• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dubai Tower Burning: Luckily Muslims had it Built (Unlike WTC #7)

WTC7 fell at free fall for the first 2.25 seconds, 105 feet, 8 storeys.
:lamo

Just another lie from camlok in his long list. Here are two graphs showing the downward movement of the roofline. One is Chandler's. One is NIST's.

NIST's:
graph1.jpg

Chandler's:
graph2.jpg

What is that downward movement prior to the free fall average period? I thought you said WTC7 went from stasis to free fall? Why do you continue to lie camlok? Let me guess. You'll ignore being called out on this and just repeat how we're all anti truth and science denier people right?

:roll:
 
The Harrit et al paper says it all. Nanothermite found in WTC dust.
He found paint chips.

I wonder why Basile is taking so long. He was supposed to come out with a study comparing BOTH types primer paint used on the steel AND thermite chips. Basile can't find thermitic chips because all he's finding is both kinds of primer paint. Excerpt of the chips to analize taken from Basile's page http://www.markbasile.org/:
2 samples each of known building primer paint
2 samples each of red chips of suspected primer from building dust
5 sample each of red/gray chips or red layer only from red/gray chips

Basile got the $5000 on January 1st, 2014. That's 3 1/2 years ago! All he was supposed to do was get the chips indicated in the above quote and send them to an independent lab to have them analyzed. You mean to tell me it's taken Basile 3 1/2 years to select 9 chips (4 primer paint chips; 2 for each type of primer paint and 5 suspected thermite chips)? What a joke! And now Ziggi Zugam is offering people their donations back if they want because the study is taking so long Debunking the Debunkers

Mark Basile is still working on his red/gray chip study, and we are expecting an update about 6 weeks from now, in September 2017.

We wish to thank our donors for their patience. If anyone wants the money returned on account of this taking too long, please contact me: ziggizugam@gmail.com

What a joke!
 
He found paint chips.

I wonder why Basile is taking so long. He was supposed to come out with a study comparing BOTH types primer paint used on the steel AND thermite chips. Basile can't find thermitic chips because all he's finding is both kinds of primer paint. Excerpt of the chips to analize taken from Basile's page Site Unavailable


Basile got the $5000 on January 1st, 2014. That's 3 1/2 years ago! All he was supposed to do was get the chips indicated in the above quote and send them to an independent lab to have them analyzed. You mean to tell me it's taken Basile 3 1/2 years to select 9 chips (4 primer paint chips; 2 for each type of primer paint and 5 suspected thermite chips)? What a joke! And now Ziggi Zugam is offering people their donations back if they want because the study is taking so long Debunking the Debunkers



What a joke!

According to one source Basile will announce the findings in September 2017.

http://911debunkers.blogspot.ca/2017/08/wtc-dust-study-update-coming-soon.html

Amazing how long it took after he got the funding he asked for.
 
Just a nitpick.

They "expect an update", not necessarily his results as he was "still working on the study" as of the date of that post, August 1st.

Your correct. I am not expecting much from the announcement.
 
Compare Dr Hulsey to quag.

Congrats you made an appeal to authority fallacy
Doesnt change the fact the building started to collapse before freefall was attained.
Why do you lie all the time?
 
Congrats you made an appeal to authority fallacy
Doesnt change the fact the building started to collapse before freefall was attained.
Why do you lie all the time?

Interesting information found in notes for the people doing the study:
https://www.metabunk.org/ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-4

Read post #143 and look at all the issues they had in getting things to work for what they were trying to study. Hard drive crashes, programming to make computations work, errors, etc. Not too reassuring if you ask me. Also, Hulsey claimed this was study was going to be all out in the open and all the information shared. The logs referenced in the link above stopped being updated in 2015. Unless notes and updates are posted elsewhere.

Funny how camlok references Hulsey's and his study, but nothing has been published yet.
 
Last edited:
Interesting information found in notes for the people doing the study:
https://www.metabunk.org/ae911-truths-wtc7-evaluation-computer-modelling-project.t5627/page-4

Read post #143 and look at all the issues they had in getting things to work for what they were trying to study. Hard drive crashes, programming to make computations work, errors, etc. Not too reassuring if you ask me. Also, Hulsey claimed this was study was going to be all out in the open and all the information shared. The logs referenced in the link above stopped being updated in 2015. Unless notes and updates are posted elsewhere.

