# The Physics Of WTC 7



## E.L.C. (Nov 2, 2013)

So I'll take a chance and put this here. It's not about conspiracy, how it could have been done, why it might have been done or who might have done it.... *Please*, just the *physics*. Critique this analysis, add to it, or just pick the one that you think is correct and why.... sort of an informal pole/discussion? 

*THE UNRESOLVED MYSTERY OF WTC 7 *






Images courtesy of KokomoJojo

Shyam Sunder, of the NIST, states free fall only happens when an object (or building) ...has no structural components below it. He says despite the existence of structural components (mass) below it, WTC 7 went into free fall as if through air for eight stories, or 105 feet.  

David Chandler, a retired physics teacher, states free fall only happens (to a building) when an "....external force removes the supporting structure." He says energy would have to to be added from some external source to remove structural components (mass) below it for free fall to occur as if through air for eight stories, or 105 feet.





Chart courtesy of KokomoJojo    

They agree that WTC 7 fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds, or 105 feet but....

*There can be only one, they cannot both be true.... Or can they?*

Is it *Chandler* on the left, or *Sunder* on the right?








My *schematic* animated representations of both theories.​


----------



## ZenBubba (Nov 2, 2013)

Chandler's revised video makes sense to me.

I'm assuming you have seen it. I can't post it because I don't have enough posts.

It's title is: Physics - WTC7 Freefall by David Chandler - AE911Truth.org


----------



## mamooth (Nov 2, 2013)

If all the support girders have already broken, then you do get close to free-fall speeds, at least until the fall reaches a still-reinforced section. That's exactly what happened with WTC7 during those 2.25 seconds. 

Hence, Sunder is correct. There were no supporting elements below, because the support girders had broken.

Chandler, however, is out to lunch. "External force" is evasive babble, because girders are always under "external force". It doesn't require a controlled demolition to break a girder, there is zero evidence of any controlled demolition, and none of the controlled demolition theories make any sense at all.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 2, 2013)

mamooth said:


> If all the support girders have already broken, then you do get close to free-fall speeds, at least until the fall reaches a still-reinforced section. That's exactly what happened with WTC7 during those 2.25 seconds.
> 
> Hence, Sunder is correct. There were no supporting elements below, because the support girders had broken.
> 
> Chandler, however, is out to lunch. "External force" is evasive babble, because girders are always under "external force". It doesn't require a controlled demolition to break a girder, there is zero evidence of any controlled demolition, and none of the controlled demolition theories make any sense at all.



Mammoth has been caught lying just like Sundar.Just like sunder,he lies in the fact there is OVERWHELMING evidence that there was a controlled demolition.

The Bush/Obama dupes here cant get around the facts that 9/11 is just like the jfk assassination in the fact that many witnesses that came forward giving versions of events different from the governments wound up dying in very mysterious deaths.

Barry Jennings testimony shreads to pieces the lies of the NIST report in the fact that he heard explosions going in the basement BEFORE the twin towers even fell.

Mammoth and others always blatantly ignore the fact as well that there were many other buildings in the area much close to the towers than bld 7 with far more extensive damage done to them and far more severe fires yet they did not collapse.

Barry Jennings was a convient death for NIST because his testimony would have shread to pieces the lies of NIST.His death was obviously a murder in the fact his death came just days before NIST gave its report to the public. there was this one lady who went on jones show as well talking about hearing explosions in the towers and telling jones not to believe the official story if she would up dying because she would never take her own life.after she went on jones show,she was found hanging from the ceiling and it iwas ruled a suicide.guess people like mammoth here think she changed her mind about killing herself.

then there is the lady of the truth movement in new york for the familys who went to Obama and asked him to reopen the investigation who wound up dying in a plane crash later on.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 2, 2013)

*Far out man!* Thanks ZenBubba and mamooth. I want to go ahead but this thread has to be clean or I'm getting out of here. I reported the post by *9/11 inside job* as having nothing to do with the topic. If this is really a science forum, that post will be removed. I'll post then.... Am I being unreasonable?


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 2, 2013)

Im assuming the real vid on the right is actual wtc7 collapse.  Clearly elements of the roof are in near free fall thru the interior of the building well before the any part of steel exterior framing begins to move.

at that point, its amatter of time before enough heat strssed key support is taken out by the roof sections.  That and unknown seismic and shock damage from the earlier building collapses.

Yes it does look like free fall.  But im pretty sure that the objection of a demolition job is NOT to approach free fall rates for the top section of the structure..


----------



## eots (Nov 2, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> im assuming the real vid on the right is actual wtc7 collapse.  *clearly elements of the roof are in near free fall* thru the interior of the building well before the any part of steel exterior framing begins to move.
> 
> At that point, *its amatter of time before enough heat strssed key support is taken out by the roof sections*.  That and unknown seismic and shock damage from the earlier building collapses.
> 
> Yes it does look like free fall.  But im pretty sure that the objection of a demolition job is not to approach free fall rates for the top section of the structure..



*lol*


----------



## eots (Nov 2, 2013)

mamooth said:


> *if all the support girders have already broken*, then you do get close to free-fall speeds, at least until the fall reaches a still-reinforced section. That's exactly what happened with wtc7 during those 2.25 seconds.
> 
> Hence, sunder is correct. There were no supporting elements below, because the support girders had broken.
> 
> Chandler, however, is out to lunch. "external force" is evasive babble, because girders are always under "external force". It doesn't require a controlled demolition to break a girder, there is zero evidence of any controlled demolition, and none of the controlled demolition theories make any sense at all.



so how do you suggest all girders came to be all broken ? Small office fires ?


----------



## mamooth (Nov 2, 2013)

7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
---
The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled &#8211; pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit.
---

There are 3 stages to the collapse.
-- 1.75 seconds of beam-buckling, where the rooftop only dropped around 10 feet
-- 2.25 seconds of near free-fall
-- 1.40 seconds of slower fall, as the debris hit still-supported sections.

The cascading failure due to the loss of one column is widely regarded as a design flaw.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 2, 2013)

What physics, where?  Doesn't this belong in a conspiracy theory forum somewhere, and not the science forum?


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 2, 2013)

F= M x a

All you need to know. Thanks Dr Newton


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 2, 2013)

eots said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > im assuming the real vid on the right is actual wtc7 collapse.  *clearly elements of the roof are in near free fall* thru the interior of the building well before the any part of steel exterior framing begins to move.
> ...



The roof structures are clearly falling rapidly before the frame starts to collapse.  I wrote that b4 even reading a summary like mamooth provided. I suppose that COULD be funny, but its just a matter of scientific evidence in this forum.  Youre talking to a guy who only CARES about the "physics" and the evidence. NOT the political implications.


Ive got my own conspiracies to hawk.


----------



## LAfrique (Nov 2, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> So I'll take a chance and put this here. It's not about conspiracy, how it could have been done, why it might have been done or who might have done it.... *Please*, just the *physics*. Critique this analysis, add to it, or just pick the one that you think is correct and why.... sort of an informal pole/discussion?
> 
> *THE UNRESOLVED MYSTERY OF WTC 7 *
> 
> ...




*The destruction of the World Trade Towers were planned-loophole demolitions. Everything from the astronomical insurance on asbestos-infested World Trade Towers to evacuation of buildings on eve of 911/2001 and Arabs easily gaining access to cockpits of US planes are evidence that those buildings were intentionally, unlawfully and cold-bloodedly demolished.*


Who Profited? 9-11 Research: Controlling Interests 


Asbestos-Infested World Trade Towers - On the ruins of the World Trade Center 


Unlawful Demolition Instead Of Abatement - 9-11 Research: Asbestos in the WTC


----------



## eots (Nov 2, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


 'its amatter of time before enough heat strssed key support is taken out by the roof sections'

...IS NOT SCIENCE


----------



## Coyote (Nov 2, 2013)

*Moved to proper forum.*


----------



## whitehall (Nov 2, 2013)

Free fall from that height would take 9.22 seconds. It took the Tower about 21 seconds to hit the ground. Therefore in the strict science of physics the Tower could not have been in free fall.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 2, 2013)

ZenBubba said:


> Chandler's revised video makes sense to me.
> 
> I'm assuming you have seen it. I can't post it because I don't have enough posts.
> 
> It's title is: Physics - WTC7 Freefall by David Chandler - AE911Truth.org



here:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpAp8eCEqNA]Physics - WTC7 Freefall by David Chandler - AE911Truth.org - YouTube[/ame]

posted it for you


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 2, 2013)

Of course, it's just my opinion but....

*Fraud Site!*​


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 2, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> So I'll take a chance and put this here. It's not about conspiracy, how it could have been done, why it might have been done or who might have done it.... *Please*, just the *physics*. Critique this analysis, add to it, or just pick the one that you think is correct and why.... sort of an informal pole/discussion?
> 
> *THE UNRESOLVED MYSTERY OF WTC 7 *
> 
> ...




Not sure what you expect in terms of a response.  your limitations in the OP almost restrict this to math based on facts that unfortunately we are not privy to and requires that we make certain presumptions.  What are we supposed to presume for a starting point or is freefall the central issue and point to expand from?  Additional clarification?

Nist only timed it for 18 floors.  I timed the whole thing conservatively at 7 seconds and change.  It freefell for well over 75% of its height.  I did not use software like chandler however. (too much work, stop watch works fine for my purposes  LOL)

otherwise an obvious target would be to investigate how, 2/3rds of the way to the right of the face you will see the light showing through.  Same place you can see all the windows breaking on the real structure.  

It begs the question how that narrow part of the building gave way to the extent that we see the light passing through it.  Nist has not offered any explanation for it but the only way we can see light is if what was there blocking it is not longer there.  So how did the failure of column 79 or whatever one they claim transfer to precisely 2/3rds of the way across the building and wipe that section out?

How strange thought I would get the original model and now I have differing nist models?  

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY#t=26[/ame]

how odd in the video above he has 2 different nist models??????






*so here are some physics and observations from chandler;*

The clearest discrepancy is the deformation of the external structure  in the model, which does not occur in the observed collapse.  Mr.  Chandler identifies a second glaring discrepancy, saying:_*&#8220;One fact we do know about NIST&#8217;s model [software] is it does  not allow for free fall.*  The best they could do is 5.4 seconds for the  building to crumple down through 18 floors.  Crumpling absorbs energy,  and that makes free fall impossible.  There&#8217;s nothing in the models we  have been shown that even resemble a three-stage collapse with a free  fall component.  After all, as Shyam Sunder put it himself, &#8216;free fall  happens only when there are no structural components below the falling  section of the building.&#8217;  Any natural scenario is going to involve a  progression of failures and these don&#8217;t happen instantaneously.&#8221;_​Although *NIST&#8217;s model is false, based on its failure to reproduce the observed collapse*, it cannot be _falsified_ because NIST did not release its modeling data.  *Mr. Chandler explains:*_*&#8220;NIST claims their computer model can account for the  observed phenomena,* so let&#8217;s look at NIST&#8217;s model &#8211; except we can&#8217;t.   The software they used to do the modeling is available, but their model  actually consists of all the numbers and measurements and assumptions  together with any tweaks to the system they might have used to get it to  come out the way they wanted.  If that information were released, their  results could be checked by anyone with the appropriate skills and  software tools.  But NIST has not released the numbers.  All we have  been shown are some of the selected animated outputs they were able to  get their model to produce&#8230; The very fact that NIST has not released  their model strongly suggests they don&#8217;t want their results checked.  In  other words, their results are intended to be taken strictly on faith.&#8221;_​*References*

_  [ii] NIST NCSTAR 1-9A, &#8220;Global  Structural Analysis of the Response of World Trade Center Building 7 to  Fires and Debris Impact Damage,&#8221; Washington, DC. November 2008. p.111. http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm_


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 2, 2013)

Nothing you did KokomoJojo.... I just wanted a clean thread. I asked the Moderator in "Science" to help me with that, but instead of helping me, he/she/it just went ahead and dumped a straightforward science question into the "Consptracy Theory" section. 

Plus.... There's something positively creepy about the way posters like daws101 (among others) carry on. I wouldn't say they're government sock puppets.... but it definitely wouldn't surprise me if it turned out they were either. I'm done.... there are other things to see.

Take care man.... 

*See you down the old trail !*


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 2, 2013)

whitehall said:


> Free fall from that height would take 9.22 seconds. It took the Tower about 21 seconds to hit the ground. Therefore in the strict science of physics the Tower could not have been in free fall.




I disagree.

here is a known demolition, the supports are blasted away and the building goes into freefall.







"sectionally", we know its a demolition it still officially went into freefall (sectionally) did it not?

so can we legitimately argue that the building did not go into freefall because the whole start to finish process of the building hitting the floor took 30 seconds rather than 4 or 5?

I say no

So in a strictly science sense each section would need to be analyzed separately and at best maybe one section or another did not freefall, however it appears wtc 7 freefell sectionally very similar to the building shown above that is in fact a known demolition.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 2, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Nothing you did KokomoJojo.... I just wanted a clean thread. I asked the Moderator in "Science" to help me with that, but instead of helping me, he/she/it just went ahead and dumped a straightforward science question into the "Consptracy Theory" section.
> 
> Plus.... There's something positively creepy about the way posters like daws101 (among others) carry on. I wouldn't say they're government sock puppets.... but it definitely wouldn't surprise me if it turned out they were either. I'm done.... there are other things to see.
> 
> Take care man.... See you down the old trail!




its beyond theory now days, I am surprised that indictments havent been rolling out.  Government socks?  I hope so.  Absofuckinglutely love em.  I get more sadistic pleasure demonstrating what pshycopathic loonartick fucktards they are than you could ever imagine.  They have no choice but to try and hold the official line and will go to ANY extreme and put up ANY level of bullshit to try and save their sinking titanic asses.

Unfortunately they always put me on iggy after a few times so its not as much fun as it used to be.

Seriously, I am very surprised indictments arent rolling out yet.

I think the problem the boards have is that its difficult to argue the physics of 911 without at some point it turning into a conspiracy fight because like chandler complains about nist is withholding information from us so we cannot check anything they did.  Charges should be filed.


----------



## Dante (Nov 3, 2013)

mamooth said:


> If all the support girders have already broken, then you do get close to free-fall speeds, at least until the fall reaches a still-reinforced section. That's exactly what happened with WTC7 during those 2.25 seconds.
> 
> Hence, Sunder is correct. There were no supporting elements below, because the support girders had broken.
> 
> Chandler, however, is out to lunch. "External force" is evasive babble, because girders are always under "external force". It doesn't require a controlled demolition to break a girder, there is zero evidence of any controlled demolition, and none of the controlled demolition theories make any sense at all.



Interesting: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics



> We took conspiracy theorists at their word when they said they wanted to understand these anomalous facts. We dug as deeply as we could for answers. In every case that PM has investigated to date, the very evidence 9/11 conspiracy theorists use to support their arguments have turned out to be mistaken, misinterpreted or taken wildly out of context.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

Dante said:


> Interesting: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics
> 
> 
> 
> > We took conspiracy theorists at their word when they said they wanted to understand these anomalous facts. We dug as deeply as we could for answers. In every case that PM has investigated to date, the very evidence 9/11 conspiracy theorists use to support their arguments have turned out to be mistaken, misinterpreted or taken wildly out of context.




Except of course that they have become the most ridiculed patently bullshit source on the planet.

They used to be in virtually every waiting room and now you are lucky to find them on a magazine stand.

Maybe its a conspiracy?

Either way the quickest way to flag yourself as a 911 NOOB is to post the most highly discredited piece known to date.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 3, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Nothing you did KokomoJojo.... I just wanted a clean thread. I asked the Moderator in "Science" to help me with that, but instead of helping me, he/she/it just went ahead and dumped a straightforward science question into the "Consptracy Theory" section.
> 
> Plus.... There's something positively creepy about the way posters like daws101 (among others) carry on. I wouldn't say they're government sock puppets.... but it definitely wouldn't surprise me if it turned out they were either. I'm done.... there are other things to see.
> 
> ...


another one bites the dust!


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 3, 2013)

[MENTION=45807]E.L.C.[/MENTION] Imagine a section of a bridge that is supported at both ends. What happens if the support at one end breaks? That end will fall at "free fall" speed, right?

WTC was built as a "bridge" structure over a power substation. It used what was called a cantilever construction. The heat from the prolonged and uncontrolled fires caused sufficient expansion to push one of the cantilever's off it's support. 

Gravity did the rest. This is all in the official NIST report.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> @E.L.C. Imagine a section of a bridge that is supported at both ends. What happens if the support at one end breaks? That end will fall at "free fall" speed, right?
> 
> WTC was built as a "bridge" structure over a power substation. It used what was called a cantilever construction. The heat from the prolonged and uncontrolled fires caused sufficient expansion to push one of the cantilever's off it's support.
> 
> Gravity did the rest. This is all in the official NIST report.




impossible

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz7v8EgCzJM]WTC7 - The Stiffener Plates Explained - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 3, 2013)

Damn you KokomoJojo! You're right! I can't stop posting either.... This is simply more fun than any one man could be expected to bear! It's like an addiction, some strange new form of *internet-electro-narcosis*! YES! YES! *YEEESSSSSSS!!!! *I *must* and I *will* continue to *post*. I'll be (even though I think this may possibly be a fraud site in view of my experience up to this point, it may still hold some kind of redeeming value as a sort of "Comedy Central" of science, which is fine with me. I'm 55 now.... that really is me in the avatar.... and have no children so as you might imagine, I have very little, if any, vested interest in the next generation, the last generation.... or even this generation! To top it all off, I'm a suicidal procrastinator, so I'm pretty much ready for anything 24/7, if you get my meaning. It's been a wild ride my freind! Though I didn't want to admit it openly, I really do find all the swearing and name calling to be very, very therapeutic. I hope that's not too much for everyone to digest parenthetically but.... It is what it is as they say, and that's the way it is.) especially be looking forward to yours KokomoJojo. Very cool GIF animations (sorry to add another parenthetical, but you should know people (here's a parenthetical within a parenthitical, which may cause some cognitive dissonance for weak minded people, for the rest of us though it's no problem..... just wanted to add that people, like me, may be stealing your work), like me, may be stealing your work. We'll talk again soon son (do you mind if I add another parenthetical?), something tells me (a third parenthetical (after the last parenthetical) just to indicate to everyone that I very much admire you), that's the way it goes when you run into someone you like (I'm sure all would agree).

Now that I've clearly described my theory of the collapse of WTC 7 (very, even if parenthetically, clearly) in just the short paragraph above (though it may be seen by some small minded people to be largely parenthetical), I'd like some kind of real feedback on the whole thing that really conforms to physical principles! Is that too much to ask ?!?!?!


----------



## whitehall (Nov 3, 2013)

I guess the FF physics theory is out the window when the scientific analysis indicates that the buildings were not in "free fall". So what do the tin foil hats fall back on?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Now that I've clearly described my theory of the collapse of WTC 7
> 
> I'd like some kind of real feedback on the whole thing that really conforms to physical principles! Is that too much to ask ?!?!?!



The gifs are because the greater majority of official tail spinners have little to no clue or personal experience with any of this, so they need things put in a crystal clear format, you know have to draw them a picture before they stand a chance to "get it".  

That and for others just farting around and surfing who have no formal physics background at all and they can see that [read my footer] in reality truthers are not dealing with academia on the official side but fucktards who are incapable of getting beyond their own ride up da nile.  

That little physics problem I posted that none of them are capable of figgering out is a good example of how tarded they are.  One gave the wrong answer so far and 2 fell into the first tard trap and I am having the time of my life with that.

Once ya understand these people or its whatever they are, are as dysfunctional as a screen door in a submarine it casts a whole new light on the debate.  you will have many good laughs


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 3, 2013)

whitehall said:


> I guess the FF physics theory is out the window when the scientific analysis indicates that the buildings were not in "free fall". So what do the tin foil hats fall back on?



this is the revised graph from nist.  what can you gleen from it? freefall or not?


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 4, 2013)

_whitehall ".... the scientific analysis indicates that the buildings were not in "free fall". So what do the tin foil hats fall back on?" _

Oh thanks, I've been waiting for someone to give me a good reason to say.... "You're full of shit". So just let me say.... you're full of shit!


----------



## Politico (Nov 4, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Nothing you did KokomoJojo.... I just wanted a clean thread. I asked the Moderator in "Science" to help me with that, but instead of helping me, he/she/it just went ahead and dumped a straightforward science question into the "Consptracy Theory" section.
> 
> Plus.... There's something positively creepy about the way posters like daws101 (among others) carry on. I wouldn't say they're government sock puppets.... but it definitely wouldn't surprise me if it turned out they were either. I'm done.... there are other things to see.
> 
> ...



It got moved because it is a conspiracy.. And damn it daws why haven't you gotten back to me? I need some work and I writes good.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 4, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Now that I've clearly described my theory of the collapse of WTC 7 (very, even if parenthetically, clearly) in just the short paragraph above (though it may be seen by some small minded people to be largely parenthetical), I'd like some kind of real feedback on the whole thing that really conforms to physical principles! Is that too much to ask ?!?!?!



You need to think of buildings as a system of many, many components all connected together to achieve one thing, which is to stay erect while resisting/supporting loads. Not only are they designed to support their own structure, but other loads as well. Loads that change. People, wind, snow, and changing internal office layouts (cubicles, computers, etc.) to name a few. 

If you weaken or remove one item in the structural system (columns, connection, floor truss), every other component has to pick up the slack.

There are also structural subsystems within the structure. For example, a flooring subsystem. Each floor is designed to support a certain load based upon usage, people, etc. The floor will transfer the load upon it, through floor trusses, to the columns, which transfer that load, in addition to the load of the floors and the rest of the structure above it, to the foundations.

Do you get this so far?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 4, 2013)

Example of how loads are transferred through a structure.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 4, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Example of how loads are transferred through a structure.




WOW _*more cut and paste*_, now tell us what useful information you think we are supposed get from that lame pretense of knowledge?

btw this is the revised graph from nist.  what can you gleen from it? freefall or not?






since you totally fucked up the high school fizix question I suppose I should expect another incorrect answer that you will demand is correct for damage control despite how foolish it is, but what the hell, you need another red face.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz7v8EgCzJM"]WTC7 - NIST Collapse Story Impossible - Stiffener Plates Explained[/ame]


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 4, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > @E.L.C. Imagine a section of a bridge that is supported at both ends. What happens if the support at one end breaks? That end will fall at "free fall" speed, right?
> ...



Too many false assumptions in that video. Those two plates were simply not thick enough to spread the weight as alleged. His 2 dimensional analysis fails to take into account the 3 dimensional nature of the failure.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 4, 2013)

LAfrique said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > So I'll take a chance and put this here. It's not about conspiracy, how it could have been done, why it might have been done or who might have done it.... *Please*, just the *physics*. Critique this analysis, add to it, or just pick the one that you think is correct and why.... sort of an informal pole/discussion?
> ...



as always the shills get their asses handed to them on a platter by Eots.I see like always,they run off with their tails between their legs when cornered by that post of mine.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 4, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> *Far out man!* Thanks ZenBubba and mamooth. I want to go ahead but this thread has to be clean or I'm getting out of here. I reported the post by *9/11 inside job* as having nothing to do with the topic. If this is really a science forum, that post will be removed. I'll post then.... Am I being unreasonable?



You reported it cause the truth hurts you paid shills. I see you had no luck getting the truth removed like you were hoping.

you knew you were cornered and could not refute those facts that prove explosives brought them down,so you got desperate hoping he would delete it.sorry  troll.better luck next time.

you know you cant counter it being too much of  a chickshit coward to even try.evade,evade,evade.

oh and the laws of physics  prove that you agents all skipped junior high school science classes.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 4, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...




math and cipherin talks bullshit walks which one will it be?


----------



## whitehall (Nov 4, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Free fall from that height would take 9.22 seconds. It took the Tower about 21 seconds to hit the ground. Therefore in the strict science of physics the Tower could not have been in free fall.
> ...




