Building 7 . . .

[camlok]

We know you lie all the time like every other truther

You are a stunning hypocrite, Quag, a capital H hypocrite.

Still waiting for you to explain your ground effect comments.......

Thoreau and everyone else save for you science deniers are still waiting for any evidence to support the USOCT.

Again, you asking for evidence/explanations, you all are such incredible hypocrites. You attempt to besmirch Lionel Nation by your falsely drawn, stunningly hypocritical attack on Thoreau.

Both Mr Nation and Thoreau have more integrity in their excreta than you science deniers possess in your entire beings.

 

[Quag]

Its amazing that a guy who is shown his claims about pyroclastic flows and buildings collapsing at freefall are false yet continues to spew such nonsense while insulting everyone who points out his errors can call others hypocritical

 

[mike2810]

Its amazing that a guy who is shown his claims about pyroclastic flows and buildings collapsing at freefall are false yet continues to spew such nonsense while insulting everyone who points out his errors can call others hypocritical

Ever notice that lately it is just a rehash of topics already discussed. I have said it before, nothing new out of the controlled demolition supporters.

 

[camlok]

Its amazing that a guy who is shown his claims about pyroclastic flows and buildings collapsing at freefall are false yet continues to spew such nonsense while insulting everyone who points out his errors can call others hypocritical

As always, Quag, no evidence from you. I never said that there were buildings that collapsed at free fall. This illustrates how you like to fling poo, never with any proof/evidence.

There were pyroclastic flows from WTCs 1, 2 and 7. They flowed out thru the streets and even across the water.

Pyroclastic Flows

Many observers have likened the Towers' destruction to volcanoes, noting that the Towers seemed to be transformed into columns of thick dust in the air.An article about seismic observations of events in New York City on 9/11/01, relates the observations of scientists Won-Young Kim, Lynn R. Sykes, J.H. Armitage:

The authors also noted that, as seen in television images, the fall of the towers was similar to a pyroclastic flow down a volcano, where hot dust and chunks of material descend at high temperatures. The collapse of the WTC generated such a flow, though without the high temperatures. 4

9-11 Research: Concrete Pulverization

 

[camlok]

Ever notice that lately it is just a rehash of topics already discussed. I have said it before, nothing new out of the controlled demolition supporters.

You have said a lot of things before, mike, but that doesn't mean they had any truth to them. In order for you guys to accept reality these things have to be placed squarely in front of you. You folks can only deny reality for so long before others start to notice you always use the same dogs, the same ponies in your never changing dog and pony show.

The one that finds y'all without any evidence, without a leg to stand on.

 

[Thoreau72]

Another bald faced lie from you, mike. They are a non-profit. Compare that to Michael Shermer and your other ALWAYS UNNAMED "sources".

Why do you dishonest people always pointedly attack Richard Gage? He is an architect, he hasn't been guilty of fraud, he hasn't lied about his credentials, like your Michael Shermer, all your other unnamed "sources".

Gage is attacked because when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser, as Plato noted so long ago. Yes, it's still true today--when attempting to defend and indefensible story, slander is about the only tool you have.

 

[mike2810]

You have said a lot of things before, mike, but that doesn't mean they had any truth to them. In order for you guys to accept reality these things have to be placed squarely in front of you. You folks can only deny reality for so long before others start to notice you always use the same dogs, the same ponies in your never changing dog and pony show.

The one that finds y'all without any evidence, without a leg to stand on.

What is false about what I posted?

 

[gamolon]

Gage is attacked because when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser, as Plato noted so long ago. Yes, it's still true today--when attempting to defend and indefensible story, slander is about the only tool you have.

No, Gage is attacked because he has no clue what he is talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

Who uses empty cardboard boxes as an example of structural collapse?

:lamo

 

[mike2810]

Gage is attacked because when the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser, as Plato noted so long ago. Yes, it's still true today--when attempting to defend and indefensible story, slander is about the only tool you have.

Funny T72. I have stated that in some many words in other threads about those who attack the scientists who support the fire induced collapse of WTC7.

When Gage/TonySz disagreed with Prager (and you) regarding nukes, you gave some answer that Gage just didn't have all the information. I provided a link to AE911T where Gage/Jones wrote how it could not have been nukes. You still don't accept the fact that AE911T does not support the idea of the use of nukes.

When it comes to the use of nukes, I am in agreement with AE911T. Nukes were not used.

 

[Quag]

Ever notice that lately it is just a rehash of topics already discussed. I have said it before, nothing new out of the controlled demolition supporters.

I love how he quotes his source for the claims of pyroclastic flow that actually says it wasnt pyroclastic flow and thinks somehow he has proven himself right.
You just cant reason someone out of a position they didnt reason themselves into.

