- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 123,446
- Reaction score
- 27,915
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
As always, no evidence for what are obviously racist lies.
Did the Arabs have valid Visa's?
As always, no evidence for what are obviously racist lies.
I assume you are talking to me. Can't tell since you don't quote anybody.No Sunshine, what you offer are not facts at all.
so you believe that the history of smelting steel is government propaganda?They are government propaganda talking points, 16 years old now, and you are unable to prove a single one.
I only made two claims and they are factual to claim they were debunked would it mean that entire Industries are in on this conspiracy as well as the laws of physics.One could say all those claims and talking points you just regurgitated have been DEBUNKED.
so you're telling me that it's fiction that mild Steel reaches its eutectic phase at 1130°C? And it's also fiction that we've been melting steel with fire for centuries?You don't know fact from fiction
Are you sure that's found in every single post that ever says that your conspiracy theory is just that.and that sort of dullness is found in just about every post you make on this subject matter.
No nanothermite was found, read the Jones paper found in vanity journal, pay to publish, no proper peer review. The paper shows no proof for nanothermite. The fake conclusion paper show their samples don't match nanothermite heat energy, how did they get less energy? The DSC does not match. Fake conclusion paper fools few. The big problem, you, Jones, and all of 9/11 truth have no evidence for thermite damage to any WTC steel.You lie by omission by not addressing the scientific evidence of nanothermite found in WTC dust.
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and SpeculationYou lie by omission by not addressing the scientific evidence of Eager and Musso on WTC temperatures.
Source this claim, it makes no sense. NIST explains the heat energy from the office fires were equal to 2,700 tons of TNT up to collapse time. You can't produce one piece of WTC damaged by nanothermite.You lie by omission by not addressing the scientific evidence of NIST on WTC temperatures.
There was no vaporized steel on 9/11. You offer zero evidence.You lie by omission by pretending that your newly discovered word of the day has some importance to the molten/vaporized WTC steel.
Where is your source for molten molybdenum and vaporized lead? RJ Lee said all the stuff he found is normal in fire at the WTC, and his data was collected after clean up at the WTC.You lie by omission by not addressing the scientific evidence presented for the molten molybdenum and the vaporized lead.
. . .
You mention jolt, and can't describe how long a jolt will last as the upper mass destroys the next floor; how long does it take for the velocity of the impact mass on the next floor take to reach the velocity of impact? Did you even think to do the work to see why you don't have a jolt? The fact is the speed and time of collapse confirm it was a gravity collapse, and the below g acceleration average is the proof. Physics.Sunzi: So, the building starts to fall, and you make a claim with no sources, nothing.
Sadling: If you're talking about the accelerating speed of collapse, I provided a clear video to prove my claim.
Sunzi: Not surprised things on earth accelerate when falling.
Sadling: Sure, when there's no stationary structure of equal composition in its way resisting its fall.
Sunzi: gravity alone accounts for the speed and acceleration of collapse.
Sadling: Except when a mass of equal composition is in the path of the falling mass. That's the part you're in denial about.
Sunzi: The antenna is not perpendicular or in the z-plane when falling, it is tilting; thus your fake numbers don't add up.
Sadling: The fact that it is tilting toward the end of its drop doesn't take away from the fact that the upper block is accelerating through the mass below it. I count five seconds for the antenna to drop 360 feet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo
Sunzi: This is not evidence for anything but fire caused the collapse, and proof of gravity.
Sadling: I don't know where you come up with this stuff. There is no doubt in my mind that you understand that when one mass impacts another mass of equal composition, the mass in motion is slowed down. But that's not what we see in the video. We see the upper block passing through the lower block without even a jolt. And it does so before the antenna begins to tilt. The only way that can happen is if everything below it was falling at the same speed at the same time, which it wasn't. And you think that the tilting of the antenna toward the end of its drop somehow explains how the upper block passed through the lower stationary structure. Okay. Now I know your position.
so you're telling me that it's fiction that mild Steel reaches its eutectic phase at 1130°C? And it's also fiction that we've been melting steel with fire for centuries?
And I'm supposed to believe that I don't know fact from fiction?
Are you sure that's found in every single post that ever says that your conspiracy theory is just that.
It's funny seeing him talk about fiction.He believes in the magic mini-nuke nonsense.
Sure, Sunzi. When a certain sized mass hits another mass of the same composition but much bigger, the smaller mass will bust right through it as if the larger mass wasn't there. Sure.The upper mass does not pass through lower floors, it makes them fail nearly instantly. The lower floor can't stop the upper mass.