The time span is conclusive evidence that the Tower did not go into a "free fall". Doesn't that indicate that outside demolition was not used? Are you going to use the faulty argument that a floor that buckled from the heat and crashed into the floor below it is evidence of a free fall?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 4, 2013)

whitehall said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...




tell us what the definition of freefall is, I cant believe it but it looks like you have no fucking clue.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 5, 2013)

KokomoJojo, I'll tell you what I gleened from the revised graph/chart from the NIST....

 *Gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds....​*



*In order for any object to fall at gravitational acceleration, there can be nothing below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance. If there is anything below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance, then not all of the potential energy of the object would be converted to motion and so it would not be found falling at gravitional acceleration. There's no exception to that rule, those are the conditions that must exist for gravitational acceleration to occur for the entirety of the duration of the time it occurs. Anyone suggesting otherwise better bring some big guns.... Newton was a pretty cool dude!*


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 5, 2013)

Derideo.... Why don't you imagine Saturn being swallowed up by Uranus?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 5, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> ​
> 
> KokomoJojo, I'll tell you what I gleened from the revised graph/chart from the NIST....
> 
> ...




Wait a second here!

You mean to tell me that NIST's chart says it went freefall for 2.25 seconds?

OMFG troughers are going to have to change their diapers now!  

How fucking stoopid they look.  (but then they worked so hard at it)


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 5, 2013)

Man.... I'm so sorry to let you down KokomoJojo! It wasn't the twoofers (did I say it right?) that worked so hard on it. That velocity plot comes from (STAGE TWO) Fig. 3-15 on p. 46 of the Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A), Richard Gann. 

It's a simple case of.... 

*GUERILLAS IN THE NIST !!!​*


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 5, 2013)

Have you met the troughers?  I am sure you have!  LOL







they support official story at any cost since the tax payer foots the bill for it.


It also explains why daws ran as fast as he could from the post where he posted NISTS bullshit and I rebutted every point, only to discover he doesnt even know what the wtc7 looks like and also posted some severely modified picture with a police label on it that looks fake as hell.  No wonder he changed socks and got otta dodge so fast.

So the troughers gonna have full diapers when they see your posts man!  

Truthers gonna be doin what we have done all along


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 5, 2013)

Gamaclown said:


> You need to think of buildings as a system of many, many components blah, blah and blah, which is to stay erect while resisting/supporting blah, blah, blah!
> 
> Do you get this so far?






Yeah man.... I feel you! That must have been a lot of work! 

The only problem is some guy called Newton can't wrap his mind around it! He says that no natural failure of any loaded column will result in the load falling at gravitational acceleration. There can be *nothing* below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance. If there is *anything* below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance, then* not all of the potential energy of the object would be converted to motion *and so would not be found falling at gravitional acceleration. *There's no exception to that rule*, those are the conditions that *must exist *for gravitational acceleration to occur *for the entirety of the duaration of the time it occurs*.... you clown. 

Whether it's a scrap of paper supported by a column of "Aerogel" or a twenty ton lead ingot supported by a massive steel column, some difference in the fall times (below) will always be observable when an object falls through air compared to a load of equal weight falling as a result of structural failure, *no matter what kind of structure it is or how it (naturally) fails*. If that wasn't true Newtons physical principles wouldn't be worth shit.... Do you get that so far Gamaclown?   




Stage 2 of the NIST chart.... (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall) describes an impossible sequence of events....


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 5, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Derideo.... Why don't you imagine Saturn being swallowed up by Uranus?



Typical conspiracy nutter response. The mods were right when they moved your "scientific" thread to this forum. Obviously you weren't serious in your OP. Have a nice day!


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 5, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Gamaclown said:
> 
> 
> > You need to think of buildings as a system of many, many components blah, blah and blah, which is to stay erect while resisting/supporting blah, blah, blah!
> ...



Hey moron.

Please use Newton's laws to explain or come up with how fast a load will fall in this instance:




Are you telling me that you think the support ratio of a column (or components making up a support structure) to a vertical load can never be so disproportionate that the column or support structure provides zero vertical resistance?

Tell you what genius. Use my picture above and answer a question.

How much vertical resistance is that buckled column supplying to the gravitational load represented by the filled n oval? You see, your lack of structural design knowledge is very apparent. Statements like the following make you look stupid.


E.L.C. said:


> Whether it's a scrap of paper supported by a column of "Aerogel" or a twenty ton lead ingot supported by a massive steel column, some difference in the fall times (below) will always be observable when an object falls through air compared to a load of equal weight falling as a result of structural failure, *no matter what kind of structure it is or how it (naturally) fails*.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 5, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


>



Just a question on this about what you think happened in the case of WTC7. In order for the entire roofline to fall at freefall, does this mean that explosives went off simultaneously around the entire structure?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 5, 2013)

Maybe this will help you out E.L.C.

http://v5.books.elsevier.com/bookscat/samples/9780750657334/9780750657334.PDF

Excerpt from the above PDF.



> *1.1.1 The General Principle*
> For a building to be safe and useable, its structural parts such as the roof, floors
> and walls must remain stationary. This requires that the forces acting on them are
> equal and opposite. In structural engineering jargon this is known as equilibrium
> ...



Start looking up equilibrium and how it relates to Newton's laws and structural engineering.  The point is that it's not as simple as you think it is. Which is why you posted your idiotic diagram of a column directly beneath a load and showing the column disintegrating.

So when you start to weaken or fail certain components in a structure that was designed to have ALL components to be "working properly", you start to affect said equilibrium.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 5, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> My *schematic* animated representations of both theories.​



Correct the height of WTC7 in your animated gif above. 741 feet is the NEW WTC7 building. 610 feet was the old WTC7 height.

Dumbass.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 5, 2013)

Oh I was serious Derideo.... 

....but *SOMEONE* put it here didn't they? So.... What?​


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 5, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > My *schematic* animated representations of both theories.​
> ...




hey fucktard try reading for comprehension, there is no WTC7 label on his drawing.  It is a fizix problem nothing more idiot.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 5, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Maybe this will help you out E.L.C.
> 
> http://v5.books.elsevier.com/bookscat/samples/9780750657334/9780750657334.PDF
> 
> ...



buildings are designed so the load transfers you fucking tard, equilibrium is the core element of newtonian physics, tard o matic has struck again.  Everytime I think I heard it all these guys get more fucking absurd.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 5, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...




no, what a dumb assed question.  One that shows you know shit about explosive demolition.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 5, 2013)

Well, Gamaclown.... I could spend the next twenty years researching all that along with, for example.... Self-buckling,  Creep, Columns Buckling under tensile dead loading, Curvature and multiple buckling. 

Then there's.... Flutter instability, Various forms of buckling, Corrosion, Corrosion fatigue, Surface materials, Flexural-torsional buckling, Lateral-torsional buckling and maybe even throw in the modification factor. 

But wait.... There's more! Others like.... Fatigue, Plastic buckling, Dynamic buckling, Buckling of thin cylindrical shells subject to axial loads, Buckling of pipes and pressure vessels subject to external overpressure. 

In the interest of thoroughness though, we better include.... Fouling, Fracture, Hydrogen embrittlement, Impact, Mechanical overload, Stress corrosion cracking, Thermal shock, Wear and.... Oh yeah!  Yielding! 

Instead of doing all that, I'll just make a prediction.... No failure mode will be found that constitutes an exception to Newtonian physical principles. 

The NIST says WTC 7 verifiably fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds....




Newton says the only way that can happen is if there's nothing below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance. If there is anything below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance, then not all of the energy would be converted to motion and so it would not be found falling at gravitional acceleration. There's no exception to that rule, those are the conditions that must exist for gravitational acceleration to occur for the entirety of the duaration of the time it occurs. 

So, Newtons description of the conditions that must exist for the upper portion of the building to fall at gravitational acceleration looks like this....




Now, I know there was considerable mass there at the time because the building stood for a number of years before it collapsed (or obviously it wouldn't have been much good as a building).

The NIST is presenting a scenario wherein the upper portion of the building fell at gravitaional acceleration for 2.25 seconds despite the existence below of considerable mass that would have tended to impede its progress or offer resistance. 




So Newton and the NIST are at odds. It's none of my business, I'm just pointing it out.... you clown.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 5, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Well, Gamaclown.... I could spend the next twenty years researching all that along with, for example.... Self-buckling,  Creep, Columns Buckling under tensile dead loading, Curvature and multiple buckling.
> 
> Then there's.... Flutter instability, Various forms of buckling, Corrosion, Corrosion fatigue,. Surface materials, Flexural-torsional buckling, Lateral-torsional buckling and maybe even throw in The modification factor.
> 
> ...



So you just went to Wikipedia and copied some terms? In almost the same order they appear in your quote above? What about this page:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Xg...ttlement, Impact, Mechanical overload&f=false

Did you copy the last part of your "Fouling, Fracture..." line from there?!

Pathetic!



You're a joke!



E.L.C. said:


> Instead of doing all that, I'll just make a prediction.... No failure mode will be found that constitutes an exception to Newtonian physical principles.
> 
> The NIST says WTC 7 verifiably fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds....



How did the entire roofline manage to come down at the same time? Did explosives go off all the way around the building like Chandler suggests?



E.L.C. said:


> Newton says that can only happen whenIn order for any object to fall at gravitational acceleration, there can be nothing below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance.



So what mass is below the load in this picture? The column is failed!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 5, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> So what mass is below the load in this picture? The column is failed!




if that represents a column it has not failed

what mass?  just a bunch of squiggly doodling on my computer screen.

are you suggesting people invent a problem so you can dodge the one ELC put to you!

Yes you are!

OWNED


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 5, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Correct the height of WTC7 in your animated gif above. 741 feet is the NEW WTC7 building. 610 feet was the old WTC7 height.



Oops!


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 5, 2013)

So what mass is below the load in this picture? The column is failed!




So what you're telling me is that never, EVER, in the diagram above, can a load increase to a point that creates zero resistance from the buckled column?

Just a yes or no will do.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 5, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Now that I've clearly described my theory of the collapse of WTC 7
> ...


that's "tales"...


----------



## daws101 (Nov 5, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


 free fall is any motion of a body where its weight is the only force acting upon it. In the context of general relativity where gravitation is reduced to a space-time curvature, a body in free fall has no force acting on it and it moves along a geodesic. The present article concerns itself with free fall in the Newtonian domain.
An object in the technical sense of free fall may not necessarily be falling down in the usual sense of the term. An object moving upwards would not normally be considered to be falling but if it is subject to the force of gravity only, it is said to be in free fall. The moon thus is in free fall.
In a uniform gravitational field, in the absence of any other forces, gravitation acts on each part of the body equally and this is akin to weightlessness, a condition which also obtains when the gravitational field is zero such as when far away from any gravitating body. A body in free fall experiences "0-g".
The term "free fall" is often used more loosely than in the strict sense defined above. Thus, falling through an atmosphere without a deployed parachute, or lifting device, is also often referred to as free fall. The aerodynamic drag forces in such situations prevent them from producing full weightlessness, and thus a skydiver's "free fall" after reaching terminal velocity produces the sensation of the body's weight being supported on a cushion of air.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 5, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> KokomoJojo, I'll tell you what I gleened from the revised graph/chart from the NIST....
> 
> *Gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds....​*
> 
> ...


wrong! all that means is for 2.5 seconds (imperceptible) to the human eye. the face of wtc 7 encountered no obstacles..that is all.it was not the cause of the collaspe, it's was anomalous  random event. collateral to the cause ,which btw you have no evidence for.. 
also can you pinpoint the exact seconds wtc7 was in freefall?


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 5, 2013)

Height correction for Gamaclown....


----------



## daws101 (Nov 5, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Have you met the troughers?  I am sure you have!  LOL
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you mean this one 


ahh.... that an actual nyc police photo 

ok shit head which pic is not wtc7...







btw you didn't rebutt shit!

http://www.elmsfordpd.com/images/wtc/pages/wtc-7.html
more "fake" police dept photos.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/slideshow/photos-nypd-world-trade-center-911-aerials-9763032


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 5, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...




the problem with your cut and paste losers are you that you are incapable of properly applying even the most simple grade school methods.

you didnt even fucking read that much less do you understand it.

Free fall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 5, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Have you met the troughers?  I am sure you have!  LOL
> ...




hey asshelmet thats the bank not wtc7

no building with a ventilator exists that looks like that near wtc on 911

give it up you are a tard simple as that.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 5, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Height correction for Gamaclown....




waste of time man! LOL


----------



## daws101 (Nov 5, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


nice dodge but tottal bullshit..
then you make false accusations to cover your fucking ignorance..
that is the correct definition..
you did this same dance when I schooled on probate too..
just for laughs, wow us with your freefall acumen..


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 5, 2013)

daws101 said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo, I'll tell you what I gleened from the revised graph/chart from the NIST....
> ...




here I will correct you

*all that means is for 2.5 seconds (imperceptible) to a TARDS eye.

NIST did it you raving fucking imbecile.*


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 5, 2013)

Oh man.... daws101 says all that means is that the difference in fall times over the course of 2.5 seconds would be imperceptible to the human eye.

Hah! Well, that may be true using *dawsian* physics. The *NIST* measurements were made using pixels as reference points you dope.... 

*daws101 "Newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day"*




What a moron!


----------



## daws101 (Nov 5, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


what ventilator?
if you mean the buildings on the left of the photo then it's you who hasn't got a clue what wtc7 looked like.

wtc7 with ventilators very much the same as the other building ventilation system..



give what up? I'm not competing with you, just pointing up the monstrous flaws in your fantasy..


----------



## daws101 (Nov 5, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...


so this is a dodge to not have to admit you have no fucking clue to when the freefall took place! 
still waiting on your definition of free fall


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 5, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




yep your dodge is exposed you are exposed and you are too fucking dumb to get it.  fucktard idiot.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 5, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > wrong! all that means is for 2.5 seconds (imperceptible) to the human eye.
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Nov 5, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


still waiting on your definition of free fall,
love the name calling it's smoking gun evidence of your wilful ignorance,


----------



## daws101 (Nov 5, 2013)

LSDYNA Physics-based model of the collapse initiation of WTC 7


----------



## daws101 (Nov 5, 2013)

Why Did WTC 7 Collapse?

Good question. The investigators were baffled. But the conspiracy theory doesn't explain anything. Why bring down an empty building hours after the main attack?

Photos published to support the claim of a controlled demolition show puffs emerging from the top of the building. These could be explosives. Or they could be concrete suddenly failing, or windows shattering. But again we have the irritating question, why start a collapse from the top, completely at odds with the way all controlled demolitions are done, especially if you want the building to fall onto its own footprint?

If it was actually a controlled demolition by the Fire Department or the building owner, or both, as some people allege, so what? The remains of the World Trade Center itself were brought down in controlled demolitions after 9-11. What does that have to do with the collapse of the Twin Towers? It seems unlikely that a demolition crew would enter a burning building and install charges to bring down something 15 stories taller than any other recorded controlled demolition, all in the space of a few hours, but if the building was brought down by the owners or the Fire Department, what's the connection to the Twin Towers? How does a planned demolition of one building prove the Twin Towers were deliberately brought down?

I've gotten a fair amount of flak over this issue but I've yet to see anyone present a coherent explanation of what, exactly, the collapse of WTC-7 proves.

Nutty 9-11 Physics


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 5, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Why Did WTC 7 Collapse?
> 
> Good question. The investigators were baffled. But the conspiracy theory   doesn't explain anything. Why bring down an empty building hours after   the main attack?
> 
> ...




and you will continue to get flak because you are a tard and should post in macrame or something more your speed!




daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




you have been told and even fucking shown asshelmet


why are you fucking trolling in here?

you are in here making shit claims and you are so fucking stoopid you think the trust bank is wtc7.  total fucking maroon proving anyone can cut and paste a pile of shit they know nothing about.















E.L.C. said:


> ​
> 
> KokomoJojo, I'll tell you what I gleened from the revised graph/chart from the NIST....
> 
> ...




Wait a second here!

You mean to tell me that NIST's chart says it went freefall for 2.25 seconds?

OMFG troughers are going to have to change their diapers now!  

How fucking stoopid they look.  (but then they worked so hard at it)


here you peeps more cut n paste shit he dont understand


daws101 said:


> LSDYNA Physics-based model of the collapse initiation of WTC 7


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 5, 2013)

daws101 said:


> LiveLeak.com - Rare Raw 9/11 Footage Released Via "Freedom of Information Act" (High Quality)
> 
> 
> ok tin asshats please point out the start and finish of the freefall ...you can you the clock on the tape...WTC 7 Explosion - YouTube



more useless shit from you.

whats the matter crybaby you all sad n shit that NIST blew you tards out of the water and said it freefell AFTER TRUTHERS KICKED NISTS ASS AROUND THE BLOCK and made them correct their pile of shit, you know like yours is starting to feel?


----------



## whitehall (Nov 5, 2013)

Since we discarded the "free fall" physics 101 theory" let's consider the political fallout. The (mostly) radical left wing tin foil hat conspiracy theory fans are in a bind. They want to turn the jihad attack on 9-11 into a government conspiracy but darn it, wouldn't you know a left wing liberal president would have to be implicated in the plot. Bill Clinton was busy bombing defenseless Yugoslavia while 9-11 terrorists were attending flight school in the US. His A.G. issued an order preventing the CIA from sharing information with the FBI. Isn't that the smoking gun that implicates Clinton in the plot?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 5, 2013)

whitehall said:


> *Since we discarded the "free fall" physics* 101 theory" let's consider the political fallout. The (mostly) radical left wing tin foil hat conspiracy theory fans are in a bind. They want to turn the jihad attack on 9-11 into a government conspiracy but darn it, wouldn't you know a left wing liberal president would have to be implicated in the plot. Bill Clinton was busy bombing defenseless Yugoslavia while 9-11 terrorists were attending flight school in the US. His A.G. issued an order preventing the CIA from sharing information with the FBI. Isn't that the smoking gun that implicates Clinton in the plot?




who is "WE"

its NISTS theory so now you are a tin hat nutter?  That is neither truther nor trougher?


----------



## daws101 (Nov 5, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > LiveLeak.com - Rare Raw 9/11 Footage Released Via "Freedom of Information Act" (High Quality)
> ...


like I said before that your masturbation fantasy
twoofers have never kicked nist's ass or mine ..
what you've shown has been debunked period.
for every delusional claim you make, 10 more will be presented proving you to be wrong..


----------



## daws101 (Nov 5, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > *Since we discarded the "free fall" physics* 101 theory" let's consider the political fallout. The (mostly) radical left wing tin foil hat conspiracy theory fans are in a bind. They want to turn the jihad attack on 9-11 into a government conspiracy but darn it, wouldn't you know a left wing liberal president would have to be implicated in the plot. Bill Clinton was busy bombing defenseless Yugoslavia while 9-11 terrorists were attending flight school in the US. His A.G. issued an order preventing the CIA from sharing information with the FBI. Isn't that the smoking gun that implicates Clinton in the plot?
> ...


"we is anyone not suffering from conspiracy delusions ..


----------



## whitehall (Nov 5, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > *Since we discarded the "free fall" physics* 101 theory" let's consider the political fallout. The (mostly) radical left wing tin foil hat conspiracy theory fans are in a bind. They want to turn the jihad attack on 9-11 into a government conspiracy but darn it, wouldn't you know a left wing liberal president would have to be implicated in the plot. Bill Clinton was busy bombing defenseless Yugoslavia while 9-11 terrorists were attending flight school in the US. His A.G. issued an order preventing the CIA from sharing information with the FBI. Isn't that the smoking gun that implicates Clinton in the plot?
> ...



Umm, evidence indicates that the Tower was not in a "free fall". Doesn't that fly in the face of "free fall" advocates? Want to talk about something else?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 5, 2013)

whitehall said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...




possibly the *ONLY* thing NIST and the truthers agree on and you think it never happened.

Why am I laughing my ass off right now?

No I dont this conspiracy section is the best comedy in town!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 5, 2013)

daws101 said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## Quantumhead (Nov 5, 2013)

> Just the physics



The physics is simple. They were blown up with L. Paul Bremer's Komatsu thermite-based demolition device. It's the only explanation which is supported by both the laws of classical mechanics and Harrit's findings at the forensic level.

Anyone still contending that anything other than explosives/pyrotechnics brought all three of those towers down needs their head examining by a certified professional.

The official explanation is a direct violation of f=ma, Newton's third law and the first law of thermodynamics. If something is standing upright, then it is in mechanical equilibrium. All the forces acting upon it are balanced, which means if you want it to collapse straight down into its own footprint at freefall speed you only have two options:-

1) Apply extra vertical force (which must clearly be well over 9.81 m/s2, since gravity is constantly pulling down in all circumstances).

2) Blow out the building's opposing resistance to its own weight.

They are the only two options. Since neither Godzilla nor Cloverfield stepped upon the WTC buildings, we can safely conclude they were brought down in a controlled demolition. In fact, this is further evidenced by the symmetry in the collapse, since the WTC buildings were surrounded by a perimeter of 47 core support columns. Of course, this means, in order to render possible a symmetrical collapse, all 47 would have to fail at precisely the same moment in time. Kudos to Professor Jones for making that clear early on.

There is quite simply no question that the WTC buildings were wired with explosives/pyrotechnics. It is scientifically irrefutable.


----------



## Quantumhead (Nov 6, 2013)

> They want to turn the jihad attack on 9-11 into a government conspiracy



You missed out the part where you prove it was a jihad attack. You have assumed that to be a true premise, but it is supported by literally nothing, and contradicted by the laws of physics and about a hundred other things.

There is quite simply no way to reason with people like you, because you abandon the rules of logic entirely when you talk. It clearly was not a jihad attack. You do not even know who the hijackers were, given that at least six of them have factually been proven to have been using false identities by the BBC and the Daily Telegraph.

I'm clearly just wasting my time, but boy are you dishonest.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 6, 2013)

Quantumhead said:


> > Just the physics
> 
> 
> The physics is simple. They were blown up with L. Paul Bremer's Komatsu thermite-based demolition device. It's the only explanation which is supported by both the laws of classical mechanics and Harrit's findings at the forensic level.
> ...



agreed, generally, I would further argue they used several techniques including but not limited to thermetic devices based on some very strange looking steel and several other aspects of the crime scene.


----------



## Quantumhead (Nov 6, 2013)

> agreed, generally, I would further argue they used several techniques including but not limited to thermetic devices based on some very strange looking steel and several other aspects of the crime scene.



I just can't believe this is the world I've grown up into, pal. 9/11 was the burning of the Reichstag all over again. Probably millions have died now because of this one piece of false flag terrorism, and still the perpetrators walk about as free men. I know just from my own research that there's enough circumstantial evidence against Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bernard Kerik and L. Paul Bremer to warrant an arrest pending a full investigation. Yet still the official channels refuse to deviate from their fairy story, or from the argument that any evidence which disputes it is to be ignored on the grounds it's a "conspiracy theory".

I swear to God, half of these people know they're lying. And the ones that don't are just plain idiots.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 6, 2013)

Quantumhead said:


> > agreed, generally, I would further argue they used several techniques including but not limited to thermetic devices based on some very strange looking steel and several other aspects of the crime scene.
> 
> 
> I just can't believe this is the world I've grown up into, pal. 9/11 was the burning of the Reichstag all over again. Probably millions have died now because of this one piece of false flag terrorism, and still the perpetrators walk about as free men. I know just from my own research that there's enough circumstantial evidence against Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bernard Kerik and L. Paul Bremer to warrant an arrest pending a full investigation. Yet still the official channels refuse to deviate from their fairy story, or from the argument that any any evidence which disputes it is to be ignored on the grounds it's a "conspiracy theory".
> ...




Conspiracy theory is a pejorative the cia cooked up.  All the latest psychology techniques are always used against the people by those who govern as well as those from long ago that never fail.   People never wise up.

Its the old power they have an iron grip and know how to use it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ4SSvVbhLw]George Carlin on "the American Dream" - YouTube[/ame]​


----------



## Quantumhead (Nov 6, 2013)

> Conspiracy theory is a pejorative the cia cooked up.  All the latest psychology techniques are always used against the people by those who govern as well as those from long ago that never fail.  People never wise up.