Funny how camlok references Hulsey's and his study, but nothing has been published yet.

He doenst care about the truth as shown by the constant lies. Even if the collpase began at freefall (which it didnt) the building took longer than freefall to actually collapse so his claims that the building collapsed at freefall would still be false.
 
Congrats you made an appeal to authority fallacy
Doesnt change the fact the building started to collapse before freefall was attained.

You don't even understand what it is you are trying to say, quag. What's new?

There were preliminary bombs to be sure, but WTC 7 fell uniformly, straight down, for 2.25 seconds of free fall, 105 feet, 8 floors, which you science deniers have been denying since day one.

That can only happen with controlled demolition.

As Dr Hulsey has said, and I paraphrase, even a symmetrically build building cannot fall in this fashion. There is ZERO chance that the NIST lies have any veracity. They lied their asses off, just like you guys do.

NIST lies: No web stiffeners; no shear studs; ...

Still no evidence for your wacky USGOCT.
 
He doenst care about the truth as shown by the constant lies. Even if the collpase began at freefall (which it didnt) the building took longer than freefall to actually collapse so his claims that the building collapsed at freefall would still be false.

I believe it is time to no longer feed the trolls.
 
You don't even understand what it is you are trying to say, quag. What's new?

There were preliminary bombs to be sure, but WTC 7 fell uniformly, straight down, for 2.25 seconds of free fall, 105 feet, 8 floors, which you science deniers have been denying since day one.

That can only happen with controlled demolition.

As Dr Hulsey has said, and I paraphrase, even a symmetrically build building cannot fall in this fashion. There is ZERO chance that the NIST lies have any veracity. They lied their asses off, just like you guys do.

NIST lies: No web stiffeners; no shear studs; ...

Still no evidence for your wacky USGOCT.

No evidence just lies from Cam as usual
 
You don't even understand what it is you are trying to say, quag. What's new?

There were preliminary bombs to be sure, but WTC 7 fell uniformly, straight down, for 2.25 seconds of free fall, 105 feet, 8 floors, which you science deniers have been denying since day one.

That can only happen with controlled demolition.

As Dr Hulsey has said, and I paraphrase, even a symmetrically build building cannot fall in this fashion. There is ZERO chance that the NIST lies have any veracity. They lied their asses off, just like you guys do.

NIST lies: No web stiffeners; no shear studs; ...

Still no evidence for your wacky USGOCT.

Correction: It fell close enough to free fall that you couldn't readily measure a difference based on crappy, low-resolution footage with no good references for exact dimensions to be measured. The margin of error on that 2.25 seconds is large.
 
Correction: It fell close enough to free fall that you couldn't readily measure a difference based on crappy, low-resolution footage with no good references for exact dimensions to be measured. The margin of error on that 2.25 seconds is large.

Correction for part of the collapse it fell at close to freefall. It did not start nor end at freefall
 
The rules of physics were suspended by the US Government beginning on 9/11/01 ;)

Apparently you know as little about physics as you do about aviation.
 
The rules of physics were suspended by the US Government beginning on 9/11/01 ;)

FAIL ... no such thing is even possible, you must have an appalling LACK of science understanding to even think that.

Or do you just mindlessly parrot all the truther mantras taught you !!!
 
but WTC 7 fell uniformly, straight down, for 2.25 seconds of free fall, 105 feet, 8 floors,
You mean what was left of WTC7 after the first part of the collapse right camlok? You aren't saying the ENTIRE, UNDAMAGED building fell at free fall for 2.25 seconds right?

;)
 
You mean what was left of WTC7 after the first part of the collapse right camlok? You aren't saying the ENTIRE, UNDAMAGED building fell at free fall for 2.25 seconds right?

You have seen the videos, gamolon, you have heard the testimony of Professor Leroy Hulsey. NIST's story is 100% false, ie. it has a zero chance of being true. Professor Hulsey, whose toe jam is more reliable than all you guys' science, states that WTC7 was built asymmetrically and asymmetrical buildings will not fall symmetrically. He states further, that even symmetrically built buildings will not collapse in the fashion that WTC7 did, straight down, at free fall speed for 105 feet, eight storeys, into its footprint.