 

[stundie]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

You know exactly where you lied.

I keep asking you to be specific about where I have lied because as far as I'm aware, I haven't.

However, if you would like to prove me wrong, be my guest.

 

[stundie]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

Because he has nothing to defend his BS with.

I don't need to defend anything because you've not made a valid point.

You've spent more posts moaning about me lying and even though I have asked you to be specific, you are about as vague as a magic 8 ball. :lamo

 

[Quag]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

I keep asking you to be specific about where I have lied because as far as I'm aware, I haven't.

However, if you would like to prove me wrong, be my guest.

I told you but you dont want to bother looking.

 

[Quag]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

I don't need to defend anything because you've not made a valid point.

You've spent more posts moaning about me lying and even though I have asked you to be specific, you are about as vague as a magic 8 ball. :lamo

No you failed to make a valid point I asked you for evidence that it wasn't fire induced collapse an you failed to provide any.
Since you have no evidence to suggest it wasn't anything other than fire to claim it wasn't the fire is illogical
But then when did truthers do logic or honesty?

 

[camlok]

No, Gage is attacked because he has no clue what he is talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

Who uses empty cardboard boxes as an example of structural collapse?

:lamo

Your emoticon convinced me, gamolon. I thought you were the guy who started the thread, "Discussion of reasons why folks believe what they do and supported by factual evidence..." wherein you expressed a wish/desire "to genuinely discuss/debate both of our beliefs".

Is that something that you only want/intend to do in your specific thread? If so, wouldn't that be a tad hypocritical?

The operative word, which you yourself used, is "example". In that way, it was a perfect illustration, like a picture or a diagram can be a perfect illustration/example of something that in reality is much much larger.

The 15 floor example held in Gage's right hand fell at free fall speed, while the other side didn't fall at all, ie. it didn't collapse the lower 80 floors, pulverizing the cardboard "tower" into micron sized dust.

Newton's Laws of Motion work the same for all falling bodies irrespective of scale.

Jonathon Cole shows this in his excellent video, which proves that the destruction of the twin towers was that of two controlled demolitions.

9/11 Experiments The Force Behind the Motion by Jonathan Cole



Mr Cole also proved the USOCT patently false with his video,

9/11 Experiments: The Arbitrator of Competing Hypotheses



wherein he illustrates, with experiments, the arbitrator of science, that it is impossible for a smaller body of material to crush a bigger, much stronger body of material into micron sized dust, at accelerating speed.

Newton's Laws of Motion apply to all bodies, irrespective of scale. So when he drops one cinder block onto a stack of cinder blocks, from a height that was equal in scale to WTC1. The falling cinder block doesn't crush all the blocks, it only crushes one, and itself, following Newton's Laws of Motion.

"The velocity of any object, hitting any stationary object, or system of particles, ALWAYS slow down." Jon Cole

What this means is that the smaller, lighter, less robust upper floor sections of the twin towers falling to strike the massively more strong lower section should have slowed down. They did not!!! They accelerated throughout the collapse, something which is impossible according to Newton's Laws of Motion, the same hard science that has been the fundamental basis for our science for the last 330 years.

 

[gamolon]

The operative word, which you yourself used, is "example". In that way, it was a perfect illustration, like a picture or a diagram can be a perfect illustration/example of something that in reality is much much larger.

The 15 floor example held in Gage's right hand fell at free fall speed, while the other side didn't fall at all, ie. it didn't collapse the lower 80 floors, pulverizing the cardboard "tower" into micron sized dust.

Newton's Laws of Motion work the same for all falling bodies irrespective of scale.

I'll bite camlok.

How does Newton's Laws of Motion explain the video below? How did the smaller top section completely destroy the larger lower section? Why two different results? Gage's "falling body" (the smaller cardboard section), stopped on top of the lower section yet in the video below, we get different results. The lower section was just supporting the upper section just fine a few seconds ago. Why then? Please use Newton's Laws of Motion to explain the two different results. Let's see how willing you are to discuss by providing reasoned evidence and without name calling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCjEi4z2KZA

Otherwise, you deserve nothing more than laughing icons.

 

[gamolon]

Newton's Laws of Motion work the same for all falling bodies irrespective of scale.

Another example.

Explain, using Newton's Laws of Motion, why the upper section of this structure in the video below completely destroys itself AND the larger structure below yet in Gage's video, the upper section is stopped completely. You cited Newton's Laws, please explain.


Here is the video;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flo62pdaIMI

 

[stundie]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

I told you but you dont want to bother looking.

I also ask you to be specific again, yet more vagueness.