Respectfully, I don't think it has anything to do with the CIA. This is public relations technique which can be traced right back to Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays. Propaganda has been developing as a semi-science for a while now. In America it has reached quite an insane state, where not even science is safe from its grasp. Not just the physics of the WTC collapses either, but biological evolution, and AGW. It's all on the table in America. 



> Its the old power they have an iron grip and know how to use it.



Apply that to the major political players and I agree one hundred percent.


----------



## Quantumhead (Nov 6, 2013)

Forgot to say that I love George Carlin by the way. There was a guy who had it all figured out. Kudos to him, God rest his soul.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 6, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> So what mass is below the load in this picture? The column is failed!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What's the matter E.L.C.? Don't want to answer?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 6, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Well E.L.C.?

No answer to this either?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 6, 2013)

Quantumhead said:


> 1) Apply extra vertical force (which must clearly be well over 9.81 m/s2, since gravity is constantly pulling down in all circumstances).



So you agree then that in this diagram...




...that if the load is increased (filled in oval represents the load), it will eventually reach a point where the column will provide zero resistance?



Quantumhead said:


> In fact, this is further evidenced by the symmetry in the collapse, since the WTC buildings were surrounded by a perimeter of 47 core support columns.



Surrounded by a perimeter of 47 core support columns?!



Are you high? You need to go recheck your "research".


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 6, 2013)

Quantumhead said:


> > agreed, generally, I would further argue they used several techniques including but not limited to thermetic devices based on some very strange looking steel and several other aspects of the crime scene.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The prob with your theory and all 9/11 CTs is how those thermites were planted, when and by whom.
Unless you believe GWB did it during a weekend jamboree with some scouts (who then had to be snuffed), a large and skilled crew had to do the deed without anyone noticing and with none stepping forward to admit their complicity. If you apply 10% of the scrutiny and cynicism to any CT that you use in rejecting the official explanation you would be left with the likelihood that the gov't is being as forthcoming and rational as is HUMANLY possible. Their theory is not perfect but is miles better than anything you CTs have concocted in the past 13 years.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 6, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Quantumhead said:
> 
> 
> > > agreed, generally, I would further argue they used several techniques including but not limited to thermetic devices based on some very strange looking steel and several other aspects of the crime scene.
> ...



Soooo you believe there is no such thing as a conspiracy theory?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 6, 2013)

Interesting video...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RQXTuGPk00]Steel beam-column assembly test 1 - YouTube[/ame]

Notice how loud the failure of the bolts is at about 2:06.


----------



## Rockland (Nov 6, 2013)

How many suck puppets does 7-watt bulb need, anyway? We've got:

KooKooDooDoo
T.N.U.C.
Quaaludehead


----------



## daws101 (Nov 6, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...


----------



## PredFan (Nov 6, 2013)

Here is the only physics you need to know to understand WTC 7:

The earth's gravity pulled the damaged building down.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 6, 2013)

Rockland said:


> How many suck puppets does 7-watt bulb need, anyway? We've got:
> 
> KooKooDooDoo
> T.N.U.C.
> Quaaludehead


I wouldn't say they're socks..more like a brotherhood of a shared delusion..or guys with no life? 


The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.[2][77][page needed]

The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations,[78] and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting that the report expressed similar views to those held by its group of professionals.[79]

Following the publication of Jones' paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?"[6] Brigham Young University responded to Jones' "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave, and thereby stripping him of two classes, in September 2006, pending a review of his statements and research. Six weeks later, Jones retired from the university.[21] The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones".[3][22] On September 22, 2005, Jones gave a seminar on his hypotheses to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU. According to Jones, all but one of his colleagues agreed after the seminar that an investigation was in order and the lone dissenter came to agreement with Jones' suggestions the next day.[22]

Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zden&#283;k Baant, who was the first to offer a published peer-reviewed theory of the collapses, wrote "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception.[80] Baant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Indeed, Baant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not two separate modes of failure (as the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory assumes).[2]

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory.[3] Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."[81]

Regarding Jones' theory that nanothermite was used to bring down the towers, and the assertion that thermite and nanothermite composites were found in the dust and debris were found following the collapse of the three buildings, which was concluded to be proof that explosives brought down the buildings,[6][7][8][12] Brent Blanchard, author of "A History of Explosive Demolition in America",[82] states that questions about the viability of Jones' theories remain unanswered, such as the fact that no demolition personnel noticed any telltale signs of thermite during the eight months of debris removal following the towers' collapse. Blanchard also stated that a verifiable chain of possession needs to be established for the tested beams, which did not occur with the beams Jones tested, raising questions of whether the metal pieces tested could have been cut away from the debris pile with acetylene torches, shears, or other potentially contaminated equipment while on site, or exposed to trace amounts of thermite or other compounds while being handled, while in storage, or while being transferred from Ground Zero to memorial sites.[83] Dave Thomas of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, noting that the residue in question was claimed to be thermitic because of its iron oxide and aluminum composition, pointed out that these substances are found in many items common to the towers. Thomas stated that in order to cut through a vertical steel beam, special high-temperature containment must be added to prevent the molten iron from dropping down, and that the thermite reaction is too slow for it to be practically used in building demolition. Thomas pointed out that when Jesse Ventura hired New Mexico Tech to conduct a demonstration showing nanothermite slicing through a large steel beam, the nanothermite produced copious flame and smoke but no damage to the beam, even though it was in a horizontal, and therefore optimal position.[84]

Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort.[85] The tower walls would have had to be opened on dozens of floors.[6] Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be sneaked past security and placed in the towers[6][86] without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing.[1][50][85][86][87][88] Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?"[89]

World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein said, "Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day." Upon presentation of the NIST's detailed report on the failure of Bldg. 7, Richard Gage, leader of the group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth said, "How much longer do we have to endure the coverup of how Building 7 was destroyed?" in which Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, the lead NIST investigator said he could not explain why the skepticism would not die. I am really not a psychologist, he said. Our job was to come up with the best science.[36] James Quintiere, professor of fire protection engineering at the University of Maryland, who does not believe explosives brought down the towers, questioned how the agency came to its conclusions, remarking, "They don't have the expertise on explosives," though he adds that NIST wasted time employing outside experts to consider it.[90]

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## daws101 (Nov 6, 2013)

What are the laws of physics


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 6, 2013)

two farts in a row for you dawgshit.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 6, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> two farts in a row for you dawgshit.


it must be handjobs play date on the computer at the special peoples home..


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 6, 2013)

Right on Quantumhead.... I'm digging your vibe!

It doesn't look good for the NIST man!

David Chandlers informal initial calculations loosely indicated a free fall time of 2.5 seconds for WTC 7. Ultimately, the NIST not only confirmed that analysis, but actually enhanced it. By using a more precise formal method of measurement (using individual pixels from the video evidence as reference points), the now officially refined documented free fall time of 2.25 seconds, or 105 feet was arrived at.

In the case of WTC 7, both the so called "Conspiracy Theorist" (high school physics teacher David Chandler), and the "Official Authority" of record (the NIST, a federal agency of the United States) involved in this "discussion", if one can call it that, actually do remain in agreement to date....

Gravitational acceleration during the destruction of WTC 7 did occur for 8 stories, or 105 feet (a considerable distance). ​



David Chandler has essentially said that in order to be consistent with Newtonian physical principles.... For a building to collapse at gravitational acceleration there can be nothing (mass) below it that would tend to offer any resistance or impede its progress for the entirety of the duration of the time it is in free fall. He says an external force would have to be introduced to remove all material resistance (mass) from below it at/very soon after collapse initiation. David Chandlers analysis (illustration below) and line of reasoning is entirely consistent with Newtonian physical principles.... Something must uniformly remove, in a relatively short period of time at/just after collapse initiation, all material resistence (mass) that would tend to impede the progress of a falling building for it to collapse at gravitational acceleration.




The NIST also has essentially said that in order to be consistent with Newtonian physical principles.... For a building to collapse at gravitational accelleration there can be nothing (mass) below it that would tend to offer any resistance or impede its progress for the entirety of the duration of the time it is in free fall. The NIST, however, says an extraordinary failure mode (yet to be explained or described) exists that permits a building to fall at gravitational acceleration even if all material resistance (mass) has not been removed at/very soon after collapse initiation. The NIST analysis (illustrated below) and line of reasoning is wholly inconsistent with Newtonian physical principles.... For a building to collapse at gravitational acceleration for any length of time without all material resistance (mass) being removed that would tend to impede its progress would be tantamount to matter literally fall through matter at gravitational acceleration.




The schematic below is just an illustration designed to generally represent all forms of natural failure modes for load bearing structures (take your pick). In all cases, whether a penny supported by aerogel, or a fifty ton lead ingot supported by a massive steel column, some variation of the scenario shown below will be the case. In a race to ground, all naturally failing load bearing structures, to one degree or another, will prevent a load from falling as fast as a similar weight dropped from the same height at the same time falling through air.... There are no known exceptions.




It's not what I want to conclude, it's what I'm being forced to conclude.... For all natural building collapses, pending some future explanation of the mechanism of operation involved in the kind of "extraordinary failure mode" espoused by the NIST that would constitute an exception/exemption from Newtonian physical principles.... The Chandler analysis prevails.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 6, 2013)

*Is it Sunder of the NIST, or Chandler the Physics Teacher?*

*There can be only one!*


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 6, 2013)

I'm getting a bad feeling man!


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 6, 2013)

Hey man.... what a bummer! What's "pwng"?


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 6, 2013)

Hmm.... Hey! The guy I was talking to just VANISHED!!!


----------



## daws101 (Nov 6, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Right on Quantumhead.... I'm digging your vibe!
> 
> It doesn't look good for the NIST man!
> 
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Nov 6, 2013)

"Newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day..."


We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist

The Thermodynamics of 9/11

by MANUEL GARCIA, Jr.



When hijacked airliners crashed into the tall Towers of the World Trade Center, in New York City, each injected a burning cloud of aviation fuel throughout the 6 levels (WTC 2) to 8 levels (WTC 1) in the impact zone. The burning fuel ignited the office furnishings: desks, chairs, shelving, carpeting, work-space partitions, wall and ceiling panels; as well as paper and plastic of various kinds.
The Thermodynamics of 9/11 » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

The Fall of WTC 7

Dark Fire

by MANUEL GARCIA, Jr.



Bright, windless September morning in Manhattan, looking south and slightly west across Vesey Street from the 12th floor of WTC 7. The eight story US Customs House (WTC 6) lies directly across the way, and beyond it the North Tower (WTC 1), slightly rightward to the west, with the South Tower (WTC 2) even further off, left of WTC 1 to the east.

Then a plane, loud, fast, low, directly overhead flying south; the sun glints off the dimpling of its shiny aluminum painted skin; its 156 ft wingspan over three quarters the width of a Tower face  puff! The lightning clarity of the moment blinks, the airplane disappears, an orange fireball erupts out of the north face of WTC 1 engulfing its ninth decade of stories. Thinking stops.
Dark Fire » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names


I WIN!


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 6, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Hmm.... Hey! The guy I was talking to just VANISHED!!!



Of course he vanished. The NWO & LPGA are very, very good at making that happen when we choose to.


You're next.


----------



## Rockland (Nov 6, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Hmm.... Hey! The guy I was talking to just VANISHED!!!



He never existed.  He was a manifestation of your feverish mind.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 6, 2013)

Rockland said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm.... Hey! The guy I was talking to just VANISHED!!!
> ...


that's true for all his friends...


----------



## Two Thumbs (Nov 6, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> *Far out man!* Thanks ZenBubba and mamooth. I want to go ahead but this thread has to be clean or I'm getting out of here. I reported the post by *9/11 inside job* as having nothing to do with the topic. If this is really a science forum, that post will be removed. I'll post then.... Am I being unreasonable?



yes

No one likes a whinny bitches


----------



## Two Thumbs (Nov 6, 2013)

why does anyone still bother with these idiots?

they have all been debunked multiple times


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 6, 2013)

Two Thumbs said:


> why does anyone still bother with these idiots?
> 
> they have all been debunked multiple times



I do it because I see this sub-forum as a high tech version of Whack-A-Mope.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 6, 2013)

*All (naturally) failing load bearing structures, to one degree or another, will prevent a load from falling as fast as a similar weight dropped from the same height at the same time falling through air.... There are no known exceptions.*

Nothing you guys have said changes any of that. You've shown no exception to the rule. It won't do you any good to take out your frustrations on me either. You see, some guy called Newton came up with it.... not me. 

It's not my fault you can't prove or even elucidate your *"Never Before Seen In The History Of Science Unique Non-Newtonian Extraordinary Structural Failure Mode Exemption Theory"*.... you could shorten the title a little though!


Your problem is with that Newton guy. Prove an exception without resorting to magic or sorcery, or....

*You lose.*​

*lose* definition

*lose*  /loooooz/ /looooozer/ /looooozing/ .... that means you!

verb:* lose*;&#8195;3rd person present: *loses*;&#8195;past tense:* lost*;&#8195;past participle: *lost*;&#8195;gerund or present participle: *losing*

to be deprived of or cease to have or retain (something, like an argument).
_"He *lost* the argument because of Newton"_

synonyms: be deprived of, suffer the loss of; no longer have
_"Newton made him *Lose* the argument" _

cause (someone) to fail to gain or retain (something).
_"Newton *lost* him the opportunity to win the argument"_

synonyms: be deprived of an opportunity, fail to benefit, be disadvantaged, be the loser
_"because of Newton, he will *lose* the argument"_ 

be deprived of (such as a ridiculous notion or idea) through it being impossible to prove
_"knowing nothing of them, he *lost* the argument over Newtonian principles"_


----------



## percysunshine (Nov 6, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> So I'll take a chance and put this here. It's not about conspiracy, how it could have been done, why it might have been done or who might have done it.... *Please*, just the *physics*. Critique this analysis, add to it, or just pick the one that you think is correct and why.... sort of an informal pole/discussion?
> 
> *THE UNRESOLVED MYSTERY OF WTC 7 *
> 
> ...






This does not look that unusual. It only takes milliseconds to atomize a support, and the number presented is 2.25 seconds. 2250 milliseconds. Four significant figures are needed to describe the physical process, but only three significant figures were measured.

We would need to repeat the experiment with more accurate measurements if we wanted to draw any conclusions.

.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 6, 2013)

Milliseconds? For the sake of precision, why not 2250000000 nanoseconds? That way we can set up high speed demolition proof cameras and track each particle after collapse is initiated to see if anything contradicts that Newton guy. 

Right.... repeating the experiment will be easy, I'll just run out in a couple of days and buy a 47 story scyscraper for the purpose. I'll get back to you on that asap!

You can't be serious.


----------



## percysunshine (Nov 6, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Milliseconds? For the sake of precision, why not 2250000000 nanoseconds? That way we can track each particle after collapse is intiated to see if anything contradicts that Newton guy.
> 
> Right.... repeating the experiment will be easy, I'll just run out in a couple of days and buy a 47 story scyscraper for the purpose. I'll get back to you on that asap!
> 
> You can't be serious.




It is milliseconds and not nanoseconds because that is the rate that molecular bonds are broken en-masse by these types of physical reactions. Nanoseconds would be sub-atomic reaction rates.

Hold on a second!  WTC 7 might have been nuked!


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 6, 2013)

percysunshine said:


> It is milliseconds and not nanoseconds because that is the rate that molecular bonds are broken en-masse by these types of physical reactions. Nanoseconds would be sub-atomic reaction rates.
> 
> Hold on a second!  WTC 7 might have been nuked!



*Fascinating!*​​


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 7, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> *All (naturally) failing load bearing structures, to one degree or another, will prevent a load from falling as fast as a similar weight dropped from the same height at the same time falling through air.... There are no known exceptions.*



Wrong.





Where the load becomes high enough and the column resistance becomes zero.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 7, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 7, 2013)

Alright.... Gamaclown (among others) just keeps talking, and it might take several minutes to figure out what he's actually trying to say. I'll be right back.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 7, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> What's the matter E.L.C.? Don't want to answer?



Well, that didn't take long. In answer to your question, I do want to explore it. We'd have to agree about the parameters first though (nothing complicated).... What say you?


----------



## daws101 (Nov 7, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > What's the matter E.L.C.? Don't want to answer?
> ...


ok the parameters 
which definition : Definition of parameter (n)
Bing Dictionary
pa·ram·e·ter[ p&#601; rámm&#601;t&#601;r ]
limiting factor: a fact or circumstance that restricts how something is done or what can be done
variable quantity determining outcome: a measurable quantity, e.g. temperature, that determines the result of a scientific experiment and can be altered to vary the result
notable characteristic: a distinguishing feature or notable characteristic


----------



## eots (Nov 7, 2013)

Two Thumbs said:


> why does anyone still bother with these idiots?
> 
> they have all been debunked multiple times



by who ? when ?


----------



## daws101 (Nov 7, 2013)

eots said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > why does anyone still bother with these idiots?
> ...


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 7, 2013)

daws101 said:


> ok the parameters
> which definition : Definition of parameter (n)
> Bing Dictionary
> pa·ram·e·ter[ p&#601; rámm&#601;t&#601;r ]
> ...



Well, you *loser*, your comment shows you read the definition of *loser* I posted.... it's a very good fit for you. At least now you're actually starting to learn proper diction. Fabulous! I've always said that anyone who functions at diminished capacity (no matter the circmstances) should nevertheless make some attempt to broaden their horizons.... Hats off to you man!

By the way, that link you posted, *What are the laws of physics*, goes directly to a site that says all the textbooks I ever read are wrong and that only Nikola Tesla really knew what science was, or something like that. Funny, but not realistic, unless of course one is functioning at diminished capacity (that would be you).  

I'm talking to Gamaclown right now, but I promise, I'll be sure to get back to you if/when I'm stoned and drunk (shouldn't be long at this rate) to assure a level playing field for the exchange.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 7, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > ok the parameters
> ...


pretentious and  wrong.
oh by the way the diction spelling and diminished capacity shit is played out...
you asshats play that game when you're getting your ass handed to you..
wow 55 and no more mature than in high school!  






oh btw you dodged the question:which definition


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 7, 2013)

*It's dawsian physics Mr. Spock!*


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 7, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > What's the matter E.L.C.? Don't want to answer?
> ...


----------



## Rockland (Nov 7, 2013)

Poor T.N.U.C.; nothing more than a (sock)puppet with dreams of one day becoming a *real boy*.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 8, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > What's the matter E.L.C.? Don't want to answer?
> ...





You've already set the parameters!


E.L.C. said:


> In a race to ground, all naturally failing load bearing structures, to one degree or another, will prevent a load from falling as fast as a similar weight dropped from the same height at the same time falling through air.... There are no known exceptions.



Here is a failing structure. 





Are you telling me that no matter how much that load increases, there is no chance for that column beneath it to EVER reach zero resistance?

And you keep avoiding my other question.

When the entire roofline started to descend, does that mean explosives were simultaneously set throughout the entire structure? I mean, the ENTIRE roofline across the building descended at the same time right?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



yes realize you went to a different school.





we understand of course which is why we demand that you quote your claims, they are nonexistant.

not getting any younger


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 8, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Waaay too complicated.


----------



## Faun (Nov 8, 2013)

Check out what a *real* controlled demolition looks *and sounds* like ... Pay close attention to the explosions coming from inside the buildings, which is what brings them down, *before* the buildings collapse ... You can see the explosions as well as hear them ...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno]Implosionworld Explosive Demolition Compilation 2003 - YouTube[/ame]

Now compare that to WTC7, which had *no* explosions visible in the seconds prior to collapse nor were there any heard.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN8d-Dy4Ut4]911FILES WTC 7 Collapse compilation...rare videos with audio.. - YouTube[/ame]

Also, if you notice with WTC7, a portion of the roof began collapsing into the building about 7 seconds before the rest of the building came down -- also inconsistent with a controlled demolition.

But again -- *there were no explosions before the building came down.* None. None were seen and none were heard. The reason? Because there were none. It was not a controlled demolition.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 8, 2013)

Faun said:


> Check out what a *real* controlled demolition looks *and sounds* like ... Pay close attention to the explosions coming from inside the buildings, which is what brings them down, *before* the buildings collapse ... You can see the explosions as well as hear them ...
> 
> Implosionworld Explosive Demolition Compilation 2003 - YouTube
> 
> ...



You must know you are preaching to the choir. Norms understand the silliness of the CT's claims. CTs refuse any explanation which does not conform to their particular CT.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 8, 2013)

Faun said:


> Check out what a *real* controlled demolition looks *and sounds* like ... Pay close attention to the explosions coming from inside the buildings, which is what brings them down, *before* the buildings collapse ... You can see the explosions as well as hear them ...
> 
> Implosionworld Explosive Demolition Compilation 2003 - YouTube
> 
> ...




then we agree the wtc buildings were demolished


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM"]World Trade Center on 9/11 - Sounds of Explosions - YouTube[/ame]

*what a NOOB






happy landing
*


----------



## Faun (Nov 8, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Check out what a *real* controlled demolition looks *and sounds* like ... Pay close attention to the explosions coming from inside the buildings, which is what brings them down, *before* the buildings collapse ... You can see the explosions as well as hear them ...
> ...


What a pity for your sanity that none of those explosions can be proven to come from WTC7. And still, we have video and audio from when WTC7 actually collapsed ...

 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN8d-Dy4Ut4]911FILES WTC 7 Collapse compilation...rare videos with audio.. - YouTube[/ame]

... No explosions seen ... No explosions heard.

None. Conclusive proof the building was not brought down in a controlled demolition.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 8, 2013)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




yup another retard post LMAO

The way is works is when you edit out the sound there is nothing, or if you edit yap mouth over the top there is yap mouth.

thats the way these things work.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 8, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...


more meaningless yammering.
any quotes I've made have been credited to the author unlike all the cherry picked shit you've posted.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 8, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Check out what a *real* controlled demolition looks *and sounds* like ... Pay close attention to the explosions coming from inside the buildings, which is what brings them down, *before* the buildings collapse ... You can see the explosions as well as hear them ...
> ...


no shit head "WE" don't.
you're attempting to spin the wtc 7 collapse as intentional when in reality it's collateral damage.
there was no loss of life or any irreplaceable objects or files or roswell pictures..


----------



## daws101 (Nov 8, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


once again you ignorance of filmmaking video and audio...  just shines .
there is no proof that those tapes were doctored..


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





> or any irreplaceable objects



Not true. NWO Kitty lost her favorite Bohemian Grove commemorative coffee cup.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 8, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


damn! I was trying to keep that under wraps!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 8, 2013)

two farts in a row from the agent trolls.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 8, 2013)

2 Answers 

For examples of where the laws of Newton are no longer sufficient to describe reality, see the wiki page here. But we don't have to go to extremes like near-c velocities or strong gravitational fields to see that there are some situations where the laws of Newton seem to fail.

Consider an airplane taking off. You can feel yourself being pushed back into your seat, so you are experiencing a force (that is not gravity). However, you remain at rest w.r.t. the coordinate system fixed to the airplane. So the first law of Newton seems to fail: we are at rest, so there is no acceleration and yet a force is exerted on us. When the airplane is traveling at a constant speed on a constant height, however, we feel no force (except for gravity) and the first law seems OK again.

A simpler example still is that of a carousel. When we stand on the carousel we are at rest w.r.t. a coordinate system fixed to the carousel, but we do experience a force trying to push us outward. This again seems to contradict the first law of Newton.

Note that both coordinate systems where the laws seemed to fail in these examples were systems that had a non-zero acceleration themselves. The conclusion is that Newton's laws only seem to work when considered in a non-accelerating reference frames, which we call inertial frames of reference. The forces we feel when we consider a non-inertial frame of reference are called fictitious forces (because they do not arise due to a physical interaction but due to the fact that the reference frame has a finite acceleration) and the wiki page on those has the same example of the carousel that I mentioned, only worked out in more detail (here).

Inertial frames of reference have to be carefully defined. Take, for example, the frame of reference fixed to a lab on earth. When considering most everyday motions, we can use this frame as a good approximation of an inertial frame, despite the fact that the earth is rotating and therefore giving the lab a finite acceleration. However, if we want to describe motions that are a direct consequence of this finite acceleration (such as the deviation to the east of falling objects), we need to find a better frame of reference.