More of gamolon's studied obfuscation. Actually, I doubt whether any of you have actually listened to Professor Hulsey, being as you are scientifically illiterate, scared shi*less of viewing anything but government approved propaganda.

See quag's post, the one mike liked, the incredibly dismal one that had zero evidence and zero science, just like yours here. [gamolon will now flee]
 
You have seen the videos, gamolon,
Yes I have. I don't see the entire WTC7 structure come down at free fall. I see what was LEFT of it. The east penthouse fell into the building itself PRIOR to the free fall period of 2.25 seconds. You go ahead and continue to try and mislead people.

you have heard the testimony of Professor Leroy Hulsey. NIST's story is 100% false, ie. it has a zero chance of being true.
Funny, but he hasn't released his report for scrutiny yet has he? He can claim all he wants, but until his numbers and report come out, his statement mean squat.

Professor Hulsey, whose toe jam
I thought it was toe nails?

:lamo

is more reliable than all you guys' science, states that WTC7 was built asymmetrically and asymmetrical buildings will not fall symmetrically.
:roll:


He states further, that even symmetrically built buildings will not collapse in the fashion that WTC7 did, straight down, at free fall speed for 105 feet, eight storeys, into its footprint.
Again it didn't. What was left of it after the penthouse collapsed did. You just refuse to get the information correct...

More of gamolon's studied obfuscation. Actually, I doubt whether any of you have actually listened to Professor Hulsey, being as you are scientifically illiterate, scared shi*less of viewing anything but government approved propaganda.
We'll see camlok. His DRAFT paper is supposed to come out in September for all to see and submit questions and corrections for. Sounds like he's really confident eh?


See quag's post, the one mike liked, the incredibly dismal one that had zero evidence and zero science, just like yours here. [gamolon will now flee]
:lamo

Where did I flee to? I've been here all along.
 
Yes I have. I don't see the entire WTC7 structure come down at free fall. I see what was LEFT of it. The east penthouse fell into the building itself PRIOR to the free fall period of 2.25 seconds. You go ahead and continue to try and mislead people.


Funny, but he hasn't released his report for scrutiny yet has he? He can claim all he wants, but until his numbers and report come out, his statement mean squat.


I thought it was toe nails?

:lamo


:roll:



Again it didn't. What was left of it after the penthouse collapsed did. You just refuse to get the information correct...


We'll see camlok. His DRAFT paper is supposed to come out in September for all to see and submit questions and corrections for. Sounds like he's really confident eh?



:lamo

Where did I flee to? I've been here all along.

camlok is trying to bait you. His writing style and avoiding questions is one reason I will not bother to respond to his posts.

Noted: He even tries to get be to engage by his little digs on what posts I like. Pretty easy to see through his game.
 
camlok is trying to bait you. His writing style and avoiding questions is one reason I will not bother to respond to his posts.

Noted: He even tries to get be to engage by his little digs on what posts I like. Pretty easy to see through his game.
Yeah.

Time to put him on the backburner like I did with gerrycan.

Oh well.
 
We'll see camlok. His DRAFT paper is supposed to come out in September for all to see and submit questions and corrections for. Sounds like he's really confident eh?

Indicative of how you don't understand the scientific process. He puts his paper and all his calculations, everything for others to critique/accept/offer constructive criticism, ... .

Compare that to NIST, a government agency of a supposedly open and free society hiding all their "science". You guys really are such dupes, you, mike, quag, ... .
 
Indicative of how you don't understand the scientific process. He puts his paper and all his calculations, everything for others to critique/accept/offer constructive criticism, ... .

Compare that to NIST, a government agency of a supposedly open and free society hiding all their "science". You guys really are such dupes, you, mike, quag, ... .

FAIL for Hulsey has patently NOT been transparent and open ... and funny how for all NIST hiding their science Hulsey seems to have MANAGED to use their data to build his models.

An irony, I am sure WILL be lost on you ...

I predict ...... NOTHING from Hulsey ... he was SUPPOSED to bring his results in APRIL ... he then changed it to AUGUST and now September.

Bet you this just, ever so quietly, disappears, like so much of twoofer "science" has !!!

Basile anybody ... we been waiting over six years now for his "study" !!!
 
Back
Top Bottom