Sure, Sunzi. When a certain sized mass hits another mass of the same composition but much bigger, the smaller mass will bust right through it as if the larger mass wasn't there. Sure.
To further point out the recklessness of your thinking, you talk about the floors collapsing without any regard for the core structure when the core structure was designed to hold up the floors. Your theory supposes that that the floors were what was holding up the core structure. Your theory also is identical to the "pancake theory." Is that what you're pushing here? Because you know, the pancake theory has been debunked.
So once again you repeat your failure to take into account the resistance capacity of the structure below the impact zone. In your mind, the lower structure is a cause that has no effect. Now how reasonable is that?
And once again here you go talking about the floors pancaking when the pancake theory has been debunked by even NIST.The next lower floor of the WTC is not larger than the upper mass it is much smaller.
You missed it, the floors in the WTC towers do not hold up anything but themselves. The floor below fails, the first floor hit by the upper mass fails almost instantly, and because the collapse is chaotic, your missing jolt is averaged out. If you studied the collapse you would see deviations in the acceleration and velocity as each floor is hit.
And once again here you go talking about the floors pancaking when the pancake theory has been debunked by even NIST.
". . . jolt is averaged out"? What in hell does that mean. Watch the video. There's no jolt--averaged out or otherwise. I think you need to do some serious research into the core structure to find out just how silly your speculation is. Even NIST didn't attempt to explain what was observed; they described things up to the point of collapse, and then don't explain a damn thing about the collapse, which is kind of strange since that's what they said their report would do. You should send them your pancake theory. And then you'd learn the hard way that it's not relevant anymore.
Now for the fourth or fifth time, stop trying to push the idea that the intact core structure below the impact zone was a cause without an effect. It makes you look like you believe in magic.
NIST says:The initial collapse was not pancaking, NIST clearly explains this concept of why the collapse continued.
oops, NIST says the floor fails due to be overloaded.
Yes, the truss connection to the shell could pull in the shell, and there is evidence. But the floors connections to the core were destoryed, and the floors fail, without the shell for lateral support the core was subject to the caotice collapse mass damaging the core, and the same mass was ripping up the shell in large sections. The collapse due to gravity was equal to more than 100 2,000 pound bombs, which you ignore.NIST says:
". . . floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers."
So, according to NIST, the floors sagged and pulled the perimeter columns inward, which led to collapse. I know that that probably satisfies you, but that's not very detailed if you ask me. But anyway, you're now of the opinion that the floor connections were not strong enough to keep the floors from disconnecting from the core and perimeter columns and falling, but were also strong enough to drag the core down with it. That's a contradictory position. How do you intend to adjust your thinking to resolve that conflict?
NIST says:
". . . floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers."
So, according to NIST, the floors sagged and pulled the perimeter columns inward, which led to collapse. I know that that probably satisfies you, but that's not very detailed if you ask me. But anyway, you're now of the opinion that the floor connections were not strong enough to keep the floors from disconnecting from the core and perimeter columns and falling, but were also strong enough to drag the core down with it. That's a contradictory position. How do you intend to adjust your thinking to resolve that conflict?
Post #556 shows that you are lying. I wrote,
Originally Posted by camlok
Exactly, so what. Stuff falling on a building cannot induce free fall. There is only one thing known to mankind that can cause free fall in a steel framed high rise and that is controlled demolition. Case closed, james.
We were discussing WTC7. To which you replied,
jamesrage: Its called nearly 200 ton plane slamming into the building between 500 to 600 miles an hour and those stuff landing on surrounding buildings.
Now that is clearly USGOCT conspiracy loon crap. Are you suggesting that we take your uninformed posts about the plane strikes as evidence that is better, more informed, more knowledgeable than the original designers of the twin towers?
A little hint. Simply repeating something over and over and over doesn't help to make it true. That is not how evidence works.
Many planes have hit buildings that WERE NOT specifically designed for such an event and they are still standing.
Then post the videos of those sky scrappers that are still standing today after having a nearly 200 ton plane slam into at 500 to 500 miles an hour.
Still trolling I see.
Why are you ignoring the US proprietary nanothermite that was found in WTC dust?
Why are you ignoring the by products of that US proprietary nanothermite that was found in WTC dust?
Why are you ignoring the molten/vaporized WTC structural steel that came from WTCs 1, 2 & 7 that was caused by the US proprietary nanothermite when the three towers were blown up?