Re: What About WTC7?
Karl
> On 20 Okt, 21:22, Mike E. Fullerton <inforequ...@spamkiller-remove-
>
>
>
> techie.com> wrote:
> > It happens that parri...@yahoo.com formulated :
>
> > > On 20 Okt, 20:20, Mike E. Fullerton <inforequ...@spamkiller-remove-
> > > techie.com> wrote:
> > >> parris_k...@yahoo.com pretended :
>
> > >>> On 19 Okt, 20:23, Mike E. Fullerton <inforequ...@spamkiller-remove-
> > >>> techie.com> wrote:
> > >>>> parri...@yahoo.com was thinking very hard :
> > >>>>> On 19 Okt, 11:01, Mike E. Fullerton <inforequ...@spamkiller-remove-
> > >>>>> techie.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>> parri...@yahoo.com used his keyboard to write :
> > >>>>>>> On 17 Okt, 19:07, Mike E. Fullerton <inforequ...@spamkiller-remove-
> > >>>>>>> techie.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> parri...@yahoo.com presented the following explanation :
> > >>>>>>>>> On 16 Okt, 19:25, Mike E. Fullerton <inforequ...@spamkiller-remove-
> > >>>>>>>>> techie.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> agen...@justicespammail.com pretended :
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:15:08 -0700, Mike E. Fullerton
> > >>>>>>>>>>> <inforequ...@spamkiller-remove-techie.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> on 13/10/2008, agen...@justicespammail.com supposed :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:57:29 -0700, Mike E. Fullerton
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <inforequ...@spamkiller-remove-techie.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> agen...@justicespammail.com presented the following explanation
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:42:27 -0700, Mike E. Fullerton
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <inforequ...@spamkiller-remove-techie.com> wrote: [...]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please quote JUST ONE piece of scientific evidence that "
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points to the hypothesis that it was a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled demolition. "
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The near free-fall collapse speed.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And exactly how fast do you think it should have fallen? Show
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your work.
>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it should have fallen that's the whole point.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, mikey, it isn't. You just claimed that "the near free fall
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> collapse speed" is "scientific evidence " that demonstrates it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> was a controlled demolition. Now you have to prove why.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> There were 23 core columns in WTC7. In order for it to fall the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> way it did each column would have to fail within 1/10 of a second
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> of each other.
>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> No, mikey, that's not true.
>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Yes it is. If only some of the columns failed the collapse would not
> > >>>>>>>>>> have been symmetrical.
>
> > >>>>>>>>> Uh.. as I recall, you accept that teh Penthouse collapsed first. This
> > >>>>>>>>> being the case, how on earth can you claim the collapse was
> > >>>>>>>>> "symmetrical"?
>
> > >>>>>>>> The entire building did not free fall symmetrically.
> > >>>>>>> So why did yuo say it did?
>
> > >>>>>> Because I didn't.
>
> > >>>>> YOu claim the collasåpe was "symmetrical". What part of the collapse
> > >>>>> was "symmetrical"?
> > >>>>> Note that the answer "all of it except the bits that weren't" isn't a
> > >>>>> good logical standpoint.
>
> > >>>> So according to your astoundingly bizarre position no controlled
> > >>>> demolition is symmetrical. Similarly, nothing is round because nothing
> > >>>> in the real world is perfectly round. From a practical standpoint we
> > >>>> need to group things into general groups in order to get anything done.
> > >>> All this bluster doesn't explain why you think a building that
> > >>> collapsed, asymmetrically in 16 seconds collapse, symemtrically in
> > >>> 6.5.
>
> > >> That is not what I think, that is what your kooky warped mind believes
> > >> I think.
>
> > > You're trying to claim it was two seperate events. This is incorrect,
> > > they were part of the same collapse.
>
> > When someone hits you in the head with a bat and you fall this is not
> > one event. Except in Kookland.
>
> Whih is where you dwell, full time. In your analogy, the "hit on the
> head" is the impact of debris from WTC 1 + 2 and fire damage, the
> "fall" takes 16 seconds, butyou only want to time the last 6 of it.
> Because you are mad
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>>>>>>> WTC7 minus the penthouse fell in 6.5 secs symmetrically.
> > >>>>>>> If you think that, you need to go back and watch a video of it again..
> > >>>>>> Why?
>
> > >>>>> Because that clearly shows it falling in oevr 6.5 seconds.
> > >>>>> Asymmetrically.
>
> > >>>> Oh right it was actually 6.5402382378216 seconds and slightly more
> > >>>> symmetrical than your average CD. Excuse my lack of mind numbing
> > >>>> pedance.
>
> > >>> More liek 16 seconds and completely asymetrically.