A good question to ask is then: do inertial frames even exist? And the answer is: yes, at least in Newtonian dynamics. I believe this still holds in special relativity but things change when we go to general relativity, though I haven't had any courses on GR yet so I can't be 100% sure.

Newton's second laws are no longer a good approximation to reality for very small systems (like atoms) where quantum mechanical effects become significant, and for certain very large systems where the effects of general relativity become significant. They are no longer a good approximation for at least two reasons:

1.The mathematical model of the physical world in which every system is considered a system of particles that move along well-defined trajectories in three-dimensional space itself breaks down (like in quantum mechanics where the state of a system is described by a vector in a certain space called a Hilbert space).

2.The predictions of Newton's second law no longer hold to sufficient precision in some systems. A famous example is that Newton's law of gravitation coupled with Newton's laws incorrectly predicts the amount which the perihelion of Mercury processes.

newtonian mechanics - Are there any exceptions to Newton's laws? - Physics Stack Exchange


----------



## daws101 (Nov 8, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> two farts in a row from the agent trolls.


another insightful retort from handjob..


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 8, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



That's a failing structure? Because I've been checking on it over the last couple of days. It looks pretty stressed out man, but it's holding.

This is a failing structure....




....and just like the other failing structure I posted....




....in a race to ground it will not be the same fall time for the falling load as it will be for a similar weight dropped from the same height at the same time falling through air.

All I'm saying is that naturally failing load bearing structures, to one degree or another, will always prevent a load from falling as fast as a similar weight dropped from the same height at the same time falling through air, and that there are no known exceptions.

Obviously, any structural component can reach a point where it no longer offers any resistance to the load above it. It happens all the time, either because of overloading (above) or damage to the load bearing structural component (below).... but it can't go into free fall unless/until structural failure is complete (bifurcation), which takes time. Only after bifurcation occurs can the load go into free fall since, as long as any part the column continues to offer any resistance, some of the falling load's potential energy will continue to be used for the purpose of overcoming it, so not all of its potential energy will be converted into motion, which is the definition of free fall....

For gravitational acceleration, all the potential energy of a falling object due to gravity must be converted to motion. It's that damn Newton guy again!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> 2 Answers
> 
> For examples of where the laws of Newton are no longer sufficient to describe reality, see the wiki page here. But we don't have to go to extremes like near-c velocities or strong gravitational fields to see that there are some situations where the laws of Newton seem to fail.
> 
> ...





you believe the bank trust building is wtc7 too! LMAO

This has nothing to do with quantum guessing.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 8, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...




well his whole premise is a farce from the onset.   He shows his ricky retardo single column to represent this:







reality is a bitch


----------



## daws101 (Nov 8, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > 2 Answers
> ...


still dodging and still wrong.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




wrong application get a clue


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 8, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Obviously, any structural component can reach a point where it no longer offers any resistance to the load above it. It happens all the time, either because of overloading or damage to the load bearing structural component....



WOOHOO!!!

Your're starting to see the light moron! Good for you!



E.L.C. said:


> but it can't go into free fall unless/until structural failure is complete (bifurcation), which takes time.



So the time it takes for a structure to fail is dependent on how much of an increased load is applied to said structure AND how quickly said load is increased right?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 8, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> When the entire roofline started to descend, does that mean explosives were simultaneously set throughout the entire structure? I mean, the ENTIRE roofline across the building descended at the same time right?



Hey E.L.C.

Why do you keep avoiding the question above? You see, this it where it all ties together and you get proven wrong.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 8, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


there is no wrong application.shit for brains. besides that not the point. your buddy elc proclaims there are no exception to newtonian physics and no other physics were at work on 911.
I've proven those statements to be bullshit..
why AM I EXPLAINING THIS TO AN ASSHOLE WHO OBVIOUSLY HAS AN IQ IN THE TEENS.?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Why are you talking to it at all??

It's obvious that it's just another Twoofer playing the JAQing around game.

If you ignore it, maybe it will go away and JAQ around elsewhere.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



ok apply it then!

oh and show your work.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 8, 2013)

No one here has shown any substantial or compelling evidence/theory that would contradict David Chandler, or show any special exemption from physical principles.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 8, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> No one here has shown any substantial or compelling evidence/theory that would contradict David Chandler, or show any special exemption from physical principles.



I'll keep asking.

Why did the entire roofline of WTC7 start to descend?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 8, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> I'll keep asking.
> 
> Why did the entire roofline of WTC7 start to descend?



I'll keep asking.

why did the bear shit in the woods


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 8, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> No one here has shown any substantial or compelling evidence/theory that would contradict David Chandler, or show any special exemption from physical principles.



Explain this one thing. E.L.C.

David Chandlers graph shows a BREAK in freefall (inside the blue oval). How do you explain that?


----------



## daws101 (Nov 8, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


wrong again! it's your job to prove it wrong or right your the plaintiff


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 8, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > No one here has shown any substantial or compelling evidence/theory that would contradict David Chandler, or show any special exemption from physical principles.
> ...




*It shows 4 breaks, which one do you need explained, the slightly slower than freefall or the 3 that are slightly faster then freefall?*


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> 2 Answers
> 
> For examples of where the laws of Newton are no longer sufficient to describe reality, see the wiki page here. But we don't have to go to extremes like near-c velocities or strong gravitational fields to see that there are some situations where the laws of Newton seem to fail.
> 
> ...



*
so you claim that newtonian physics do not apply*




daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



*
then want me to prove it for you.
*


----------



## daws101 (Nov 8, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> No one here has shown any substantial or compelling evidence/theory that would contradict David Chandler, or show any special exemption from physical principles.


[ame=http://youtu.be/AzTGMQcXP1Q]South Tower Smoking Guns debunked Part1 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://youtu.be/f7GWYK5AMKY]South Tower Smoking Guns Debunked Part2 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Nov 8, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > 2 Answers
> ...


if you do it would be a first!


----------



## daws101 (Nov 8, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > I'll keep asking.
> ...


you don't know! thanks for admitting that!


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



That's why Koko is on ignore for me. Never adds anything to the discussion and clutters the thread with useless pictures. Makes viewing this thread MUCH easier.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




if you knew you wouldnt have to ask now would you.

you gamaclown rocksforbains and ratinsack are the 4 runnerups for top tard who will be the queen for today?


----------



## daws101 (Nov 8, 2013)

"so you claim that newtonian physics do not apply"-kokojo

the above is a false statement  BECAUSE THE PERSON QUOTED cannot tell the difference between a statement of fact and a claim.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 8, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...




nope koko is on ignore with you because koko makes mincemeat out of your ass and like a few others you damn well know it!


----------



## daws101 (Nov 8, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


another false statement...I never asked you to solve it. you said: "then want me to prove it for you."-kokojo
my reply: "if you do, it would be a first!"-daws

 making this statement absolutely true: you don't know! thanks for admitting that!"-daws


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...





quote it


----------



## daws101 (Nov 8, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


you have such a rich fantasy life!


----------



## daws101 (Nov 8, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


I already did..


----------



## daws101 (Nov 8, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > "so you claim that newtonian physics do not apply"-kokojo
> ...


wrong!  ye of the non working greymatter. 
my statement was :Newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day...daws 
that statement is self explanatory


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...





Yeh trougher tards are entertaining.

still cant validate not even ONE damn claim you made.  idiot


----------



## daws101 (Nov 8, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


wrong! every statement I posted is valid.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




and ELC so graciously ponted out that there were several other forms of physics at play as well, such as, dawsian physics, gamaclown physics, rockhead physics, and ratshit physics at play.

You tards are so fucking 





and a little slow too


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




liar


----------



## daws101 (Nov 8, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


wow not even original...
the owning is not...


----------



## daws101 (Nov 8, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


wrong! look for yourself ..but you won't


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 8, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...




you dont honestly expect a rational response do you?

all these fuckers are doing is trolling they have nothing what so ever of value to contribute to the thread.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 8, 2013)

> Today, 02:55 PM
> Remove user from ignore list
> KokomoJojo
> This message is hidden because KokomoJojo is on your ignore list.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 8, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> So the time it takes for a structure to fail is dependent on how much of an increased load is applied to said structure AND how quickly said load is increased right?



Hmm.... Well, WTC 7 collapsed (alledgedly) due to fire weakened structural components, so I don't know what this ever increasing load thing is you're talking about. Are you using dawsian physics? Because that would explain it all quite nicely.... The load would spontaneously increase for no apparent reason, and then, in view of the fact that only Nikola Tesla really knew what science is, matter would have no trouble falling through matter at gravitational acceleration.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 8, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > So the time it takes for a structure to fail is dependent on how much of an increased load is applied to said structure AND how quickly said load is increased right?
> ...



Baby steps E.L.C., baby steps...

Let's say I have square, 10 floor structure with a column at each corner and one column in the middle. If I weaken the middle column on the first floor with fire so it begins to fail like in my diagram and the floors begin to sag, what happens to the load on the four corner columns? Does it increase at all?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 8, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > So the time it takes for a structure to fail is dependent on how much of an increased load is applied to said structure AND how quickly said load is increased right?
> ...




agreed

Here we can see dawsian physics at work; spontaneously increasing load and matter falling through matter







historically it happened before!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 8, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Baby steps E.L.C., baby steps...
> 
> Let's say I have square, 10 floor structure with a column at each corner  and one column in the middle. If I weaken the middle column on the  first floor with fire so it begins to fail like in my diagram and the  floors begin to sag, what happens to the load on the four corner  columns? Does it increase at all?



which weakens faster the floor steel or the vertical core steel?

meantime show me which core column was damaged.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 8, 2013)

of course none of that is wtc7 which nist claims a column slipped off the plate which is impossible because it was designed to account for it.  NIST OOpsie!


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 8, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > No one here has shown any substantial or compelling evidence/theory that would contradict David Chandler, or show any special exemption from physical principles.
> ...



*Who cares about David Chandler?* His initial informal analysis was only an approximation looking at a Timex Watch or something, close enough to be an indicator (no cigars). 

That was later enhanced and refined by the NIST, which conducted a formal pixel by pixel analysis (using individual pixels as reference points), and the NIST says the building came down at free fall for 2.25 seconds (105 feet). Their analysis is the final word man (cigars all around boys, light'em up!).... You want to argue with the NIST? Sure pal, go ahead, let me know how that works out for you.







Forget Chandler, the NIST like really rules dude!

*Hey clown! When it comes to the
NIST, you just can't miss.... 
Don't be no free fall fool!!




*​


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


Edit out the sound???



There were plenty of clips in there with sound. In one, a reporter is interviewing a woman with a child when WTC7 came down.  There were no explosions. None whatsoever. None could be seen and none could be heard.

Hold fast to your delusions.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 9, 2013)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




yeh thats what you do when you want to tamper with the evidence.  Its criminal.  Its why this guy had to be eliminated.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LO5V2CJpzI#t=95]Barry Jennings - 9/11 Early Afternoon ABC7 Interview - YouTube[/ame]

he was not in wtc 1

he was not in wtc 2

Where do you think he was?

He is dead now, just like the 30 year demolition vet who publically stated 7 was without question an explosive demolition.

and there are videos that have the sound, damned if I am stoopid enough to post it.


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


Actually, no, it didn't. A portion of the roof collapsed into the building about 7 seconds before the rest of the roof fell in. Something which has never happened in a controlled demolition.

Go to the 7:20 mark in this video...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=38Vsv0eve_U


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 9, 2013)

Faun said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...




sure it has where did you get jewel if bullshit from?


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You spout nothing but delusions, meaning your self proclamation of victory is equally delusional.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 9, 2013)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




wow lots of blind accusations with zero validation.


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


There are no videos with sound where explosions can be heard coming from WTC7 when the building collapsed. That is because there were no explosions when the building collapsed. Even the video you just posted was from a man inside a stairwell when the south tower fell. Meaning he couldn't see where the explosion came from.

Seems you're under the delusion that WTC7 was the first controlled demolition where silent explosives were used.


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Are you that insane that you can't see thd left side of the roof cave in about 7 seconds before the rest of the roof collapse in the video I posted.

it's as clear as day. Go to the 7:20 mark in that video and you can't possibly miss it.


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


Umm, Fruitcake ... *your posts* are the validation.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 9, 2013)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




so what?

So what do you think is remotely significant about that?


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



You intimated part of the roof didn't collapse first. Are you now admitting you see it now?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 9, 2013)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I did? quote it.

WHats your point because the ventilators are irrelevant


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



Umm, Fruitcake, I understand you're batshit insane, bat don't you even know what your gibberish means? I posted a video showing a partial roof collapse and you called it, "bullshit."

Your nuttiness aside, there has never been a controlled demolition with no explosives where part of the roof collapsed before the rest of the roof.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 9, 2013)

Faun said:


> there has never been a controlled demolition with no explosives where part of the roof collapsed before the rest of the roof.




yeh ok we already know explosives were used so what?


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > there has never been a controlled demolition with no explosives where part of the roof collapsed before the rest of the roof.
> ...



Now you're flat out lying; the last refuge of a scoundrel. The reality is, you have absolutely no evidence that any explosives were used on WTC7.

And again, I posted a video with multiple shots of the WTC7 collapse, many with sound.

Not one showed an explosion prior to the building coming down; and not one with sound presented audio evidence of any explosions.

You remain with nothing to prove your claim.

Again, here's what real control demolitions sound and look like ... 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno]Implosionworld Explosive Demolition Compilation 2003 - YouTube[/ame]

Most obvious, are the massive explosions, both visual and auditory, which remain the hallmark of a controlled demolition. Not only are such explosions completely absent in the demise of WTC7, but even attempting to bring down such a massive building would have required far more explosives than the much smaller buildings brought down in the video I posted.


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > there has never been a controlled demolition with no explosives where part of the roof collapsed before the rest of the roof.
> ...



Furthermore -- there was absolutely nothing to be gained by bringing WTC7 down. So you also lack motive as well.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 9, 2013)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




sure there was you are just to fucking ignorant to have a clu! LMAO


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



What do your hallucinations inform you, was gained?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 9, 2013)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




well you fucked up again.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg#t=147[/ame]


you official story huggers must take double doses of stoopid pills every day to be that much of a asshelmet


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



How sad you're too delusional to understand that video offers zero evidence that a) the explosions came from WTC7 or b) any explosions from earlier in the day (long before the building came down) were the result of explosives used to bring the building down.

In the moments just before the building collapsed -- there were no explosions. None.

Even in the video with the reporter interviewing the woman with a child, which I referred to earlier, there is no sound of an explosion, though the voiceover falsely claims there is. He points to her looking back to the building and claims an explosion got her attention, when in fact, she is seen turning to the building *after* it started coming down. That is what caught her attention. *Don't forget, the roof collapsed about 7 seconds before the rest of the building -- that is what caught her attention.*

Not only that -- that same reported was *waiting* for the building to come down. Like many others that day, she was informed it was about to collapse -- it was just a matter of time ...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STOJz9qCQ1A]Reporter at WTC 7: "That is the building that is going to go down next!" - YouTube[/ame]

_"Brad, I can no longer hear you but I just want to reiterate for you if we can zoom in past me ... that building right there. The brown building, the tall one, is number seven World Trade Center. Heard several reports from several different officers now, that that is the building that is going to go down next. In fact, one officer told me, *they're just waiting for that to come down, at this point, there's no way it's going to be recovered and there's no way they can stabilize it.*" ~ Ashley Banfield, MSNBC News​_
But hey, look at the bright side, Fruitcake ... you're too insane to know when you've been proven wrong.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 9, 2013)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




video offers no evidence, for me but they are fact for you huh
nice one retard!  



all those boomee boom booms!  those are explosions

you should find something more productive to do than make a consistent ass out of yourself.

now that I seen your bold face lie its clear you are nothing more than a fucking troll


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



No, freak of nature, that was the sound of the building coming down.

Even the person who put that video together admits it, even though he likely doesn't realize it ...

He claims there were audible explosions which he demonstrates lasted about two seconds -- at which point, the reporter blurts out, "oh my G-d." This was about 4 seconds before she said, "this is it," which is when the entire building collapsed.

Do you get it, Fruitcake? I showed you a video where a portion of the roof collapsed into the building about 7 seconds before the building came down. The sounds heard in that video, weren't explosions -- it was the roof collapsing into the building.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 9, 2013)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




fuck off troll





http://www.usmessageboard.com/8124737-post219.html


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 9, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...



yes this is where we left off before the troll infestation jumped in.

I will bet you they ate to many stoopid pills to figure out that ALL demolitions if measure in the same way nist has, have this same curve.



​ 
I feel their pain that NIST agreed with freefall speed and they all made fools of themselves.

I have no fear they will "get it" even when told.


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



And yet, I'm still waiting for you to explain what was gained by bringing WTC7 down?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 9, 2013)

Faun said:


> And yet, I'm still waiting for you to explain what was gained by bringing WTC7 down?



The Illuminati knew that Americans wouldn't be mad enough to go to war after the Towers fell and 3,000 people were killed. So they had to demolish an empty, obscure building that was on on fire. Only after that event would America finally be pissed off and demand retaliatory action.


[/Twoofer mode]


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 9, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> The Illuminati knew that Americans wouldn't be mad enough to go to war after the Towers fell and 3,000 people were killed. So they had to demolish an empty, obscure building that was on on fire. Only after that event would America finally be pissed off and demand retaliatory action.
> 
> 
> [/Twoofer mode]




so you think the illuminatti blew the hell out of it huh?  Well nist admitted it freefell so you might be right, got a citation?


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > The Illuminati knew that Americans wouldn't be mad enough to go to war after the Towers fell and 3,000 people were killed. So they had to demolish an empty, obscure building that was on on fire. Only after that event would America finally be pissed off and demand retaliatory action.
> ...



He was mocking you Truthers, dumbfuck, since you won't answer the question.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 9, 2013)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...




I was mocking him trougher troll retard


----------



## Faun (Nov 9, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



Wrong ... you were avoiding the question ... which you're still doing.

What was gained by bringing that building down?


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 9, 2013)

What do you know? I found a way that a structural component can (un-naturally) fail that permits the load to fall at gravitational acceleration. Oops.... that damn Chandler guy beat me to it!










Can *anyone* come up with *any* natural failure modes that could *possibly* accomplish the *same thing*?


----------



## Rockland (Nov 9, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Can *anyone* come up with *any* natural failure modes that could accomplish the *same thing*?



Aren't you and your buddies in natural failure mode right now?


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 9, 2013)

Rockland said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Can *anyone* come up with *any* natural failure modes that could accomplish the *same thing*?
> ...



Me? I may be a nobody, but I'm nobodys buddy, buddy, and neither are any of my non-buddy nobody buddies. You see, Rockland, your trouble isn't with me, or any of my non-buddy nobody buddies.... 

*It's that damn Newton guy man!* It's all his fault! Now don't hold back or pull any punches, just let him have it.... *be a man* and show him who's boss! *C'mon, kick some ass dude*!  Here he is.... 

*You want a piece of me? 
Come get you some, sir!*


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 10, 2013)

Rockland said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Can *anyone* come up with *any* natural failure modes that could accomplish the *same thing*?
> ...




needless to say he cant, ELC these tards have been reduced to lies red herrings and strawmen so expect that from here on out


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 10, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Rockland said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...




they cant even fucking spell it!


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 10, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> What do you know? I found a way that a structural component can (un-naturally) fail that permits the load to fall at gravitational acceleration. Oops.... that damn Chandler guy beat me to it!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for posting these E.L.C.! You getting closer to proving my point. Here's something for you to think about. Starting with the BEGINNING of the collapse, which above picture represents the TOTAL collapse of WTC7?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 10, 2013)

Faun said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...



I understand that. What these numbnuts are focusing on is one part of the graph. The middle part. That ENTIRE graph represents the descent of the roofline.

What I want E.L.C. to answer is what initiated the descent of the ENTIRE roofline. The canned trigger answer is simultaneous explosives going off blowing ALL the columns.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 10, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> What do you know? I found a way that a structural component can (un-naturally) fail that permits the load to fall at gravitational acceleration. Oops.... that damn Chandler guy beat me to it!



Hmmm. Which picture above resembles this graph?




Starting to see your problem yet  E.L.C.?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 10, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > What do you know? I found a way that a structural component can (un-naturally) fail that permits the load to fall at gravitational acceleration. Oops.... that damn Chandler guy beat me to it!
> ...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 10, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > You've already set the parameters!
> ...




well his whole premise is a farce from the onset.   He shows his ricky retardo single column to represent this:







reality is a bitch







gamoron, see if you can figure out why your single column representation is so tarded.

good luck!


----------



## Faun (Nov 10, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



It's clearly not from setting off explosives in a controlled demolition since we can see a big chunk of the roof cave in 7 seconds ahead of the rest of the building. That's not how controlled demolitions work.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 10, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > there has never been a controlled demolition with no explosives where part of the roof collapsed before the rest of the roof.
> ...


bullshit! there is no evidence of explosive use...no physical, forensic, video or audio!
please present any actual evidence ....you've completely failed at that so far!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 10, 2013)

Faun said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




the only thing that is perfectly clear and you continue to prove is that you are a total nutcase tard.

by tard standards this is not a demolition either!  






only someone with no demolition knowledge what so ever would say something so ignorant.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You mean there is no evidence that CRIMINAL NIST is willing to officially acknowledge.

It took a lowly high school teacher to get the EXPERT AUTHORITY NIST to acknowledge and admit freefall.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 10, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


again that's a spot on description of your total lack of knowledge IN GENERAL!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




another *no content* tard claim that the tard cant explain


----------



## daws101 (Nov 10, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


MORE BULLSHIT DODGING..
your claim is not valid, lying about what nist did or did not release is not germain..
what is, is you total fucking inability to present anything but  bogus specious speculation. 
also your high school teachers finding have been refuted...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




here we go another tard wants it both ways!  

idiot you cant claim nist is right and wrong at the same time, not that you are talented enough to figure that out.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 10, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


another fine example of your ignorance ..
it's not a claim ,it a statement of fact, you have freely demonstrated it's factual basis with your antics.
even easier it's self explanatory!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




LOL

what is? do you even know?

No you dont!

You dont even know which building is building 7 for fuck sake.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 10, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


wrong again shit for brains nists investigation was full of right and wrong answers so yes, I can state that that nist was right and wrong at the same time.
you ass always are attempting to spin the investigation to make it seem like a criminal act.
 you have no evidence for (now read this carefully) YOUR claim!


----------



## daws101 (Nov 10, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


more proof of your ignorance!
as to the wtc7 fantasy you're having it's wrong too.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 10, 2013)

so barry jennings was shiting out of his mouth?

if this is true:" anybody can get in front of a camera and shit out of their mouth,"-kokojo 

then logically barry jennings was lying..!
gotcha!


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Nov 10, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> only someone with no demolition knowledge what so ever would say something so ignorant.



Do you have video of any controlled demolitions which were immediately proceeded by 6 hours of intense fires throughout the building and had evidence of major structural damage occurring within those previous 6 hours?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




and only a retard like you would apply to the same issue.

keep digging tard!




daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




suffice to say you are clueless and dont know!  LMAO




daws101 said:


> so barry jennings was shiting out of his mouth?
> 
> if this is true:" anybody can get in front of a camera and shit out of their mouth,"-kokojo
> 
> ...




then the only llogical conclusion is that you are completely full of shit

but we already knew that.

////compacted the tards drivel into one post


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 10, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > What do you know? I found a way that a structural component can (un-naturally) fail that permits the load to fall at gravitational acceleration. Oops.... that damn Chandler guy beat me to it!
> ...



How 'bout it E.L.C.?

No answer?


----------



## daws101 (Nov 10, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


another dodge! proving you can't prove any of you claims ..
love the royal we....appealing to a nonexistent authority ....


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Nov 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> so barry jennings was shiting out of his mouth?



Well, I have never heard of a controlled demolition that took 5 hours to take down a building from the initial explosions....   So if this was a controlled demolition and unless someone can point to such a long interval in controlled demolition explosions, Barry must have been "shitting out of his mouth".


----------



## daws101 (Nov 10, 2013)

legaleagle_45 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > so barry jennings was shiting out of his mouth?
> ...


notice kokjo has pulled up his skirts and run away on that one!