Is this the total sum of all of your posts?? :shock:

 

[mike2810]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

Stundie:
When can we expect the one concise controlled demolition explanation with the evidence?

There is the
controlled demolition by conventional explosives
CD by conventional explosives with nanothermite used as the fuse.
CD by nanothermite
CD by mini neutron bombs
CD by mini neutron bombs + nanothermite + conventional explosives
CD by energy beams.

I really would like to see a very specific report on how the controlled demolition was done. Hopefully such a report would answer questions I have.

 

[stundie]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

No you failed to make a valid point I asked you for evidence that it wasn't fire induced collapse an you failed to provide any.

I made a valid point.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE EFFECTED HEAT WEAKENED STEEL.

I can't provide evidence because it doesn't exist.

Since you have no evidence to suggest it wasn't anything other than fire to claim it wasn't the fire is illogical

And since it would appear you have no evidence it was fire, then suggesting it is also illogical.

But then when did truthers do logic or honesty?

I don't think its truthers who are being dishonest.

And if...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE EFFECTED HEAT WEAKENED STEEL....then there is no logic in claiming it was the cause.

 

[stundie]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

Stundie:
When can we expect the one concise controlled demolition explanation with the evidence?

Probably the same day we get one concise fire induced collapse theory with the evidence.

There is the
controlled demolition by conventional explosives
CD by conventional explosives with nanothermite used as the fuse.
CD by nanothermite
CD by mini neutron bombs
CD by mini neutron bombs + nanothermite + conventional explosives
CD by energy beams.

I really would like to see a very specific report on how the controlled demolition was done. Hopefully such a report would answer questions I have.

Its not that different for the OCT. We have a....

Truss failure theory.
Pancake Collapse theory.
Progressive Collapse theory.
Tube in a Tube collapse theory.
Crush down, crush up theory.

I really would like to see a specific report on how the collapses actually progressed but no such luck apparently.

 

[Quag]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

I made a valid point.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE EFFECTED HEAT WEAKENED STEEL.

I can't provide evidence because it doesn't exist.

And since it would appear you have no evidence it was fire, then suggesting it is also illogical.
I don't think its truthers who are being dishonest.

And if...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE EFFECTED HEAT WEAKENED STEEL....then there is no logic in claiming it was the cause.

There is no evidence of anything other than fire induced collapse.

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[34] Over the course of the day, fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[35][36]:4 During the afternoon, the fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[31]:24 (PDF p. 28) In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[7]

At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[37] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[38] Around 3:30 pm, FDNY Chief Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.

So we know there was fires that lasted 7 hours and that the firefighters saw signs of instability before the collapse.
Unless you have evidence that it was something other than fire then the only logical conclusion is that it was the fires. Because ALL the evidence points to the fires.

NOT FINDING SOMETHING IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT IT WASNT FIRE INDUCED COLLAPSE

So either you dont do logic (very strong probability you are a truther after all) or you based your conclusions on something OTHER than the evidence

 

[camlok]

I'll bite camlok.

We can get to Newton shortly but first, gamolon, you need to address the stuff you purposefully left out, which obviously
embarrassed you, which you were solely the cause of.

I thought you were the guy who started the thread, "Discussion of reasons why folks believe what they do and supported by factual evidence..." wherein you expressed a wish/desire "to genuinely discuss/debate both of our beliefs".

Is that something that you only want/intend to do in your specific thread? If so, wouldn't that be a tad hypocritical?

 

[camlok]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

Stundie:
When can we expect the one concise controlled demolition explanation with the evidence?

There is the
controlled demolition by conventional explosives
CD by conventional explosives with nanothermite used as the fuse.
CD by nanothermite
CD by mini neutron bombs
CD by mini neutron bombs + nanothermite + conventional explosives
CD by energy beams.

I really would like to see a very specific report on how the controlled demolition was done. Hopefully such a report would answer questions I have.

mike, please stop with this oh so lame dog and pony show. You know, as it has been repeatedly explained to you, that science is all about disagreement. Why don't you tackle the sycophantic agreement of the totally rigged 911 Ommission Commission and the NIST "studies"?

 

[mike2810]

Re: High School Teacher BUTCHERS NIST WTC 7 Report

Probably the same day we get one concise fire induced collapse theory with the evidence.
Its not that different for the OCT. We have a....

Truss failure theory.
Pancake Collapse theory.
Progressive Collapse theory.
Tube in a Tube collapse theory.
Crush down, crush up theory.

I really would like to see a specific report on how the collapses actually progressed but no such luck apparently.

The difference I have seen is the fire induced collapse explanations use words like "most probable".,
Where the controlled demolition explanations seem to state it was CD.

Nice dodge though. Thanks for not answering the question.