> > >>> It's your lack of basic observation skills that is the problem
>
> > >> Now you are saying WTC7 minus the penthouse fell in 16 seconds? Or are
> > >> you the one with the comprehension problem?
>
> > > Look, you can't just time the last 6 seconds of the collapse, then
> > > claim it happened in free-fall.
>
> > Sure you can.
>
> Not if you want to retain any credibility you can't.
>
> > Buildings follow the laws of physics.
>
> Well done.
>
> > They only fall when they are no longer supported from the effects of gravity. If they are
> > partially supported they will fall in the direction of no support.
>
> Your evidence for that rather bold assertion being? Gravity acts DOWN,
> not sideways, you know.
>
Oh Oh. Gay parri just tipped his hand again. Ju Ju. You You soooo
stoooopid.
> > With WTC7 it fell straight down indicating no support anywhere.
>
> No, the collapse initated at the "back" and progressed as the
> supporting structure fell.
>
>
>
> > > That's just insane. What evidence do you have have the collapse was
> > > not the one continuous event it appeared to be?
>
> > Newtonian physics.
>
> What evidence does Newtonian physics give that the collapse of the
> penthouse was a seperate event from the collapse of the rest?
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>>>>>>> This is near free fall speed.
> > >>>>>>>> This part of the building would only fall that fast symmetrically if
> > >>>>>>>> all the remaining core columns failed at almost precisely the same
> > >>>>>>>> time. If you don't believe WTC7 was a controlled demolition you need
> > >>>>>>>> to address this glaring problem
>
> > >>>>>>> Yet no one with any specialist knowledge about this stuff agrees with
> > >>>>>>> you. You need to address THAT glaring problem..
> > >>>>>> Except architects, scientists and engineers like
> > >>>>>> these:http://www.ae911truth.net/signpetition.phphttp://www.911truth.org/art...
> > >>>>> Ah.. you mean fringe crackpots. Funny how all they are VASTLY
> > >>>>> outnumbered by all the architects, engineers and scientists (from
> > >>>>> relevant science fields, which differentiates thenm form some of the
> > >>>>> scientists you cite) who diagsree with their "thermite"
> > >>>>> nonsense...Why is that, dlo you think?
> > >>>> Prove your claims or retract them.
>
> > >>> Compare the number (and qulaity) of people within "911 truth" and
> > >>> without
>
> > >> How can I when no one produces any of these multitudes of quality
> > >> people against the official fairy tale.
>
> > > .or rather, when they don't exist.
>
> > Let me rephrase my statement correctly:
> > How can I when no one produces any of these multitudes of quality
> > people supporting the official fairy tale.
>
> A better rephrasing woudl be "how come the people who support the "911
> TROOF!" nonsense unqualified and don't have a clue what they're
> talking about"
>
>
>
> > --
> > Skeptopathy (pathological skepticism)
> > the unscientific belief that unusual phenomena are bunk.- Dölj citerad text -
>
> > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text -
>
> > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text -
>
> > - Visa citerad text -
parr...@yahoo.com
Do you claim gravity doesn't act downwards, Karlie Iditot? :-)
Keep running!
Karl
> > stoooopid.
>
The world's dumbest moron wrote:
> Do you claim gravity doesn't act downwards, Karlie Iditot? :-)
>
> Keep running!
>
Keep running fucktard#1 who thinks things can't fall sideways.
animal02
<sigh> karlie the kooktard, things fall DOWN, not sideways., ALWAYS
Disneygeek
Things can certainly fall sideways, but only if they lose support on
one lower side (AND) they are narrow enough that their center of
gravity is compromised. WTC7 had its supports being compromomised for
some time (firefighters reported that the building was "tilting and
bulging" for three hours before the final collapse, thus indicating
that vertical support was being destroyed). The building could not
"tip over" because it was too wide in relation to its height.
parr...@yahoo.com
Jesus Karlie, have you changed your name again?!
YOur lies are really rather easy to expose.. tell me, what is your
flight experience again?
Disneygeek
> On Oct 22, 8:23 am, Karl <whalingstat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Oh Oh. Gay parri just tipped his hand again. Ju Ju. You You soooo
> > > > stoooopid.
>
> > The world's dumbest moron wrote:> Do you claim gravity doesn't act downwards, Karlie Iditot? :-)
>
> > > Keep running!
>
> > Keep running fucktard#1 who thinks things can't fall sideways.
>
> Things can certainly fall sideways, but only if they lose support on
> one lower side (AND) they are narrow enough that their center of
> gravity is compromised
By "fall sideways" I mean "topple over" not "slide 90 degrees in
relation to the ground."
Nor do I believe WTC7 should have acted like a tree!