----------



## daws101 (Nov 10, 2013)

and only a retard like you would apply to the same issue.

keep digging tard!



LOL

what is? do you even know?

No you dont!

You dont even know which building is building 7 for fuck sake.
more proof of your ignorance!

suffice to say you are clueless and dont know! LMAO


Quote: Originally Posted by daws101 View Post
so barry jennings was shiting out of his mouth?

if this is true:" anybody can get in front of a camera and shit out of their mouth,"-kokojo 

then logically barry jennings was lying..!
gotcha!

then the only llogical conclusion is that you are completely full of shit

but we already knew that.

////compacted the tards drivel into one post


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




not my problem you dont understand the versatile nature of demolition.




daws101 said:


> ///deleted


whatever that psychotic shit mess was supposed to be.


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Nov 10, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> not my problem you dont understand the versatile nature of demolition.



So you can identify a controlled demolition wherein the initial explosions began 5 hours prior to the building collapsing?

Link please


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




no its point on!

again you prove you are a tard.

Gotts give you credit for being good at something.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 10, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > legaleagle_45 said:
> ...


two nebulous  dodges in one post!


----------



## daws101 (Nov 10, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


yeah it points up that you make false claims and false declarations..
it also proves you're a bigot, your constant use of the word tard.. is more than enough to make that clear to anyone reading this thread..


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




your issues were addressed long time ago, sorry you do not like the answer.

NIST AGREED TO FREEFALL


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




nope there is no requirement for me to teach kindergarten to debators who dont even know which building is wtc 7.  its not the bank trust.





otherwise you are doing fine, come back in 50 years.


----------



## Faun (Nov 10, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


 It's no one's problem but yours that you are too fucking stoopid to know that controlled demolitions don't bring down portions of a roof before bringing down the rest of the building, which is how WTC7 came down. Then factor in there were no explosions, seen or heard, preceding the collapse, and all you have left are your delusions.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 10, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Nov 10, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> your issues were addressed long time ago, sorry you do not like the answer.



So you previously addressed the issue of a controlled demolition taking 5 hours to complete from the time the initial explosions occurred?

Link please

Also I would like to see any video which you may have which portrays a controlled demolition which was immediately proceeded by 6 hours of intense fires and structural damage.  Thanks in advance


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 10, 2013)

legaleagle_45 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > not my problem you dont understand the versatile nature of demolition.
> ...




no mainstream demolition company [gets its revenue from government demolitions] is going to humor a retard, and only a criminal would need to mask one explosion under another over that period of time, so if you want to supply, the building, pull the permits, I will give you a discount, for 1000 bucks per hour labor you can have a live demonstration, min charge 1 day labor, 8 hours per day, 2x overtime plus materials plus airfare hotel and meals. 


You can bring your recording equipment and have full rights to the event.


So if you want proof for tards I will be happy to oblige you.

How long would you like this demolition to take?  Hours? Day?  2 days? week?

if you want to add fire make sure the building is rural and you get all appropriate permits.

for an extra 5000 you can see a detcordless demo.

if you are on a budget you may wish to choose a small building.

its your money!

here is one that lasted a week


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Nov 10, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> no demolition company is going to humor a retard, and only a criminal would need to mask one explosion under another over that period of time,



So, to make a long story short, you have no other examples in the history of the universe wherein a controlled demolition took in excess of 5 hours to accomplish from the beginning of the initial explosions.  Nor do you have any videos of a controlled demolition being preceded by 6 hours of intense fires and structural damage.

It seems your claim relies upon the explanation of the explosions and the fires and the structural damage being part of the criminal conspiracy to cover up the latter controlled demolition? 

Have you ever considered that the "cover up explosions" and "cover up fires" and "cover up structural damage" could possibly impact the capacity to carry out the controlled demolition?   That no criminal conspiracy of this magnitude would risk such circumstance which might prevent the demolition from succeeding because then there would be clear and unequivocal evidence of the scheme?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 10, 2013)

legaleagle_45 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > no demolition company is going to humor a retard, and only a criminal would need to mask one explosion under another over that period of time,
> ...



_Nor do you have any videos of a controlled demolition being preceded by 6 hours of intense fires and structural damage._
*
meaingless supposition.
I already posted videos of a demolition preceded by fires, do you have proof there is no way to do it with existing materials*

_*you have the opportunity to make and see history, if you turn it down that is not my problem,  I just posted a 1 week delayed demolition.*
_*
show me in history where *"_the "cover up explosions" and "cover up fires" and "cover up  structural damage" could possibly impact the capacity to carry out the  controlled demolition_"
*link please*

_That no criminal conspiracy of this magnitude would risk such  circumstance which might prevent the demolition from succeeding because  then there would be clear and unequivocal evidence of the scheme?_

*so who else was involved in it with you to make those risk determinations?*

_It seems your claim relies upon the explanation of the explosions and  the fires and the structural damage being part of the criminal  conspiracy to cover up the latter controlled demolition? 
_
*since nist felt the necessity to falsify the data um... let me think.... yeh*


----------



## Faun (Nov 10, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


Translation: no such evidence exists, therefore, no such links will be provided. In lieu of evidence which doesn't exist, kookoo will instead post his usual delusional nonsense hoping no one will notice he's completely batshit insane.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 10, 2013)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > legaleagle_45 said:
> ...




translation no one caters to tards, but when the money is right I WILL! LMAO

You want answers for your tard questions *pay for them*.

just think you will go down in history and can put it on youtube!

you have the pricing schedule


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 10, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



The focus is on the period of free fall, you clown. You can look at the period of free fall by it self.... 




As one of three Stages....




Or you can look at it as one of eight Stages for all I care....










Nothing, not three Stages, not eight Stages, not even a thousand Stages will change the conditions required for gravitational acceleration to occur during that 2.25 seconds. The rule is simple. For gravitational acceleration, it says.... 

*There can be nothing below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance. If there is anything below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance, then not all of the potential energy of the object would be converted to motion and so would not be found falling at gravitional acceleration. There's no exception to that rule, those are the conditions that must exist for gravitational acceleration to occur for the entirety of the duration of the time it occurs.*

It doesn't say anything about exceptions to the rule because of any dumb ass "Stages" added on before and/or after the period of free fall making any difference.  

I could see the building going into free fall for a few feet. If that were the case no one would even have noticed and we wouldn't be talking about it.... But how the hell do any "Stages" explain how it could fall symmetrically for over *100 fucking feet* as if through air with so much mass in the intervening space?


----------



## Faun (Nov 10, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


How funny is it that you delude yourself into believing anybody would pay you for anything. Did you really think the forum needed more evidence that you're batshit insane? Hell,  I'm still waiting for you to post the first shred of evidence that you're not completely nuts. Unfortunately, you never produce any even though you are repeatedly asked fir proof your delusions are real.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 10, 2013)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




so you demand answers then turn right around and refuse them, that is a special sort of fucked in the head.  at least you are consistent.

but then we already knew that about you.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 10, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



*Alright I've heard enough Mr. Gamoclown and I'm TELLING you it CAN'T do 
that.... IT'S AGAINST THE LAW ! Are you listening to me ? It doesn't make 
ANY SENSE ! Now put on your listening ears and STOP BEING A SCHMUCK Mr Gamoclown.
If it doesn't MAKE SENSE it's NOT TRUE.... GOT IT ? That's all goodbye.




*​


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 10, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Rockland said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuQK6t2Esng]Not your buddy, guy! - YouTube[/ame]​


----------



## Faun (Nov 10, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



Who knows how you think you've owned anyone but yourself given your total lack of proof of any of your claims?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 11, 2013)

Faun said:


> Who knows how you think you've owned anyone but yourself given your total lack of proof of any of your claims?




only people with a qualified physics background so sorry that it rules pretty much everyone on this board out, especially you, except ELC and he has the patience of a saint trying to teach dishonest tards how to tie their shoes.  something I do not do since I like tards that operate on full stoopid.

carry on.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 11, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Hey jackass.

You debunked your own claim if you hadn't noticed.

The start point of stage one is where the roofline starts to descend. THAT is where you truther assholes claim all the simultaneous explosives were set off. 

Get it yet?

Since you say explosives removing columns equals zero resistance, then why did the roofline not immediately start to descend at freefall?

That's because the structure started to fail and then reached a point where it was so overloaded, it went into freefall. ZERO RESISTANCE due to structural overload.



Thanks for proving me right.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 11, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> I could see the building going into free fall for a few feet.





You could?

Did you just admit that a building could go into freefall due to a structural failure?!?!


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 11, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> The focus is on the period of free fall, you clown. You can look at the period of free fall by it self....



What is your explanation of what happened in the first 1.75 seconds? According to you and your fellow morons, all the explosives had to go off at the same time at zero of the graph to make the ENTIRE roofline come down. Since you seem to think that explosives removed all 8 floors worth of structure, why was the roofline not immediately in freefall? Did the remaining structure just hang in mid air like a Looney Tunes cartoon?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 11, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> That's all goodbye.



See ya chickenshit.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 11, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




Oh magoo you done it again!  



There is a point where even I take pity on those suffering from official tardation.





Not that it will help much for what I foresee coming your way.

You can thank me later.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 11, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > I could see the building going into free fall for a few feet.
> ...



the purpose of explosive demolition is to cause structural failure, didnt you know that?  

You want to play word charades now?





Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > *The focus is on the period of free fall, you clown.* You can look at the period of free fall by it self....
> ...



*it wasnt in freefall*, he is examining freefall not the day before or the day after.

I see your operating on full tard again today.


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Nov 11, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> meaingless supposition.



Incorrect.  My supposition is that you are assuming an event occurred that has in fact never occurred previously in the history of the universe.  If such an event has occurred then you should be able to present evidence of same, you refuse to do so without being paid and expect the casual reader to accept that as a reasonable response. Quite ludicrous actually because without any proof that such an event is possible, your theory about WTC is in fact "meaningless supposition"

I accept your concession of defeat and admission that you are unwilling to prove your claims.  



KokomoJojo said:


> I already posted videos of a demolition preceded by fires,



Please post it again, as I have not seen it.




KokomoJojo said:


> do you have proof there is no way to do it with existing materials



100% proof positive.  All you need due is pay me $100,000 and I will provide the proof --- and until you do so you can consider your argument to be disproven anyway since you are unwilling to put your money where your mouth is.



KokomoJojo said:


> I just posted a 1 week delayed demolition.



Now you are lying.  What you posted was a failed demolition which only brought down part of the building, requiring  a completely revised demolition of the structure... and because it was way too dangerous, the remainder of the demolition was conducted by a cranes and a wrecking ball.  They did not do a partial demolition, wait a week without doing anything, then push a button which set off the remaining explosives that were already in the building at the time of the original demolition attempt.  Far from supporting your position, it proves mine.  Exhibit A that proves:

1.) you can not have a single explosive demolition which takes 5 hours; and,
2.)  that you are a liar.



> Northaird Point was one of seven tower blocks on the Trowbridge Estate in Hackney, London. 21 storeys tall, it was known for its failed blowdown, which left the top 11 floors standing, so the rest of the building was demolished by a* wrecking ball*.



Northaird Point - UK Housing Wiki

Why did you find it necessary to lie about this event? 



KokomoJojo said:


> show me in history where [/B]"_the "cover up explosions" and "cover up fires" and "cover up  structural damage" could possibly impact the capacity to carry out the  controlled demolition_"



Now you  have the opportunity to make and see history.  By paying me $100,000 I will provide 100% irrefutable evidence that cover up fires and explosions would necessarily impact the capacity to carry out the  controlled demolition.  if you turn it down that is not my problem and it is proof positive that you are not only a liar but that you do not even believe your own claims.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 11, 2013)

legaleagle_45 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > meaingless supposition.
> ...









KokomoJojo said:


> meaingless supposition.



Incorrect.  My supposition is that you are assuming an event occurred  that has in fact never occurred previously in the history of the  universe.  If such an event has occurred then you should be able to  present evidence of same, you refuse to do so without being paid and  expect the casual reader to accept that as a reasonable response. Quite  ludicrous actually because without any proof that such an event is  possible, your theory about WTC is in fact "meaningless supposition"

I accept your concession of defeat and admission that you are unwilling to prove your claims.  

a nuclear explosion never occurred in history until the day it was made to occur.  

Those egglmacated in physics do not need a tard level demonstration to prove the grade school level fizix your tard question demands because for those educated in physics the proof is glowing in the dark obvious.  

I offered to give you a full demonstration that you have all rights to put up on youtube to answer your tard question.

Educating tards costs money.  Educating willfully negligent tards costs even more money.  

*You claim is parallel and paramount to "it is not possible for a nuclear explosion" ever to occur because it has never happened before in history. 

What excitingly comedic twisted fairytale tard logic!* 

Its good to see tards are operating on full tard now days.

*I accept your concession and note your willful negligence to educate yourself and perpetuate tardation.*




KokomoJojo said:


> I already posted videos of a demolition preceded by fires,



Please post it again, as I have not seen it.

go back a couple pages you shouldnt come in make absurd claims that were already disposed of only a few short posts ago.

100% proof positive.  All you need due is pay me $100,000 and I will  provide the proof --- and until you do so you can consider your argument  to be disproven anyway since you are unwilling to put your money where  your mouth is.

Lets not forget you are the tard who needs proof for the ridiculous that people with even a basic understanding of physics would not give a second thought, and if you want me to provide them to further your tard education just grab your wallet.

Now you are lying.  What you posted was a failed demolition 

Lying?  Now now now, at least pull your head out of your ass long enough grasp the concept that a failed demolition causes a very long delay, but in the end the building is demolished nonetheless. 

In fact what I said was "_*precisely*_" true and its not my fault that you dont like the facts and its not my fault that the facts mess up your little masterbation fantasy.  again

which only  brought down part of the building, requiring  a completely revised  demolition of the structure... and because it was way too dangerous, the  remainder of the demolition was conducted by a cranes and a wrecking  ball.  They did not do a partial demolition, wait a week without doing  anything, then push a button which set off the remaining explosives that  were already in the building at the time of the original demolition  attempt.  Far from supporting your position, it proves mine.  Exhibit A  that proves:

1.) you can not have a single explosive demolition which takes 5 hours; and,
2.)  that you are a liar.



> Northaird Point was one of seven tower blocks on the Trowbridge  Estate in Hackney, London. 21 storeys tall, it was known for its failed  blowdown, which left the top 11 floors standing, so the rest of the  building was demolished by a* wrecking ball*.


Northaird Point - UK Housing Wiki

Why did you find it necessary to lie about this event? 
*
 and the rest is irellevant grandstanding the demolition of the building was simply delayed as I said.

Only a die hard tard would demand a demonstration to show it can just as easily be planned, then set off the remaining charges a week later to finish the job.*



KokomoJojo said:


> show me in history where [/B]"_the "cover  up explosions" and "cover up fires" and "cover up  structural damage"  could possibly impact the capacity to carry out the  controlled  demolition_"



Now you  have the opportunity to make and see history.  By paying me  $100,000 I will provide 100% irrefutable evidence that cover up fires  and explosions would necessarily impact the capacity to carry out the   controlled demolition.  if you turn it down that is not my problem and  it is proof positive that you are not only a liar but that you do not  even believe your own claims.

but thats not true so I guess you have to go hungry again.


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Nov 11, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> a nuclear explosion never occurred in history until the day it was made to occur.  Those egglmacated in fizix do not need a tard level demonstration because the proof is glowing in the dark obvious.



Nuclear explosions have occurred from the beginning of the universe, and preceded mankind by billions of years...and  will continue to occur long after man is extinct. 

So, it is your assertion that the event you are claiming occurred, has never been accomplished previously in the history of the universe, and that this is the sole and unique instance of such occurrence, and that it has never been duplicated either before of since.  Is that your assertion? 



KokomoJojo said:


> I offered to give you a full demonstration that you have all rights to put up on youtube to answer your tard question.



And I offered to give you a full demonstration of my claims and that you have all rights to put up on youtube that  answers your tard questions.  Educating kookootards costs money. Educating willfully negligent kookootards costs even more money.  So please provide me with $100,000 and I will proceed to demolish all of your kookootard claims. 

However and noting your total unwillingness to put your money where your kookootard mouth is, I accept your concession by failing to agree to pay me $100,000 and note your willful negligence to educate yourself which failure perpetuates your  kookootardation by.  Lets not forget you are the kookootard who needs proof for the ridiculous proposition that fires and explosions preceding an explosive demolition would impact the success of an explosive demolition, which can safely and assuredly be accomplished 5 to 6 hours after intense fires and explosions occur in the building.. , and if you want me to provide proof of that obvious fact to further your kookootard education just grab your wallet and pay me $100,000.



KokomoJojo said:


> go back a couple pages you shouldnt come in make absurd claims that were already disposed of only a few short posts ago



You are a proven liar All you need do is repost it.  Obviously you can not.  



KokomoJojo said:


> Lying?



Yes, lying... Now now now, at least pull your head out of your kookootard ass long enough grasp the concept that a failed explosive demolition does not lead to a successful explosive demolition 5 hours latter with no one entering the structure to place additional explosive charges... does not happen and if you pay me $100,000 I will raise the level of your kookootardation from your current level  "megatard".  The fact is what I claimed was precisely true and you had to present lies and misrepresentations  in a vain and clumsy attempt to refute it  Here is the original assertion:



legaleagle_45 said:


> Well, I have never heard of a controlled demolition that took 5 hours to take down a building from the initial explosions....   So if this was a controlled demolition and *unless someone can point to such a long interval in controlled demolition explosions,* Barry must have been "shitting out of his mouth".


Emphasis supplied..

Proving beyond a shadow of a doubt you are a liar.

  LOL


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 11, 2013)

legaleagle_45 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > a nuclear explosion never occurred in history until the day it was made to occur.  Those egglmacated in fizix do not need a tard level demonstration because the proof is glowing in the dark obvious.
> ...








KokomoJojo said:


> a nuclear explosion never occurred in history until the day it was made  to occur.  Those egglmacated in fizix do not need a tard level  demonstration because the proof is glowing in the dark obvious.



Nuclear explosions have occurred from the beginning of the universe, and  preceded mankind by billions of years...and  will continue to occur  long after man is extinct. 

Oh so now that you look like a total fool all of a sudden you find a brain cell is that it!

So, it is your assertion that the event you are claiming occurred, has  never been accomplished previously in the history of the universe, and  that this is the sole and unique instance of such occurrence, and that  it has never been duplicated either before of since.  Is that your  assertion? 

Yeh I posted it.  The building demolition was completely controlled first by explosives later by wrecking ball.

So now you resort to willful stoopid despite the fact it has already been proven.

What?  Well then prove that nuclear explosions o


KokomoJojo said:


> I offered to give you a full demonstration  that you have all rights to put up on youtube to answer your tard  question.



And I offered to give you a full demonstration of my claims and that you  have all rights to put up on youtube that  answers your tard questions.   Educating kookootards costs money. Educating willfully negligent  kookootards costs even more money.  So please provide me with $100,000  and I will proceed to demolish all of your kookootard claims. 

I am not demanding anything of you and if I did it would be to educate a tard so you would wind up paying me because I certainly dont need it.  Your twisted logic is so entertaining though  LOL

However and noting your total unwillingness to put your money where your  kookootard mouth is, I accept your concession by failing to agree to  pay me $100,000 and note your willful negligence to educate yourself  which failure perpetuates your  kookootardation by.  Lets not forget you  are the kookootard who needs proof for the ridiculous proposition that  fires and explosions preceding an explosive demolition would impact the  success of an explosive demolition, which can safely and assuredly be  accomplished 5 to 6 hours after intense fires and explosions occur in  the building.. , and if you want me to provide proof of that obvious  fact to further your kookootard education just grab your wallet and pay  me $100,000.

Do you realize how incredibly stoopid you sound?  Do you have any idea what so ever?

BTW what is an "intense" fire?  Thats another one of the tards famous last drama words as their titanic hits the deck.



KokomoJojo said:


> go back a couple pages you shouldnt come in  make absurd claims that were already disposed of only a few short posts  ago



You are a proven liar All you need do is repost it.  Obviously you can not.  

I told you where to find it, if you want more open an account.  I accept paypal.



KokomoJojo said:


> Lying?



Yes, lying... Now now now, at least pull your head out of your  kookootard ass long enough grasp the concept that a failed explosive  demolition does not lead to a successful explosive demolition 5 hours  latter with no one entering the structure to place additional explosive  charges... does not happen and if you pay me $100,000 I will raise the  level of your kookootardation from your current level  "megatard".  The  fact is what I claimed was precisely true and you had to present lies  and misrepresentations  in a vain and clumsy attempt to refute it

FAIL!  LOL


is the building still there yes or no?
NO

well I know you are truly fucked but since the building is no longer there the ends match the means and here you are still tooting out your ass.

Again I told you and your tard friends that if you pull all the required permits I would put together a demolition to take place the very exact same way, that is how you demonstrate tard stoopidity to a tard.

Double your money back guarantee.  

Only a total asswipe could turn that down. 


*Oh and btw I have no evidence that it has never been done in history, apparently you do, so you dont mind proving that do you?  I should know better than to take anything a tard says at face value.*


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Nov 11, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Yeh I posted it.  The building demolition was completely controlled first by explosives later by wrecking ball.



Yeah you did and it supports my assertion, that a an explosive demolition would not be COMPLETED over such a long time frame.  It required physical intervention of a wrecking ball several days later to complete the task.....  so now that you look like a total fool all of a sudden do you now wish to now claim that WTC 7 was brought down by a wrecking ball and crane?  Perhaps an INVISIBLE  wrecking ball and crane?  LOL, what a kookootard.



KokomoJojo said:


> What?  Well then prove that nuclear explosions o



Be glad to, first pay me $100,000.  Put your money where your mouth is. and I will be more than happy  to educate a kookootard ... however I do recognize your total fear to look at the facts as they exist and which I would be willing, at a small cost, to prove beyond a shadow of doubt but you are to afraid of paying me because I certainly don't need it.  Your twisted logic is so entertaining though  LOL Do you realize how incredibly stoopid you sound?  Do you have any ideas what so ever?  



KokomoJojo said:


> BTW what is an "intense" fire?



This one... please pay attention.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U]WTC 7 fires and south side hole - YouTube[/ame]

Or perhaps you think the conspirators were in the building and set several campfires to roast marshmallows while they waited for the controlled demotion to occur?  Perhaps singing "koombaya" and lighting firecrackers to simulate the sound of explosions?



KokomoJojo said:


> go back a couple pages you



Not going to waste my time looking any further based upon the claims of a proven liar.
All you need do is repost it.  Obviously you can not.  Obviously you are desperately trying to divert attention from your continuous stream of lies and misrepresentations. 



KokomoJojo said:


> well I know you are truly fucked but since the building is no longer there the ends match the means and here you are still tooting out your ass.



You acknowledge that it was a failed explosive demolition followed days latter by a wrecking ball ... such concession established beyond a shadow of a doubt that a controlled explosive demolition can not be COMPLETED over an extended period without the physical intervention onto the site to complete the demolition.  In trying to disprove my assertion, you end up proving it, which further  establishes  that you are a megatard first class without an active brain cell in your kookootard noggin.   



KokomoJojo said:


> Again I told you and your tard friends that if you pull all the required permits I would put together a demolition to take place the very exact same way, that is how you demonstrate tard stoopidity to a tard.



Again I told your kookootard self if you paid me $100,000 I would demonstrate that it could not possibly occur as you claim thereby proving your megatard stoopidity beyond and question or doubt. Double your money back guarantee.   Only a total asswipe could turn that down.  But obviously, you are a total asswipe who does not even believe his own claims.



KokomoJojo said:


> Oh and btw I have no evidence that it has never been done in history, apparently you do, so you dont mind proving that do you?  I should know better than to take anything a tard says at face value.



No problem at all, merely pay me $100,000 first and all of your kookootard claims will be totally refuted. Double your money back guarantee. Only a total asswipe could turn that down.  But obviously, you are a total asswipe who does not even believe his own claims.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 11, 2013)

legaleagle_45 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Yeh I posted it.  The building demolition was completely controlled first by explosives later by wrecking ball.
> ...














