9/11

By the looks of your last couple posts I see you are only interested in discussing the fantasy that you present here. I will be bidding you goodbye after I post this and I wish you well in your endeavor.

 

By the looks of your last post, I can see that you want honest discussion. Well I'm here for you.

The point I've made is that when a moving body collides with a body of the same composition, two things happen. The moving body is slowed down, and the stationary body is moved. The question to you is? Do you agree or disagree with that point. A yes or no will do. Then we'll move on to the next point which builds on this point.

So, do you agree with the point I've made? Here is where we find out whose holding onto a fantasy.

 

*crickets*

 

LOL, crickets because I was gone. Ever see a car crash. Of course I agree with that. It’s physics.

 

So, that being the case, would you say that it's unscientific to believe that the upper block of the North Tower fell through the core structure below at just 40 feet shy of freefall during the first 360 feet of drop?

 

Alright you want an answer here's an answer. What if I told you that everything you believe about this topic is true? What if I also told you that everything the USGOCT, as cammy is so very fond of labeling them, believes is also true? Would you accept that both versions of events can & do exist as truth in reality? Well regardless of wether you'd accept such a statement it is true. The planes were hijacked & rammed into the towers by Moslem terrorists but they were also rigged to go down before hand.......

 

No, that's not an answer.

What if I told you that the question was:

Would you say that it's unscientific to believe that the upper block of the North Tower fell through the core structure below at just 40 feet shy of freefall during the first 360 feet of drop?

 

It would be short of free fall, it had to crush tons of structural steel.

 

Is that so?

 

So, are you saying that it's reasonable to assume that if a bowling ball was dropped from the roof of the North Tower at the same time that the collapse began, after 360 feet of drop, the roof would be only 40 feet behind the bowling ball?

And are you also saying that it's reasonable to assume that the more heat damaged upper block would maintain it's integrity to the extent that it would destroy the intact core structure below?

 

That is being done.

You can go bowling.

 

How can you tell if it's a natural gravity collapse?

See 5:03 on for a perfect explanation of what happened to WTC1

9/11 Experiments: Collapse vs. Demolition ~ Part 2 of 2

 

If it were a fantasy, it would be no problem for all the USGOCT conspiracy theorists to prove it and me wrong. Why can't any of you USGOCT conspiracy theorists provide any evidence for your US government official conspiracy theory?

 

One can be proven wrong rather easily. Wether they accept that they are is a different question altogether

 

Well get proving, then.

You can start with this:

Is it reasonable to assume that if a bowling ball was dropped from the roof of the North Tower at the same time that the collapse began, the roof would be only 40 feet behind the bowling ball?

And is it reasonable to assume that the more heat damaged upper block would maintain it's integrity to the extent that it would destroy the intact core structure below?

The answer is no on both counts. However, whether you accept it is a different question altogether.

 

Why don’t you two just have a seat and chat away. I really don’t have time for this foolishness.

 

Oh, I'm sorry. When you answered my post, I assumed you were actually going to discuss something.

Namely, this:

Is it reasonable to assume that if a bowling ball was dropped from the roof of the North Tower at the same time that the collapse began, the roof would be only 40 feet behind the bowling ball?

And is it reasonable to assume that the more heat damaged upper block would maintain it's integrity to the extent that it would destroy the intact core structure below?
__________________________________________________

But I understand your reluctance.

 

But you are too scared to try. There hasn't been one shred of evidence ever offered for the USGOCT by the USG conspiracy theorists.

And you all ignore, like good little sheeple, the myriad impossibilities of the USGOCT.

 

Oh so lame, RH, you know full well that you can't provide any evidence, you know full well, by your own admission, that WTC1's descent was only capable because of a controlled demolition.

Read Gordon Ross' [Scottish structural engineer] description of the fall of WTC1. All the massive, stone cold structural steel that was below the impact site, all that massive steel which had held the structure up since 1973 all of a sudden, in the blink of an eye, turned into the equivalent of custard pudding.

Another total impossibility of the impossible USGOCT. How can so many be so incredibly gullible?


Where's your evidence

Gordon Ross

...

If the upper storeys [WTC1] were suddenly allowed to fall through a vacuum of the same depth of the tower height, they would reach bottom in about 9.5 seconds. If allowed to fall through a vat of custard of the same height they would take about 20 seconds to cover the same distance. The largest estimate of collapse duration that I have found is about 16 seconds.

Although this estimate does not bear examination, we can use it to say that the resistance offered by the steel structure below the collapse front lies somewhere between absolutely nothing and custard. What is the official explanation for the sudden and complete transformation of hundreds of thousands of tonnes of steel to a state which does not even rival confectionery?

Ibid

 

He he he he. That was brilliant.

I once said that the core structure offered all the resistance of industrial strength couch cushions, but Ross has me beat. That was pretty funny!