you? However long it took wtc7 to collapse, there is no scientific explanation for it.

So there are no such things as "kooks" with degrees and if I have a degree in something I must be right eh?

Well one of my degrees is in psychology and you crazy.

Chanda · 04-27-08, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

So there are no such things as "kooks" with degrees and if I have a degree in something I must be right eh?

If one has a degree in physics, his 9/11 analysis might be more valuable than say, one with a degree in psychology.

Quote:

Well one of my degrees is in psychology and you crazy.

So the vast and growing number of academics who question 9/11 events are crazy? Oh right, one can only be sane if he believes the OFFICIAL conspiracy theory.

Chanda · 04-28-08, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jray

But if you look at the collapse of the towers you see that they collapse from the top down. If they were falling simultaneously like he says, then the debris should start rising up from the collapse of the lower floors early on but it doesn't. Also if the floors fell simultaneously then you would see the entire building collapse simultaneously rather than it crumble from the top down.

In the opinion of Dutch demolition expert, Danny Jowenko:

YouTube - 9/11: Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko on WTC #7

Reverend_Hellh0und · 04-28-08, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chanda

If one has a degree in physics, his 9/11 analysis might be more valuable than say, one with a degree in psychology.

So then why did you ignore the evidence in post #32? I think the man who made those graphs has a degree.

Quote:

So the vast and growing number of academics who question 9/11 events are crazy? Oh right, one can only be sane if he believes the OFFICIAL conspiracy theory.

No you said:
"The "kook," David Heller, has degrees in physics and architecture"

As in his degrees=he is right.

I laughed at you and that notion.

And I still do.

Chanda · 04-28-08, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

So then why did you ignore the evidence in post #32? I think the man who made those graphs has a degree.

Greening may have a degree, but I'm not qualified to make a judgment on that evidence because I don't have a physics degree.

Quote:

No you said:
"The "kook," David Heller, has degrees in physics and architecture"

As in his degrees=he is right.

No, it was a reference to a quote I had posted earlier by Paul Craig Roberts:

"The vast majority of the people who call skeptics "kooks" are themselves ignorant of physics and have little comprehension of the improbability that such an attack could succeed without either the complicity or complete failure of government agencies."

Quote:

I laughed at you and that notion. And I still do.

And I'm supposed to care what you think about me?

Reverend_Hellh0und · 04-28-08, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chanda

Greening may have a degree, but I'm not qualified to make a judgment on that evidence because I don't have a physics degree.

But you buy into your kooks conclusions because it fits your agenda.

Quote:

No, it was a reference to a quote I had posted earlier by Paul Craig Roberts:

"The vast majority of the people who call skeptics "kooks" are themselves ignorant of physics and have little comprehension of the improbability that such an attack could succeed without either the complicity or complete failure of government agencies."

Right.....

Quote:

And I'm supposed to care what you think about me?

Oh I know you do baby.