KokomoJojo said:


> Yeh I posted it.  The building demolition was completely controlled first by explosives later by wrecking ball.



Yeah you did and it supports my assertion, that a an explosive  demolition would not be COMPLETED over such a long time frame.  

I gave you the opportunity to prove it would not if you did not want to take up my offer.  You decline to put up any proof and nothing that I put up supports your fantasy.  You seem to have the warped idea that a criminal demolition would be pulled off the same way a legitimate demolition would go down.  Death by firing squad and death by murder are 2 different animals, one by procedure the other any possible way it can be done.

It  required physical intervention of a wrecking ball several days later to  complete the task..... 

so now that you look like a total fool all of a  sudden do you now wish to now claim that WTC 7 was brought down by a  wrecking ball and crane?  Perhaps an INVISIBLE  wrecking ball and crane?   LOL, what a kookootard.

It could just as easily been done by not firing off the  remaining explosives, waiting a week a month a year then firing them off, once again you prove what a braindead tard you  really are.




KokomoJojo said:


> What?  Well then prove that nuclear explosions o



Be glad to, first pay me $100,000.  Put your money where your mouth is.  and I will be more than happy  to educate a kookootard ... however I do  recognize your total fear to look at the facts as they exist and which I  would be willing, at a small cost, to prove beyond a shadow of doubt  but you are to afraid of paying me because I certainly don't need it.   Your twisted logic is so entertaining though  LOL Do you realize how  incredibly stoopid you sound?  Do you have any ideas what so ever?  

you are the one making grandious assumptions as a result of your ignorance not me.*
more copy cat*.

This one... please pay attention.

Or perhaps you think the conspirators were in the building and set  several campfires to roast marshmallows while they waited for the  controlled demotion to occur?  Perhaps singing "koombaya" and lighting  firecrackers to simulate the sound of explosions?

Again I already posted the video where you could hear the explosions taking out wtc7.  That is not the one. Too lazy to read too bad. 

Not going to waste my time looking any further based upon the claims of a proven liar.

well dont lie then.

All you need do is repost it.  Obviously you can not.  Obviously you are  desperately trying to divert attention from your continuous stream of  lies and misrepresentations. 

If you bothered to read the previous posts I would not need to repost it.  so dance.

You acknowledge that it was a failed explosive demolition followed days  latter by a wrecking ball ... such concession established beyond a  shadow of a doubt that a controlled explosive demolition can not be  COMPLETED over an extended period without the physical intervention onto  the site to complete the demolition.  In trying to disprove my  assertion, you end up proving it, which further  establishes  that you  are a megatard first class without an active brain cell in your  kookootard noggin.   

Dumb ass a wrecking ball is used for a controlled demolition.



KokomoJojo said:


> Again I told you and your tard friends that if you pull all the required  permits I would put together a demolition to take place the very exact  same way, that is how you demonstrate tard stoopidity to a tard.



Again I told your kookootard self if you paid me $100,000 I would  demonstrate that it could not possibly occur as you claim thereby  proving your megatard stoopidity beyond and question or doubt. Double  your money back guarantee.   Only a total asswipe could turn that down.   But obviously, you are a total asswipe who does not even believe his  own claims.

You are the one making dumb assed unvalidated statements here, go figure out that fizix problem I posted and show everyone how smart you are by coming up with the correct answer like the high school kids did!  No one here has been able to do it but theink they are qualified to evaluate the wtc matters.  Tards always think they have a clue though even after they are owned the laughs are done and discarded in the garbage disposal.

*more copy cat.*




KokomoJojo said:


> Oh and btw I have no evidence that it has never been done in history,  apparently you do, so you dont mind proving that do you?  I should know  better than to take anything a tard says at face value.



No problem at all, merely pay me $100,000 first and all of your  kookootard claims will be totally refuted. Double your money back  guarantee. Only a total asswipe could turn that down.  But obviously,  you are a total asswipe who does not even believe his own  claims.


TARD!  I get all the tard lessons I need right here everytime one of you braindead idjits post something.  

*more copy cat.*






*
thats ok carry on*



Very good!

its entertaining


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Nov 11, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> I gave you the opportunity to prove it would not if you did not want to take up my offer.



Au contraire.  I gave you the opportunity to prove it and you did not take up my offer.  You decline to put up any proof and provide nothing to support your  fantasy.  You seem to have the warped idea that a criminal demolition could avoid the hazards of an intense fire consuming the entire building for at least 6 hours and a series of explosions which began at least 5-6  hours prior to the collapse.



KokomoJojo said:


> It could just as easily been done by not firing off the  remaining explosives, waiting a week a month a year then firing them off,



If you believe that the remaining wiring and explosives necessary to complete such a delayed explosive demolition would survive an intense fire and explosion  for 5-6 hours beforehand is even probable, you have just won the award as braindead kookootard of the century. LOL 

Or perhaps you believe an invisible wrecking ball and crane completed the demolition? 



KokomoJojo said:


> you are the one making grandious assumptions as a result of your ignorance not me.



Nope, you are the one making grandiose assumptions that, following an intense fire and explosions covering a period of  at least 5-6 hours, the previously planted explosives and wiring to set off such a delayed explosive demolition into action  would necessarily remain intact without being impacted to even a minute degree... not just that there might be a slight possibility of this occurring, but a degree of certainty so overwhelming , that a mass conspiracy would rely upon the ability to complete the demolition in spite of the risk of interference from such events which would lead inevitably to the revelation of the conspiracy. .  




KokomoJojo said:


> Again I already posted the video where you could hear the explosions taking out wtc7.



No you did not.  



KokomoJojo said:


> If you bothered to read the previous posts I would not need to repost it.



So you claim, but still are unwilling to repost it for some strange reason,  LOL



KokomoJojo said:


> Dumb ass a wrecking ball is used for a controlled demolition.



I said delayed explosive demolition, dumbass.



KokomoJojo said:


> You are the one making  dumb assed unvalidated statements here,




Just because you make a dumb assed unvalidated statement claiming I have made unvalidated statements is not proof of that, it is merely another one of your dumb assed unvalidated statements here.   



KokomoJojo said:


> I get all the tard lessons I need right here everytime one of you braindead idjits post something.



Yep, and you graduated with a PhD in megatardia.... which is the only thing you are capable of posting.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 11, 2013)

legaleagle_45 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > I gave you the opportunity to prove it would not if you did not want to take up my offer.
> ...



I did prove it.  You are not educated enough to understand it or you a nothing more than a fucking TROLL. 

you clearly fall into this catagory



> *Extreme irrationality of those who attack &#8220;CT's&#8221; is exposed by Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State Univ. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled &#8220;Dangerous Machinery: CTst as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion.*



at least you have plenty of socks for the winter.

NOT my problem in either case!


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Nov 11, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> I did prove it.  You are not educated enough to understand it or you a nothing more than a fucking TROLL.




No you did not, you are just not educated enough to understand why you did not prove a darn thing and in fact unwittingly disproved your central contention... or you are nothing more than a fuc#ing troll.




KokomoJojo said:


> you clearly fall into this catagory





> Clinical psychologist Dr. Dathan Paterno finds irony in such conspiracy research.
> 
> &#8220;Ultimately, these data raise more questions and only serve to breed cynicism &#8211; the primary ingredient of conspiracy theory. In the end, it seems that the conspiracy of conspiracy theories is really a conspiracy against the conspirators &#8230; or perhaps a conspiracy by those who would conspire against conspirators.&#8221;



LOL.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 11, 2013)

legaleagle_45 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > I did prove it.  You are not educated enough to understand it or you a nothing more than a fucking TROLL.







I dont waste my time explaining a color exists to a color blind fucktard.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 12, 2013)

So, just to remind everyone, I'm not a conspiracy guy and haven't said I believe anything one way or the other.  If I've said anything that gave that impression, I take it back. I'm just pointing things out and asking questions.

Personally, I couldn't care less about eyewitness reports of bombs going off, count downs, time travelling jihadists, melting plutonium, raging fires, UFO's, holographic government agents or any of the rest of it, and I'm not interested in explaining any of it either. The possible who, what and why of it isn't the focus of the topic. It's just the the how of it and Newtonian physical principles, that's all it is.... 

*For gravitational acceleration to occur, there can be nothing below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance. If there is anything below it (mass) that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance, then not all of the potential energy of the object would be converted to motion and so would not be found falling at gravitional acceleration. There's no exception to that rule, those are the conditions that must exist for gravitational acceleration to occur for the entirety of the duration of the time it occurs.*

Ultimately, both Shyam Sunder, of the NIST, and David Chandler, the Physics Teacher, agreed that free fall gravitational acceleration, just as described above, occurred for a period of 2.25 seconds, 8 stories/105 feet. I won't argue that since it would mean going up against *David and Goliath*_ (a little joke)._

David Chandler (illustration below left) says that an external force, namely explosives, would have to be introduced to remove the substantial mass/structural support occupying the intervening space between the falling portion of the building and the ground in order for free fall to occur in accordance with physical principles.... His theory (though repugnant for obvious reasons) is therefore complete as to the mechanism of operation and is consistent with both observations and physical principles. 

Shyam Sunder (illustration below right) says that free fall occurred despite the existence of substantial mass/structural support occupying the intervening space between the falling portion of the building and the ground, but that it was nevertheless consistent with physical principles (without elaboration). His theory therefore remains incomplete as to the mechanism of operation and is inconsistent with both observations and physical principles. 







What I find really interesting here is the blind support for the Sunder theory which remains incomplete and is inconsistent with both observations and physical principles, compared to the Chandler theory which is complete and is consistent with both observations and physical principles.

How the hell are nutty supporters of a theory that remains incomplete and is inconsistent with observations and physical principles demanding proof from supporters of a complete theory that is consistent with observations and physical principles? It's supposed to be the other way around isn't it? 

*It's not up to supporters of a complete, physically consistent theory to prove well known scientific principles and why they should apply, it's up to supporters of an incomplete, physically inconsistent theory to prove an exception to well known scientific principles and why they shouldn't apply.*


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 12, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> How the hell are nutty supporters of a theory that remains incomplete and is inconsistent with observations and physical principles demanding proof from supporters of a complete theory that is consistent with observations and physical principles? It's supposed to be the other way around isn't it?



So explain how you think Chandler's explanation fits what we saw that day. Explain stage one of the following graph.




The entire roofline started descending at zero (Time). This is where truthers say the supposed explosives went off simultaneously. Since you and every other truther thinks explosives going off equals zero resistance, please explain why, in stage one, freefall acceleration does not immediately begin?

This graph AGREES with the increased load, propagating to the remaining structure AND overloading it AFTER the interior of the structure failed. The first stage is when the remaining structure started to buckle. The next stage is the structure globally failing.

Your problem is that you have no clue about structures and structural engineering. Your arguing abour things you know nothing about.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 12, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


>



Your above animated gif does not match this graph.





It would be fine if the supposed explosives went off simultaneously at the beginning of stage two, but that's not the case is it?


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Nov 12, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> I dont waste my time explaining a color exists to a color blind fucktard.



Translation: 





> All I can do is cast doubt upon the conclusions of NIST but I am unable to formulate a persuasive alternatives because no one in their right mind would believe that a mass conspiracy would rely upon an explosive demolition occurring after 6 hours of continuous intense fires throughout the entire structure and 5 hours after explosions occurred in the building  so, in lieu of addressing that issue I will pretend that my disparagement of NIST is equivalent of proving that a controlled explosive demolition is the only possible way WTC 7 could come down.  Then, when some one brings up the fires and explosions I will pretend that a wrecking ball is equivalent to an explosive demolition, question whether fires occurred at all in WTC 7 and otherwise try desperately to hide the fact that my theory concerning how WTC 7 was brought down has been completely destroyed.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 12, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...




you dont need explosives for a controlled demolition.

got any more red herring bullshit arguments?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 12, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> So, just to remind everyone, I'm not a conspiracy guy and haven't said I believe anything one way or the other.  If I've said anything that gave that impression, I take it back. I'm just pointing things out and asking questions.
> 
> Personally, I couldn't care less about eyewitness reports of bombs going off, count downs, time travelling jihadists, melting plutonium, raging fires, UFO's, holographic government agents or any of the rest of it, and I'm not interested in explaining any of it either. The possible who, what and why of it isn't the focus of the topic. It's just the the how of it and Newtonian physical principles, that's all it is....
> 
> ...



Found a thread while searching for Shyam Sunder's quotes.

"Aemilius", you seem to be getting the same explanation over at the Science Chat Forum from a member there that I have been giving you, but don't want to accept it.

Using the graph below:




Stage one indicates a buckling structure and totally goes against Chandler's explosives gibberish. Why? Because you and he both claim that simultaneous explosives created zero mass below by removing columns. Unfortunately for you you and Chandler, stage one in the graph shows LESS THAN FREE FALL ACCELERATION. At 0 (zero in the Time axis) is when the entire roof line starts to descend.

Stage two shows the total failure of the buckling structure (shown in stage one) as the REMAINING structure (not the entire building, remember the east penthouse and columns beneath failed) at the lower floors was not able to carry the load of the structure above it. WTC7 steel frame was built and designed to function AS A WHOLE, not in parts. When a sections or component weakens or fails, it affects the integrity of the ENTIRE structure as the load, once supported by the weakened/failed components has to go somewhere. It doesn't just disappear.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 12, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > How the hell are nutty supporters of a theory that remains incomplete and is inconsistent with observations and physical principles demanding proof from supporters of a complete theory that is consistent with observations and physical principles? It's supposed to be the other way around isn't it?
> ...



but that is not the point is it.

*the point is that it freefell*

HENCE TRUTHERS ARE CORRECT

HENCE NIST HAD TO CORRECT THEIR FALSE DATA

*THANKS! 

For admitting it freefell!

For shooting your foot off.  






AGAIN!*


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 12, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > So, just to remind everyone, I'm not a conspiracy guy and haven't said I believe anything one way or the other.  If I've said anything that gave that impression, I take it back. I'm just pointing things out and asking questions.
> ...



What a fantasy!

No it does not.  

*You are engineering illiterate. *

*ALL demolitions cause a structure to buckle!  
more dead brain matter from you!*

*ALL DEMOLITIONS HAVE 3 STAGES! *

More of the same asstalk from you!
*





* More square pegs in round holes.

You assume any bullshit that you think will make your argument and shoot yourself in the foot over and over again!  Hilarious!

Machine gunning your foot now!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 12, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> So, just to remind everyone, I'm not a conspiracy guy and haven't said I believe anything one way or the other.  If I've said anything that gave that impression, I take it back. I'm just pointing things out and asking questions.
> 
> Personally, I couldn't care less about eyewitness reports of bombs going off, count downs, time travelling jihadists, melting plutonium, raging fires, UFO's, holographic government agents or any of the rest of it, and I'm not interested in explaining any of it either. The possible who, what and why of it isn't the focus of the topic. It's just the the how of it and Newtonian physical principles, that's all it is....
> 
> ...




yeh well NIST falsifies the data, and even though they corrected the freefall they did not correct the averaging of the event, and no more hearings were allowed on the matter.  

Chandler picked up better software and the computer did the analysis and found that there is no stage one, it goes directly to stage 2.





[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw"]WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III) - YouTube[/ame]  

*NIST used an averaging scheme that cannot be demonstrated using the roof line of the real building as the source as they claimed.*

They falsified data by using the time from their model and claiming that had to be the correct time, rather than the raw data as chandler did showing no first stage could be seen on the roof line.

NIST wants it both ways at the same time.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 12, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


yes and ? 
you still can't prove the cause of the 2.5 seconds of freefall.
so nist's confirmation only proves it happened..nothing else. you want fries with that.?


----------



## daws101 (Nov 12, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


another steaming pile of bullshit ....
the prep for the demo might have lasted a week but the actual CD only lasts a few seconds.

so as always you're making shit up
please post a link


----------



## daws101 (Nov 12, 2013)

legaleagle_45 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > no demolition company is going to humor a retard, and only a criminal would need to mask one explosion under another over that period of time,
> ...


bump!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




Unless you can dream up some *natural* way that the supporting mass can be completely removed to cause a freefall, its proof.  The NIST model did not freefall.  The data they used in the model is a secret!  Cannot be had by foia.

NIST said they could find no explosives which may be true because you do not need materials defined as high explosives to demolish a building.

However they are guilty of academic fraud and fraud and willful intent to deceive the people in doing so.

Its already been proven they reported false data and have not changed the record which is outside this discussion.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 12, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Who knows how you think you've owned anyone but yourself given your total lack of proof of any of your claims?
> ...


you are claiming to have a physics background!?
now that is funny...


----------



## daws101 (Nov 12, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



"your little masterbation fantasy." now you're plagiarizing


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 12, 2013)

gamolon said:


> e.l.c. said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



e.l.c.?


----------



## daws101 (Nov 12, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> So, just to remind everyone, I'm not a conspiracy guy and haven't said I believe anything one way or the other.  If I've said anything that gave that impression, I take it back. I'm just pointing things out and asking questions.
> 
> Personally, I couldn't care less about eyewitness reports of bombs going off, count downs, time travelling jihadists, melting plutonium, raging fires, UFO's, holographic government agents or any of the rest of it, and I'm not interested in explaining any of it either. The possible who, what and why of it isn't the focus of the topic. It's just the the how of it and Newtonian physical principles, that's all it is....
> 
> ...


"I'm just pointing things out and asking questions."-E.L.C.

the above is the oldest ploy in the twoofer universe...


----------



## daws101 (Nov 12, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...


really? you're whole fucking fairy tale is based on the use of explosives ...
what now? the judy wood dustification ray?!


----------



## daws101 (Nov 12, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


yes and ? 
you still can't prove the cause of the 2.5 seconds of freefall.
so nist's confirmation only proves it happened..nothing else. you want fries with that.?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




there is no NATURAL mechanism that can cause the roofline to remain predominantly flat during its descent.

NIST tried for 7 years, could not duplicate and even after all that had to tamper with the data and as a result refuse to release it to the public for public scrutiny.  






Its proven you need to seek medical help.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 12, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


 damage incurred by tons of debris and 7 hours of fire are not NATURAL mechanisms encountered by office buildings, so again you're talking out your ass.
as to you totally false assumption of tampering there is no actual evidence proving the erroneous speculation by troofers and no legal action has been taken..

Chandler actually proves to my satisfaction that for about 2.5 seconds, the top northwest corner accelerated at the same rate as gravity would accelerate it.

The problem is how Chandler then interprets this. He believes this can only be due to controlled demolition. He thinks that NIST covered up this period of freefall with deceptive language.

Nothing of the sort. NIST measured from the very beginning of the descent of the top northwest corner to where they both stop, at the height of the 29th floor. The time it took the building to fall is 40% slower than it would be if the building had accelerated at the rate of gravity for the entire time. There's no deception here. Math is math.

The building encountered significant resistance during this time, so much so that it could offset a period of 2.5 seconds where the corner was essentially in freefall.

And NIST's explanation does allow for this period of freefall. The western core (remaining after the eastern interior has collapsed) is yanking the perimeter down behind it, and since it begins to pull apart at the seventh floor, the core has to fall about that far before it encounters significant resistance from below. As soon as it does, the building slows again and begins to crush up.

At least, that's how this layman understands it.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 12, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> The entire roofline started descending at zero (Time). This is where truthers say the supposed explosives went off simultaneously. Since you and every other truther thinks explosives going off equals zero resistance, please explain why, in stage one, freefall acceleration does not immediately begin?



I just got done telling you I'm not a conspiracy guy, and that I don't believe anything one way or the other. I'm only pointing things out and asking questions. So here you go calling me a truther that believes this way or that way must be how it happened and then demanding explanations. You must have the attention span of a fucking cricket! 



Gamolon said:


> This graph AGREES with the increased load, propagating to the remaining structure AND overloading it AFTER the interior of the structure failed. The first stage is when the remaining structure started to buckle.



Well, look who's making assertions now about what must have happened and why. Looking at the video, I would only say with (limited) confidence that Stage 1 appears to correspond to the failure of the 24 interior columns, that's it. The rest of what you said there about  the graph agreeing with increased load, propagation of forces throughout the structure and intiation of buckling is pure speculation. Pretending to know all about what must have happened doesn't make it true.... clown. 



Gamolon said:


> The next stage is the structure globally failing.



I'll go along with that. That's the focus of the thread.... How could asymmetric fire damage (the NIST has already excluded structural damage as a contributing factor), leading to an asymmetric cascading internal structural failure, result in symmetrical free fall in Stage two for over a 100 feet as if through air?



Gamolon said:


> Your problem is that you have no clue about structures and structural engineering. Your arguing abour things you know nothing about.



Hello? Earth to Gamoclown.... I never said I was a structural engineer and I'm not arguing any particular theory. I said I'm just a pointing things out and asking questions.... What the fuck is it with you man?  



Gamolon said:


> Found a thread while searching for Shyam Sunder's quotes.
> 
> "Aemilius", you seem to be getting the same explanation over at the Science Chat Forum from a member there that I have been giving you, but don't want to accept it.



I haven't said anything different there than I have here. The member you're referring to tried to smack me around like you, claiming to be an engineer. I called him on it when he said he didn't understand what asymmetric damage/structural failure meant and he admitted he wasn't really an engineer. So.... What? You actually expected me to take him seriously? Anyone reading his posts would have trouble with his "version" of events.... except a clown maybe.



Gamolon said:


> Using the graph below:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here we go again with the claims bullshit and trying to lump me in with some group on one side or the other. I'm not advancing any particular theory, and I haven't made any claims. I'm just looking for a complete theory that best fits the observations and is consistent with physical principles.... clown.  



Gamolon said:


> Stage two shows the total failure of the buckling structure (shown in stage one) as the REMAINING structure (not the entire building, remember the east penthouse and columns beneath failed) at the lower floors was not able to carry the load of the structure above it. WTC7 steel frame was built and designed to function AS A WHOLE, not in parts. When a sections or component weakens or fails, it affects the integrity of the ENTIRE structure as the load, once supported by the weakened/failed components has to go somewhere. It doesn't just disappear.



Stage 2 shows a rate of descent consistent with gravitational acceleration for 8 stories, or over 100 feet.... and *that's all it shows*. It doesn't show buckling or anything else you said there.... clown.



Gamolon said:


> So explain how you think Chandler's explanation fits what we saw that day. Explain stage one of the following graph.



I'll illustrate how explosives might have done it, including a detonation sequence that fits the observations, and also a complete (pet) theory I have that's consistent with physical principles that shows how the observed free fall might have occurred without explosives that I haven't seen anywhere yet.... I'll produce the animations that describe them (probably this evening, but don't fucking rush me).


----------



## daws101 (Nov 12, 2013)

Acceleration Equations Formulas Calculator Displacement Give Average Velocity Time


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> "I'm just pointing things out and asking questions."-E.L.C.
> 
> the above is the oldest ploy in the twoofer universe...



In the Truther World of Woo, it's known as JAQing off. 


And they do it way too frequently.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 12, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> I just got done telling you I'm not a conspiracy guy, and that I don't believe anything one way or the other. I'm only pointing things out and asking questions. So here you go calling me a truther that believes this way or that way must be how it happened and then demanding explanations. You must have the attention span of a fucking cricket!



Really? Then why are you not questioning what Chandler is coming up with? All your debating is about how NIST is wrong. You keep pushing Chandler's garbage that there must have been explosives in the mix when there is NO PROOF whatsoever of explosives.



E.L.C. said:


> Well, look who's making assertions now about what must have happened and why. Looking at the video, I would only say with (limited) confidence that Stage 1 appears to correspond to the failure of the 24 interior columns, that's it.



Do you even know what stage 1 represents? It is the beginning of the descent of the ENTIRE roofline. AFTER the the east penthouse collapsed into the interior. So no, you are wrong about it being 24 interior columns. It was less than that. What about the transfer trusses at the lower portion of the structure? Know about those? Long floor span trusses?



E.L.C. said:


> The rest of what you said there about  the graph agreeing with increased load, propagation of forces throughout the structure and intiation of buckling is pure speculation. Pretending to know all about what must have happened doesn't make it true.... clown.



Listen fuckstick. My explanation agrees with Stage 1 and 2 of that graph. Chandler's explanation of explosives having to have been used is proven WRONG by that graph.



E.L.C. said:


> I'll go along with that. That's the focus of the thread.... How could asymmetric fire damage, leading to an asymmetric cascading internal structural failure, result in symmetrical free fall in Stage two for over a 100 feet as if through air?



Because a load does not sit in one area dumbass. If you fail some internal columns, as evident of the east penthouse collapsing inward, that load is now applied to the remaining structure. The WEAKENED structure. The remaining columns and facade are straining, as a whole, to stay erect.



E.L.C. said:


> Hello? Earth to Gamoclown.... I never said I was a structural engineer and I'm not arguing any particular theory. I said I'm just a pointing things out and asking questions.... What the fuck is it with you man?



Read my quote again. I never said you were a structural engineer. READING COMPREHENSION. I said you are arguing things you have no clue about. That much is blatantly obvious.



E.L.C. said:


> I haven't said anything different there than I have here. The member you're referring to tried to smack me around like you, claiming to be an engineer. I called him on it when he said he didn't understand what asymmetric damage/structural failure meant and he admitted he wasn't really an engineer. So.... What? You actually expected me to take him seriously? Anyone reading his posts would have trouble with his "version" of events.... except a clown maybe.



And you're NOT an engineer per your own admission. Do you expect me to take your questions regarding things of a structural nature seriously? Especially when it's explained to you and STILL don't get it?



E.L.C. said:


> Here we go again with the claims bullshit and trying to lump me in with some group on one side or the other. I'm not advancing any particular theory, and I haven't made any claims. I'm just looking for a complete theory that best fits the observations and is consistent with physical principles.... clown.



Not advancing any particular theory?! Show me where you've advanced any OTHER theory other than Chandler's.

Chandler's explanation is proven wrong by the graph. What an asshole you are! Let's try this again. Zero on the Time axis of Stage 1 is the ROOFLINE BEGINNING TO DESCEND. That 's when the explosives went off. Freefall acceleration should have begun right then and there. Not at Stage 2.



Gamolon said:


> Stage two shows the total failure of the buckling structure (shown in stage one) as the REMAINING structure (not the entire building, remember the east penthouse and columns beneath failed) at the lower floors was not able to carry the load of the structure above it. WTC7 steel frame was built and designed to function AS A WHOLE, not in parts. When a sections or component weakens or fails, it affects the integrity of the ENTIRE structure as the load, once supported by the weakened/failed components has to go somewhere. It doesn't just disappear.



Stage 2 shows a rate of descent consistent with gravitational acceleration for 8 stories, or over 100 feet.... and *that's all it shows*. It doesn't show buckling, explosives, or anything else you said there.... clown.[/quote]

And what does Stage 1 show moron?



E.L.C. said:


> I'll illustrate how explosives might have done it, and also a complete (pet) theory I have that's consistent with physical principles that shows how the observed free fall could occur without explosives that I haven't seen anywhere yet.... I'll produce animations that describe them (probably this evening).



Can't wait to see this crap...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 12, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Do you even know what stage 1 represents? It is the beginning of the descent of the ENTIRE roofline. AFTER the the east penthouse collapsed into the interior. So no, you are wrong about it being 24 interior columns. It was less than that. What about the transfer trusses at the lower portion of the structure? Know about those? Long floor span trusses?
> 
> Listen fuckstick. My explanation agrees with Stage 1 and 2 of that  graph. *Chandler's explanation of explosives having to have been used is  proven WRONG* by that graph.



Not wrong dumbass!

here is a known demolition, went down in 3 stages






Its crystal clear WTC7 was a demolition!





 


keep up the good work!


your looking good!








fucking dead brain armchair demolition expert.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 12, 2013)

Hey Gamoclown.... Stage 2 is the focus of the thread. 




No other Stages need to be considered because *nothing*, and *no number of "Stages"* leading up to or following Stage 2 can alter the conditions required (it's that damn Newton guy again!) for gravitational acceleration during that 2.25 seconds.... clown. So trying to muddy the water by endlessly bringing up other "Stages" to explain how the building went into free fall as if through fucking air is ridiculous.... just like you. It wouldn't matter if free fall occurred during Stage 1, 2, 3 or 602, it would be just as challenging to account for it.... ass eyes. 

This isn't some kind of "Three Card Monte" where you can just lead people around by the nose to the conclusion you like by endlessly confusing the issue with "stages" that have no impact on the rules that govern falling objects.






*Take that shit to the sidewalk outside WALMART!*



]


----------



## Faun (Nov 13, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Again I already posted the video where you could hear the explosions taking out wtc7.



What a pity you have to lie in order to maintain your charade. 

There is no such video containing any explosions which took out WTC7. That you claim there is, is nothing short of a bald-faced lie.

The video you posted timed the sounds they claimed were from explosions to the second.  The sounds they claimed were explosions *began* at almost 7 seconds prior to the building collapsing. But we know that it was at about 7 seconds prior to the entire building collapsing when catastrophic structural failure began with the east penthouse caving into the building.

It was at that point, the video claims, the sounds of a series of explosions *began*, lasting for 2 to 3 seconds. Meaning the sounds heard were not from explosives being intentionally detonated; but from the sound of a portion of the roof crashing through floor after floor.

The video *YOU posted* proves this conclusively. So for you to now post that the video captured the sounds of the explosions which took the building down is nothing short of a lie borne from desperation of a loser who has failed miserably to convince anyone he's anything other than a delusionsl psychopath.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 13, 2013)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Again I already posted the video where you could hear the explosions taking out wtc7.
> ...






​


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 13, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Hey Gamoclown.... Stage 2 is the focus of the thread.



I'll make this real easy for you moron.

At what point did the supposed simultaneous explosives go off in that graph to start the descent of the entire roofline? Your boy Chandler says it was explosives right?



E.L.C. said:


> David Chandler (illustration below left) says that an external force, namely explosives, would have to be introduced to remove the substantial mass/structural support occupying the intervening space between the falling portion of the building and the ground in order for free fall to occur in accordance with physical principles....



Why yes he did!


----------



## Faun (Nov 13, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


You know that does nothing to redeem you as the liar you have proven yourself to be, don't you? All it does is expose your lack of a defense to the complete and utter bullshit you're trying so hard to sell.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 13, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> explain how the building went into free fall as if through fucking air is ridiculous



Explain this then asshole.



E.L.C. said:


> I could see the building going into free fall for a few feet.



How? How could you see the building going into free fall for a few feet without explosives. There's mass below right?

Do you even remember what you post?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 13, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> No other Stages need to be considered because *nothing*, and *no number of "Stages"* leading up to or following Stage 2 can alter the conditions required (it's that damn Newton guy again!) for gravitational acceleration during that 2.25 seconds.... clown.



Sure it does you oaf.

The increased load on the remaining (remember the east penthouse with the columns and floors below it), weakened structure started the lower remaining, weakened structure to buckle. Hence stage one of the graph and the less than free fall acceleration descent of the ENTIRE ROOFLINE

At the beginning of stage 2, the load became too much for the lower, weakened, buckling structure to keep upright and failed completely resulting in free fall.

The fact that you don't get anything regarding structural engineering or loads is making you look stupid.

Now, as far as your assertion that Chandler is correct and explosives were used to create free fall, the graph proves him wrong. At the start of stage 1 is where the ENTIRE ROOFLINE begins do descend as a whole. That's where the supposed explosives went off.

Or are you suggesting the the ENTIRE BUILDING started to descend as a whole and after 1.75 seconds they then set of the simultaneous explosives? If that's the case, explain how the entire building started to descend as a whole.

I'll wait here while you run around in circles.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 13, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> I'll illustrate how explosives might have done it, including a detonation sequence that fits the observations, and also a complete (pet) theory I have that's consistent with physical principles that shows how the observed free fall might have occurred without explosives that I haven't seen anywhere yet.... I'll produce the animations that describe them (probably this evening, but don't fucking rush me).



Again, I can't WAIT for this!!!!

Over 12 years and NONE of the truthers (including engineers and architects) have dare come up with something to explain how explosives could have been used to match the physical properties of the WTC7 collapse.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 13, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> No other Stages need to be considered because *nothing*, and *no number of "Stages"* leading up to or following Stage 2 can alter the conditions required (it's that damn Newton guy again!) for gravitational acceleration during that 2.25 seconds.... clown.



Let's look at YOUR quote from another thread over at the Science Chat Forum.



			
				Aemilius said:
			
		

> ]Buckling and subsequent bifurcation of the column. This failure mode (as suggested by CanadysPeak) would likely result in a faster descent since the buckling of the column may actually remove a substantial percentage of the mass from beneath the falling portion of the building in the process of buckling, and fall time could be further shortened if at some point (as shown below) during the failure bifurcation of the column occurred. This would allow for some percentage of the fall time to consist of a period of actual free fall. It would, however, still leave in the intervening space beneath the falling portion of the building a substantial percentage of the (non-column) mass making up the building. Though a faster fall time may result from this form of structural failure, the rest of the intervening mass should not allow for free fall.... I think most would agree that if free fall occurred in the scenario (below) it wouldn't be consistent with physical principles.



Let's break that down shall we?

*STAGE 1 OF THE GRAPH*


			
				Aemilius said:
			
		

> Buckling and subsequent bifurcation of the column. This failure mode (as suggested by CanadysPeak) would likely result in a faster descent since the buckling of the column may actually remove a substantial percentage of the mass from beneath the falling portion of the building in the process of buckling,




*STAGE 2 OF THE GRAPH*


			
				Aemilius said:
			
		

> and fall time could be further shortened if at some point (as shown below) during the failure bifurcation of the column occurred. This would allow for some percentage of the fall time to consist of a period of actual free fall.




*STAGE 3 OF THE GRAPH*


			
				Aemilius said:
			
		

> It would, however, still leave in the intervening space beneath the falling portion of the building a substantial percentage of the (non-column) mass making up the building.








So you admit that a buckling column could indeed contain a period of free fall after bifurcation, but fail to apply this to a structure?! What the fuck man! This PROVES that your lack of knowledge regarding structures is in play here.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 13, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > No other Stages need to be considered because *nothing*, and *no number of "Stages"* leading up to or following Stage 2 can alter the conditions required (it's that damn Newton guy again!) for gravitational acceleration during that 2.25 seconds.... clown.
> ...



Either that or his lack of integrity.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 13, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > No other Stages need to be considered because *nothing*, and *no number of "Stages"*  leading up to or following Stage 2 can alter the conditions required  (it's that damn Newton guy again!) for gravitational acceleration during  that 2.25 seconds.... clown.
> ...





hey clownee first the purpose of explosives is to bifurcate columns and a bifurcated column (past tense) (_*which is what explosives [and other methods] just happen to do*_ aka *a mechanism* being necessary to cause a stage 2 event as seen) which causes no support capability what so ever you tard.

natural structural buckling cannot occur at freefall speeds *[AS NIST HAS PROVEN IN THEIR MODEL]* except in clownian dawsian faunian and insaynian TROLL physics. 

you are going around in your usual circles chasing your tail and have shown nothing that contradicts what ELC has stated. 

Since there is no legitimate point to be had from your argument I am ready to call TROLL


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 13, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > I'll illustrate how explosives might have done it, including a detonation sequence that fits the observations, and also a complete (pet) theory I have that's consistent with physical principles that shows how the observed free fall might have occurred without explosives that I haven't seen anywhere yet.... I'll produce the animations that describe them (probably this evening, but don't fucking rush me).
> ...




not to you of course, or your troll sacks, its pretty obvious it was not _*conventional*_ explosives and I suppose you fucking technology neanderthals plan on pounding a square peg in a round hole by interpreting the word explosives to your narrow neanderthal meaning to create a fictitious argument with no merit.

*How and what type of mechanism used is completely irrelevant, the FACT remains that a mechanism had to be used to obtain the recorded results.
*



















You are looking more like a fucking troll every post.

*Face it pal you had yo ass handed to you in the freefall argument, 
ELC (and newton) chewed you up and spit you out the exhaust long ago!

I bet you are praying that you can move on to the mechanism that caused the stage 2 event so you dont have listen to how fucked up your fizix is.


*


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 13, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Either that or his lack of integrity.



It's looking like both. If he can admit that bifurcation can possibly occur after buckling and produce a period of free fall, but not apply this thinking to a structure, he looks like a fool.

He claims he doesn't push one theory more than another, but he's going to explain his "pet theory using explosives". Yeah, he's NOT a truther...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 13, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...




*Hey ricky retardo, last time I checked buildings have more than one column dumb ass!   


*
*You are the one who is not applying anything to the "structure" one column ass twit not him!

*yeh tell us how it applies to the _*whole building*_!  NEVER FUCKING GONNA HAPPEN!







reality is a bitch


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 13, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> How could you see the building going into free fall for a few feet without explosives. There's mass below right?






So you agree then that it can only happen with some sort of mechanism like explosives for instance.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




damage incurred by  tons of debris and 7 hours of fire are not NATURAL mechanisms 

fire occurs in nature without the help of man hence it is a NATURAL mechanism retard

encountered by office buildings, so again you're talking out your ass.

Says the local asshelmet

as to you totally false assumption of tampering there is no actual  evidence proving the erroneous speculation by troofers and no legal  action has been taken.  

Legal action is not the next step.

*Chandler actually proves to my satisfaction that for about 2.5 ~(2.25) seconds,  the top northwest corner accelerated at the same rate as gravity would  accelerate it.*


The problem is how Chandler then interprets this. 

The same way NIST did

He believes this can  only be due to controlled demolition. He thinks that NIST covered up  this period of freefall with deceptive language.

NIST didnt cover it up, they presented it in a manner to create a false impression that only people who have extensive exposure to physics would see the deceit and that is fraud and yes it is a cause of action.   

Nothing of the sort. *NIST measured from the very beginning of the  descent of the top northwest corner to where they both stop, at the  height of the 29th floor.* 

*AND NIST IN THEIR CORRECTED VERSION AGREE WITH 2.25
*
The time it took the building to fall is 40%  slower than it would be if the building had accelerated at the rate of  gravity for the entire time. There's no deception here. Math is math.
*
They are referring to the lab model time not the real building.  
DRY LAB FRAUD*

The building encountered significant resistance during this time, so  much so that it could offset a period of 2.5 seconds where the corner  was essentially in freefall.
*
so you think the whole roof of the real building was not in freefall despite the fact NIST said it was?*





And NIST's explanation does allow for this period of freefall. The  western core (remaining after the eastern interior has collapsed) is  yanking the perimeter down behind it, and since it begins to pull apart  at the seventh floor, the core has to fall about that far before it  encounters significant resistance from below. As soon as it does, the  building slows again and begins to crush up.

So you think that a steel frame building can crush up do ya?  Cite it!

At least, that's how this layman understands it

very lay


----------



## daws101 (Nov 13, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Do you even know what stage 1 represents? It is the beginning of the descent of the ENTIRE roofline. AFTER the the east penthouse collapsed into the interior. So no, you are wrong about it being 24 interior columns. It was less than that. What about the transfer trusses at the lower portion of the structure? Know about those? Long floor span trusses?
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Nov 13, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


love it when you rationalize!
none of your replies answers the basic questions.

these two are classic rationalizations:damage incurred by tons of debris and 7 hours of fire are not NATURAL mechanisms 

rationalization #1: "fire occurs in nature without the help of man hence it is a NATURAL mechanism retard

encountered by office buildings, so again you're talking out your ass."-KOKO7

Says the local asshelmet-KOKO7

as to you totally false assumption of tampering there is no actual evidence proving the erroneous speculation by troofers and no legal action has been taken. 

"Legal action is not the next step."


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




providing arguments from NIST that contradict the unresearched shit mess you posted is in fact an answer despite your fantasizing it is not.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 13, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


funny because you provide no researched anything except for your pic and gif's.
you've provided no arguments from nist. 
what you have provided  is specious speculation from non credible sources...that you, in your complete fucking ignorance and  in the teens IQ wish were fact..
why is it in 12 years have you tin asshats have produced nothing that was not proven to be false?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 13, 2013)




----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 13, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


>






hows that workin out for ya?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




that is incontrovertibly proven since no one can refute it.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 13, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


only  in your delusions! .the only things you've proven incontrovertibly are your denial of fact , your complete fucking ignorance and specious speculation from non credible sources.
everything toofers have ever claimed has been refuted...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Bragging about yourself again.  You aint even half that.
TROLL


----------



## daws101 (Nov 13, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 13, 2013)




----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 13, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 13, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > How could you see the building going into free fall for a few feet without explosives. There's mass below right?
> ...



But fully 12 years after the attack no evidence has been found to support the explosives CT and none of the cast of thousands required to plant and cover-up a controlled demo has come forward.
The conclusion?
Clinging desperately to your CT may somehow satisfy you but illuminates just how sophomoric (or just batshit loony) you really are.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 14, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > I'll illustrate how explosives might have done it, including a detonation sequence that fits the observations, and also a complete (pet) theory I have that's consistent with physical principles that shows how the observed free fall might have occurred without explosives that I haven't seen anywhere yet.... I'll produce the animations that describe them (probably this evening, but don't fucking rush me).
> ...



Must be having a hard time matching the three stage graph and visual evidence with his "pet explosive theory"...

Still waiting...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 14, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...




from what he said in one of his initial posts, frankly I'd be surprised if he will suffer the level of tardation you and your trolls have demonstrated. 

He made his point and hand you your ass, cant change that now.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 14, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




*So you have the detailed explosive test reports, awesome!  cite it.*


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 14, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...



Makes me wonder how E.L.C. will explain the ENTIRE roofline dropping at the same time at the start of Stage 1 in the graph. What mechanism will he apply? Explosives maybe? But explosives would have created free fall at the onset of Stage 1, not at Stage 2. 

Or maybe E.L.C. is insinuating that explosives  on all 8 floors, on all columns, were simultaneously set off at the beginning of Stage 2 to start the free fall. But how does one explain the entire roofline/building coming down as a whole at the beginning of Stage 1?

What a conundrum for E.L.C.!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 14, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




Really?  I dont recall seeing the entire roofline dropping, just a kink in the middle, how much did it drop, got a clip?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 14, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > No other Stages need to be considered because *nothing*, and *no number of "Stages"* leading up to or following Stage 2 can alter the conditions required (it's that damn Newton guy again!) for gravitational acceleration during that 2.25 seconds.... clown.
> ...



Looks like E.L.C.'s description above matches the 3 stage graph AND visual evidence. No explosives needed!


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 14, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



I'm not the one promoting your CT, Princess. NIST carefully and fully examined the remains of those buildings and found no evidence of explosives, blast damage, or controlled demo activities. What studies do you have to support your theory?

FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation

8. Why didn&#8217;t NIST consider a &#8220;controlled demolition&#8221; hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation like it did for the &#8220;pancake theory&#8221; hypothesis?

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation that included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the WTC towers.

Some 200 technical experts&#8212;including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia&#8212;reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests, and created sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed according to the scenario detailed in the response to Question 6.

NIST&#8217;s findings do not support the &#8220;pancake theory&#8221; of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system&#8212;that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns&#8212;consisted of a grid of steel &#8220;trusses&#8221; integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

NIST&#8217;s findings also do not support the &#8220;controlled demolition&#8221; theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
&#8226;the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
&#8226;the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST or by the New York City Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department, or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation. 

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 14, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Either that or his lack of integrity.
> ...



I'm thinking he's a 15 yr old troll in desperate need of some attention. He has no answers but instead a wide array of snarky responses at his fingertips.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 14, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...




I do not see a list of explosives in there anywhere that they tested for do you?  

Nice of you to post a lot of worthless text


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 14, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




once again the entire roofline does not drop then stop then go into freefall, prove you and your supporters have no clue how to interpret and chart data and come to a correct conclusion.







someone is feeding us a bullshit story now arent you?







Why is it that you tards are wrong about every damn thing you post eh?

But I feel your pain!






nah not really LOL


----------



## daws101 (Nov 14, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


the power of delusion is strong with this bottom feeder
fun fact: even other truthers  think the no planers  are psycho...


----------



## daws101 (Nov 14, 2013)

[ame=http://youtu.be/_kSq663m0G8]9/11 Debunked: WTC 7's Collapse Explained - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> the power of delusion is strong with this bottom feeder
> fun fact: even other truthers  think the no planers  are psycho...



Hey Daws, could you do me a favor? If you have to quote 7's boyfriend KooKooBloJo, could you at least delete his infantile pictures? It's bad enough having my ignore feature defeated in the first place, but it's over the top seeing his garbage.

Thanks!!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 14, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > the power of delusion is strong with this bottom feeder
> ...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




That the best troll you can come up with?

So fucking predictable!





sux when ya get caught red handed lying thats 2 for you 1 for clownee

And rat is having such a bad hair day couldnt bear to see the cross of truth.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



That's the beauty of the "Truther" Movement. The proponents of the conflicting CTs recognize the silliness in any CT not of their own making but are blinded by their own "brilliance."


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 14, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



sux for troughers when they get busted in a bold faced lie huh.

The beauty is watching troughers go into full name calling damage control






They believe any fucking thing then their lives are shattered when the are faced with the truth.

But then they should pick a better religion to believe in and they wouldnt have that problem.






besides troughers look their best when their balls are in a vice!


----------



## daws101 (Nov 15, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > the power of delusion is strong with this bottom feeder
> ...


sorry, next time I will!


----------



## daws101 (Nov 15, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Nov 15, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Nov 15, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > DUMB ASS I AM NOT A NO PLANER I AM A PROVE THE PLANES, (AND EVERYTHING ELSE).
> ...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Nov 15, 2013)

so you think that a real plane can fly through a steel and concrete building and come out the other side with the nose intact. you are insane. 

If they are not fkae what are they?

The government wants me to believe they are real, prove it. 

show me clip of a plane that can fly through both sides of a steel building and come out with the nose intact.

Why would anyone care since the only thing that is important is that no flying apparatus could accomplish that feat except the pentagon lightpole mower.

all what eye witnesses?

what fake planes?


u said fake planes faked out witnesses, what fake planes and what witnesses? Oh hundreds and tousands and millions and billions and megastegasupergazillions of em! lol

produce the fake planes that faked these witnesses out and all those gazillions of witnesses.
the primary problem is why do all the videos have fake planes


First establish the plane existed.

See this is very very simple, the plane must first exist before any passengers can fly on it. 

Only an idiot would presume there was a plane before it is established as a fact.


I am claiming you have no proof planes existed TROLL

YOU POSTED NO BONAFIDE EVIDENCE PLANES EXISTED AND YOU WONT IT DOES NOT EXIST!


----------



## daws101 (Nov 15, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> edited do to unnecessary trolling




STILL CANT POST EVIDENCE!

HOW FUCKING HILARIOUS!

MORE OF YOUR SAME TROLLING


----------



## daws101 (Nov 15, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > edited do to unnecessary trolling
> ...


false accusation! evidence has been provided to you and you denied it's validity...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



NO BONAFIDE ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE POSTED MORE TROLLING


----------



## Faun (Nov 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> so you think that a real plane can fly through a steel and concrete building and come out the other side with the nose intact. you are insane.
> 
> If they are not fkae what are they?
> 
> ...



One of the more insane aspects of the Truther idiocy is that anyone would even bother to go through all the trouble of editing dozens upon dozens of videos ... editing live footage on at least half a dozen news networks ... supposedly plant destroyed airplane parts around the city ... invent four flight manifests and convince hundreds of families that their loved ones died in supposedly highjacked airplanes .... Psych out hundreds of thousands of people in NYC that day that they saw an airplane strike the WTC when no planes supposedly did ...

.... go through all this trouble, which if true, would completely unwind in a heartbeat if even one of those many who would have been involved decided to start blowing a whistle ...

.... all that (and probably more) ... when all they had to do was plant bombs in the buildings and accuse Al-Qaeda of another '93 WTC attack.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 15, 2013)

Faun said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > so you think that a real plane can fly through a steel and concrete building and come out the other side with the nose intact. you are insane.
> ...




aw what a naive little girl.  



everyone sent their videos into the government like good citizens so they could use them to hunt down the bad guys.

they are blowing the whistle but you have the tard brigade that attempt to block any serious discussion.

Most are terrified to say anything after seeing so many people die.

and they have no bonafide evidence and do anything rather than admit it.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 15, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Must be having a hard time matching the three stage graph and visual evidence with his "pet explosive theory"...
> ...




once again the entire roofline does not drop then stop then go into freefall, prove you and your supporters have no clue how to interpret and chart data and come to a correct conclusion.






someone is feeding us a bullshit story now arent you?







Why is it that you tards are wrong about every damn thing you post eh?

But I feel your pain!






nah not really LOL


----------



## daws101 (Nov 15, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


false accusation! evidence has been provided to you and you denied it's validity...


----------



## daws101 (Nov 15, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


bullshit! besides that does not account for the live broadcasts...
people did sent the footage to tv stations and much later to the fbi.
long after 9/11.
if you're claiming that was when the planes were added you have no proof that the men in black  altered them.
also another fact to highlight your willful ignorance. nobody sends originals (tapes, photos etc.. in for examination or use) only copies.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...






prove it TROLL


----------



## daws101 (Nov 15, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


 already did! and you denied it..


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




I am claiming you have no proof planes existed TROLL

YOU POSTED NO BONAFIDE EVIDENCE PLANES EXISTED AND YOU WONT IT DOES NOT EXIST!


----------



## Faun (Nov 15, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Then it should be real easy for you to post someone whose video was edited by the government who is screaming at the top of their lungs that they recorded the incident with no planes, but that planes were added into their video after they sent them to the government.

Psssst ... this is where you throw another hissy fit because we both know that no one ever lodged such a complaint.


----------



## Faun (Nov 15, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



We've been through this, Fruitcake ... eyewitness accounts are evidence. Dozens of video recordings are evidence. 

Oh, and by the way ... no matter how big you make your font, you're still nothing but a delusional idiot.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 19, 2013)

I wonder what's keeping E.L.C.? Must be having a hard time coming up with a viable "explosives" explanation that matches all the evidence INCLUDING the graph.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 19, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> I wonder what's keeping E.L.C.? Must be having a hard time coming up with a viable "explosives" explanation that matches all the evidence INCLUDING the graph.



ELC (and the other Troofers) are hiding until KooKooBloJo goes away. They don't want to be associated with it.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 19, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder what's keeping E.L.C.? Must be having a hard time coming up with a viable "explosives" explanation that matches all the evidence INCLUDING the graph.
> ...



I have another (conspiracy?) theory.
Having wearied of having their silly asses handed to them daily, this board's "serious" CTs needed a break but didn't want to abandon the board to the norms. When KooKoo appeared (or was sent) they all took the opportunity to get some much needed R&R.
They will return soon, pretending their silliness hasn't been totally and completely exposed and begin posting it all over again.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 19, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



At least E.L.C. tries. Koko is just a moron and will remain my ignore list. It makes it easier to read the thread when all his rants and gifs are hidden. He adds absolutely nothing to any thread.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 19, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...




at least?
he handed you your ass countless times and you are too fucking tarded to know it.
he is gone because of your tard ass.
he explained freefall to you page after page after page drawing picture a kindergartener can understand but nope not you, you are simply too fucking tarded and od'd on stupid pills.   I would be surprised if he ever comes back.

No one is obligated to teach anyone that is od'd on stoopid pills anything.

I wont I give high school kid reviewed tests so you can show everyone how ignorant you are when you FAIL to answer it.  He handed you your ass, as do I on a daily basis.






you and the rest of your tard club have no choice but to ignore me because you cant answer such laughably simple test questions but deem yourselves qualified to assess the WTC.

yo may as well get used to being owned



KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




no one has time or a desire to chase after your incessant strawman arguments

but we would gladly welcome you and your 3 stooges back into high school physics if you correctly answer this little test question.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 19, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


bump



1


----------



## daws101 (Nov 19, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 19, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Relax, Princess ... I won't put you on "ignore."
You make a fine pet.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 19, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




guess you should have been more careful.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 19, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


is that you playing the meat?
notice the dog won't touch it!


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 19, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > I have another (conspiracy?) theory.
> ...




at least?
he handed you your ass countless times and you are too fucking tarded to know it.
he is gone because of your tard ass.
he explained freefall to you page after page after page drawing picture a kindergartener can understand but nope not you, you are simply too fucking tarded and od'd on stupid pills.   I would be surprised if he ever comes back.

No one is obligated to teach anyone that is od'd on stoopid pills anything.

I wont I give high school kid reviewed tests so you can show everyone how ignorant you are when you FAIL to answer it.  He handed you your ass, as do I on a daily basis.







you and the rest of your tard club have no choice but to ignore me because you cant answer such laughably simple test questions but deem yourselves qualified to assess the WTC.

yo may as well get used to being owned



KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...




no one has time or a desire to chase after your incessant strawman arguments

but we would gladly welcome you and your 3 stooges back into high school physics if you correctly answer this little test question.






elc handed clowny his ass on a silver platter

bump


----------



## daws101 (Nov 20, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 20, 2013)

this thread is dead, elc handed the clown his ass times 50 and said he didnt have time to deal with retards and he left.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 20, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> this thread is dead, elc handed the clown his ass times 50 and said he didnt have time to deal with retards and he left.


if that's the case why the fuck are you still posting in it?......slow night in no planesville?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 21, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > this thread is dead, elc handed the clown his ass times 50 and said he didnt have time to deal with retards and he left.
> ...



Maybe he's stuck waiting in an airport for a plane that doesn't exist.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 21, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> this thread is dead, elc handed the clown his ass times 50 and said he didnt have time to deal with retards and he left.



Is that why E.L.C.'s profile says last activity was today at 2:53 AM?

What a coward.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 21, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > this thread is dead, elc handed the clown his ass times 50 and said he didnt have time to deal with retards and he left.
> ...



Virtually all CTs with even a minimum of self-respect - after all, how much can a CT have - eventually realize they have made fools of themselves and slither away.
KooKoo is a horse of a different color.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 21, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > this thread is dead, elc handed the clown his ass times 50 and said he didnt have time to deal with retards and he left.
> ...



I dont see any posts

So ELC is a coward because after handing you your ass 50 times he wont waste his time handing you your ass another 50 times.

Yup you are a fucking lunatic


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 21, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



Exactly!

He has the balls to login and see what's going on, but not the balls to post what he said he was going to post.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 21, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> once again the entire roofline does not drop then stop then go into freefall, prove you and your supporters have no clue how to interpret and chart data and come to a correct conclusion.



The graph is a representation of when the roofline descends. Both graphs show a slower than freefall descent in the very beginning.

How was that accomplished? How did the ENTIRE roofline start to descend? Was it explosives?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 21, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > once again the entire  roofline does not drop then stop then go into freefall, prove you and  your supporters have no clue how to interpret and chart data and come to  a correct conclusion.
> ...



dont invite me to your retard quagmire, ELC already explained it  umteen times to you and handed you your ass, face it you are too tarded  to get it.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 21, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


you don't see much of anything outside your delusions.....so what's your point ?


----------



## daws101 (Nov 21, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


the award for the most obvious dodge goes to....


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 21, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...





The graphs represent the downward descent of the roofline jackass. There IS no other explanation. That's what the data points represent in Chandler's graph. You're just to stupid to understand it.


----------



## Rockland (Nov 21, 2013)

Tags for this thread:

godzilla

how many suck puppets does 7-watt bulb need, anyway?

saturn being swallowed up by uranus


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 21, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




the clownee tard is running damage control to cover his ignorance about freefall once again, still have his balls firmly in the vice.  The joke is he still doesnt get it!


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 22, 2013)




----------



## daws101 (Nov 22, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



uniform gravitational field without air resistance[edit]
This is the "textbook" case of the vertical motion of an object falling a small distance close to the surface of a planet. It is a good approximation in air as long as the force of gravity on the object is much greater than the force of air resistance, or equivalently the object's velocity is always much less than the terminal velocity (see below).
Free-fall
v(t)=-gt+v_{0}\,
y(t)=-\frac{1}{2}gt^2+v_{0}t+y_0
where
v_{0}\, is the initial velocity (m/s).
v(t)\, is the vertical velocity with respect to time (m/s).
y_0\, is the initial altitude (m).
y(t)\, is the altitude with respect to time (m).
t\, is time elapsed (s).
g\, is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2 near the surface of the earth).
Uniform gravitational field with air resistance[edit]


Acceleration of a small meteoroid when entering the Earth's atmosphere at different initial velocities.
This case, which applies to skydivers, parachutists or any body of mass, m, and cross-sectional area, A, with Reynolds number well above the critical Reynolds number, so that the air resistance is proportional to the square of the fall velocity, v, has an equation of motion
m\frac{dv}{dt}=\frac{1}{2} \rho C_{\mathrm{D}} A v^2 - mg \, ,
where \rho is the air density and C_{\mathrm{D}} is the drag coefficient, assumed to be constant although in general it will depend on the Reynolds number.
Assuming an object falling from rest and no change in air density with altitude, the solution is:
v(t) = -v_{\infty} \tanh\left(\frac{gt}{v_\infty}\right),
where the terminal speed is given by
v_{\infty}=\sqrt{\frac{2mg}{\rho C_D A}} \, .
The object's speed versus time can be integrated over time to find the vertical position as a function of time:
y = y_0 - \frac{v_{\infty}^2}{g}  \ln \cosh\left(\frac{gt}{v_\infty}\right).
Using the figure of 450 metres to reach terminal speed, this equation implies a free-fall time to terminal velocity of around 12 seconds. However, when the air density cannot be assumed to be constant, such as for objects or skydivers falling from high altitude, the equation of motion becomes much more difficult to solve analytically and a numerical simulation of the motion is usually necessary. The figure shows the forces acting on meteoroids falling through the Earth's upper atmosphere. HALO jumps, including Joe Kittinger's and Felix Baumgartner's record jumps (see below), and the planned Le Grand Saut, also belong in this category.[2]
Inverse-square law gravitational field[edit]
It can be said that two objects in space orbiting each other in the absence of other forces are in free fall around each other, e.g. that the Moon or an artificial satellite "falls around" the Earth, or a planet "falls around" the Sun. Assuming spherical objects means that the equation of motion is governed by Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, with solutions to the gravitational two-body problem being elliptic orbits obeying Kepler's laws of planetary motion. This connection between falling objects close to the Earth and orbiting objects is best illustrated by the thought experiment Newton's cannonball.
The motion of two objects moving radially towards each other with no angular momentum can be considered a special case of an elliptical orbit of eccentricity e = 1 (radial elliptic trajectory). This allows one to compute the free-fall time for two point objects on a radial path. The solution of this equation of motion yields time as a function of separation:
t(y)= \sqrt{ \frac{ {y_0}^3 }{2\mu} } \left(\sqrt{\frac{y}{y_0}\left(1-\frac{y}{y_0}\right)} + \arccos{\sqrt{\frac{y}{y_0}}}
 \right)
where
t is the time after the start of the fall
y is the distance between the centers of the bodies
y0 is the initial value of y
&#956; = G(m1 + m2) is the standard gravitational parameter.
Substituting y=0 we get the free-fall time.
The separation as a function of time is given by the inverse of the equation. The inverse is represented exactly by the analytic power series:
 y( t ) = \sum_{n=1}^{ \infty }
\left[
 \lim_{ r \to 0 } \left(
  {\frac{ x^{ n }}{ n! }}
   \frac{\mathrm{d}^{\,n-1}}{\mathrm{ d } r ^{\,n-1}} \left[
    r^n \left( \frac{ 7 }{ 2 } (  \arcsin( \sqrt{ r } ) - \sqrt{ r - r^2 }  ) 
   \right)^{ - \frac{2}{3} n }
  \right] \right)
 \right]
Evaluating this yields:
y(t)=y_0 \left( x - \frac{1}{5} x^2 - \frac{3}{175}x^3 
 - \frac{23}{7875}x^4 - \frac{1894}{3931875}x^5 - \frac{3293}{21896875}x^6 - \frac{2418092}{62077640625}x^7 - \cdots \right) \ 
where
 x = \left[\frac{3}{2}  \left( \frac{\pi}{2}- t \sqrt{ \frac{2\mu}{ {y_0}^3 } }   \right)   \right]^{2/3} 
For details of these solutions see "From Moon-fall to solutions under inverse square laws" by Foong, S. K., in European Journal of Physics, v29, 987-1003 (2008) and "Radial motion of Two mutually attracting particles", by Mungan, C. E., in The Physics Teacher, v47, 502-507 (2009).

Free fall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 23, 2013)

Hah! Are you guys still at it? I knew there was something creepy about *these guys*.  I wouldn't bother KokomoJojo, if they could have provided an exception to free fall they would have by now. Coming up with an exception to the laws of physics governing falling bodies is right up there with perpetual motion.... it can't be done.

By the way boys.... 

*How's the Air Force treating you?*


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> uniform gravitational field without air resistance[edit]
> This is the "textbook" case of the vertical motion of an object falling a small distance close to the surface of a planet. It is a good approximation in air as long as the force of gravity on the object is much greater than the force of air resistance, or equivalently the object's velocity is always much less than the terminal velocity (see below).
> Free-fall
> v(t)=-gt+v_{0}\,
> ...



See what I mean? They're not really here to discuss anything. It's really more about.... 

*Deception Distraction and Denial​*


rightwinger already covered the pertinent formula for this scenario.... 



rightwinger said:


> F= M x a
> 
> All you need to know. Thanks Dr Newton



You see that?  It's not.... *F = M x a, except under certain rare unknown conditions which can sometimes result in a bunch of multi-ton steel columns and other stuff temporarily behaving like air....* 

*It's just F = M x a*​


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 23, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Hah! Are you guys still at it? I knew there was something creepy about *these guys*.  I wouldn't bother KokomoJojo, if they could have provided an exception to free fall they would have by now. Coming up with an exception to the laws of physics governing falling bodies is right up there with perpetual motion.... it can't be done.
> 
> By the way boys....
> 
> *How's the Air Force treating you?*




even after you handed clownee tard his freefall ass over 50 times he called you a coward because you didnt waste your time handing it to him yet 50 more.

apparently dork thinks copy pasting the whole wiki page will help clownee better than you, even though you already simplified it as much as possible complete with motion pictorials that clownee wasnt even able to grasp.

I am LMAO.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 23, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > uniform gravitational field without air resistance[edit]
> ...




Yep they try to invent something that appears plausible to anyone who does not have their physics down pat.

you can go on any debunker website and literally rip their asses to shreds not on one but every topic.  

I was surprised to see you back LOL


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 23, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Yep they try to invent something that appears plausible to anyone who does not have their physics down pat.



Yeah, and the explanations they invent have about the same chance of success as something like this....


----------



## daws101 (Nov 23, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Hah! Are you guys still at it? I knew there was something creepy about *these guys*.  I wouldn't bother KokomoJojo, if they could have provided an exception to free fall they would have by now. Coming up with an exception to the laws of physics governing falling bodies is right up there with perpetual motion.... it can't be done.
> 
> By the way boys....
> 
> *How's the Air Force treating you?*


another classic example of CTparanoia..
make the most improbable assumptions and accusations to dodge the gaping holes in the conspiracy theory!


----------



## daws101 (Nov 23, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > uniform gravitational field without air resistance[edit]
> ...


so the mathematical formula for freefall is a deception?
It couldn't be that you don't understand it,or could it! ?


----------



## daws101 (Nov 23, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Hah! Are you guys still at it? I knew there was something creepy about *these guys*.  I wouldn't bother KokomoJojo, if they could have provided an exception to free fall they would have by now. Coming up with an exception to the laws of physics governing falling bodies is right up there with perpetual motion.... it can't be done.
> 
> By the way boys....
> 
> *How's the Air Force treating you?*


 false patriots questions 911, now that what I call non bias and objective.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




now you did it you woke up the unrepentant lying troll










who promptly posts MORE of its regurgitated shit to derail the knock out punches you delivered to gamaclownee.  I thought candy cornho and clan would have banned from every board on the planet by now.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 23, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Hah! Are you guys still at it? I knew there was something creepy about *these guys*.  I wouldn't bother KokomoJojo, if they could have provided an exception to free fall they would have by now. Coming up with an exception to the laws of physics governing falling bodies is right up there with perpetual motion.... it can't be done.
> ...




so if you do not know what you are dealing with you may want to take a look.  totally *unrepentant liar*


----------



## Faun (Nov 23, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...



Too bad you're suck a kook. Still, there were no explosions in the moments prior to the collapse. None were seen and none were heard.

Here's what actual controlled demolitions look and sound like...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno]Implosionworld Explosive Demolition Compilation 2003 - YouTube[/ame]

Whether you comprehend it or not, doesn't matter ... but unlike WTC7, the explosions occur *before* the buildings fall.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 23, 2013)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




too bad you are such an ill informed uneducated loser, 

*here is a controlled demolition with NO EXPLOSIVES*





*
dont you look smart now!*




aside from the fact that several people said there were explosions,

and the US Iron curtain censors missed one clip but chandler found it where explosives could be heard, so you are once again either ill informed or simply trolling.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 23, 2013)

Gamolon  said:


> I wonder what's keeping E.L.C.? Must be having a hard time coming up with a viable "explosives" explanation that matches all the evidence INCLUDING the grapph.



No, I'm not having any trouble, no trouble at all. In fact, I'm really quite comfortable. I'm just an anonymous guy on the internet. I don't need to come up with any explanation and it probably wouldn't make any difference even if I did. I know you and your cohorts would all rather focus on me, it makes it much, much easier to avoid the astoundingly simple science involved. So, I'm just going to stick to that.... the *science*. We can talk about all my theories, faults, cowardice, misconceptions, bad hygiene, etc. later (I'll PM my ex-wifes phone number to you if you want, she knows all about it).

You see, Gamoclown, your problem is that a falling body only has a certain amount of gravitational potential energy. For a falling body to go into free fall, *none* of that gravitaional potential energy can be used to overcome any resistance or it will fall at a slower rate. It must *all* be converted to kinetic energy, or the energy of motion.

You can't get around the law of falling bodies, as Shyam Sunder attempted, by sandwiching one period of free fall between two other periods of non-free fall to get an extended fall time that corresponds to a foregone conclusion. I told you before, take that "Three Card Monte" shit out to the sidewalk in front of WALMART.... ass eyes.

So, it is you Gamoclown, as a brain damaged supporter of the "Official Account", along with your cohorts, that must do the explaining. It's easy.... to succeed in proving an exception to the law of falling bodies (damn it, it's that Newton guy again!) all you have to do is explain how a falling body could go into free fall in spite of having to use some of its gravitational potential energy to overcome resistance in the process. In this case, that means eight stories of a steel frame skyscraper. 

Please, if you think it will help, feel free to sprinkle your explanation with as many expletives and personal insults as you like.... Good luck!

*Free fall.... So simple a caveman can understand it.*


----------



## Faun (Nov 23, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



We've been through this, Kook. The "explosions" on that graph began *after* the roof began to cave in. The sound it picks up is the sound of the roof collapsing through the floors below it. That graph even proves it as the sound they picked up begins at precisely the same instant the roof fell into the building -- 7 seconds before the rest of the building collapsed.

But I do appreciate you providing the evidence which demonstrates how demented you are.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 24, 2013)

daws101 said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Hah! Are you guys still at it? I knew there was something creepy about *these guys*.  I wouldn't bother KokomoJojo, if they could have provided an exception to free fall they would have by now. Coming up with an exception to the laws of physics governing falling bodies is right up there with perpetual motion.... it can't be done.
> ...



Yeah, sure pal.... I suppose now you're going to claim "The Guardian" is just making all that up about *you guys*, is that it? Now who's acting like a paranoid conspiracy nut!

Anyway, like I said.... your problem isn't me or anyone else dodging anything. I'm just an anonymous internet guy, like you. Your real problem is that a falling body only has a certain amount of gravitational potential energy. For a falling body to go into free fall, none of that gravitational potential energy can be used to overcome any resistance or it will fall at a slower rate. That's the way it is.... *anytime it happens, anywhere it happens, and for as long as it's happens, there can be nothing below it, all the energy must be converted to kinetic energy, or the energy of motion.*

You can't get around the law of falling bodies, as Shyam Sunder attempted, by sandwiching one period of free fall between two other periods of non-free fall to get an extended fall time that corresponds to a foregone conclusion.... ass breath.

So, as an outspoken supporter of the "Official Account", along with your cohorts, it's you that must do the explaining. It's should be easy.... Right? To succeed in proving an exception to the law of falling bodies, all you have to do is explain how a falling body could go into free fall in spite of having to use some of its gravitational potential energy to overcome resistance in the process. 

In this case, that means eight fucking stories of a steel frame skyscraper you shit. I wonder why everyone continues to dance around that, that controlled demolition is the *only* scenario that matches observations, the evidence, and is consistent with physical principles....


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 24, 2013)

*Le Bump.... oui?*


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 24, 2013)

Faun said:


> We've been through this, Kook. The "explosions" on that graph began *after* the roof began to cave in. The sound it picks up is the sound of the roof collapsing through the floors below it. That graph even proves it as the sound they picked up begins at precisely the same instant the roof fell into the building -- 7 seconds before the rest of the building collapsed.
> 
> But I do appreciate you providing the evidence which demonstrates how demented you are.



yes and I told you that you are incorrect and gave you the clip where chandler walks you through it to help you understand what is going on and when its going on and why once again you are talking shit.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 24, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> dick101 said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...




I still get a kick out of them demanding you continue handing them their asses.  I bet they negged you for putting up properly framed physics examples too.  Can we get abortion to extend to Tards?

They are busy bodies trying to figure out a way to misrepresent or come up with some plausible derail of what you said.


----------



## Faun (Nov 24, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > We've been through this, Kook. The "explosions" on that graph began *after* the roof began to cave in. The sound it picks up is the sound of the roof collapsing through the floors below it. That graph even proves it as the sound they picked up begins at precisely the same instant the roof fell into the building -- 7 seconds before the rest of the building collapsed.
> ...





The audio graph from the link YOU posted proved it. You can deny it all you want because you are so committed to your dementia, but you cannot refute reality.

Their audio graph picked up sounds they called, "explosions," which began precisely when the east end of the roof began its descent into the building and lasted between 2 to 3 seconds.

Chandler associated the sound with explosions because; while he correctly noted the sounds began in the seconds before the entire building collapsed, *he failed to note the sounds did not begin before the east side of the roof gave way*. It's timed perfectly. The roof begins to fall and their audio graph picked up the sound it made is it fell into the floors beneath it.

Chandler's own evidence proves it. The best part is -- your acceptance of reality is not required.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 24, 2013)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




explosions are usually called explosions despite when they go off.

floors crashing down does not sound like explosions, they sound like a freight train coming down the track, there are plenty of clips out there to prove it so knock yourself out.

*chandler is the high school physics teacher that FORCED NIST's army of Phd's to change it to freefall.  

That pretty damned credible, who are you?*


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 24, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


----------



## Faun (Nov 25, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



There are no clips which offer the sounds of explosions in the moments before the building finally collapsed.

None whatsoever.

Even Chandler confesses the sounds he detects in the audio graph he offers are barely audible. There's no way to identify them as explosions; on top of which, there is no visual sign of explosions accompanying the sounds.



KokomoJojo said:


> *That pretty damned credible, who are you?*


I'm the guy who used a stopwatch to time the exact instant Chandler's audio graph detected a repeating thumping sound ... it started when a portion of the roof gave in, not when the entire building collapses.

But Chandler doesn't even go there. He merely claims the sounds began in the seconds just before the building collapses -- he doesn't even suggest the sound could be caused by a partial collapse of the roof, even though that's actually what happened.

And he does so with the knowledge that faithful idiots like you will use his claims while ignoring the obvious since it is beyond clear that the sounds he recorded did not begin until a portion of the roof began caving into the building.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 25, 2013)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



yeh one of the benefits of thermite cutters patented in 1984 which are not high explosives make very little noise.

so what point are you trying to make with this and why should we care?


----------



## Faun (Nov 25, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



You're such a moron. You said there were explosions. Thermite doesn't explode like TNT. Chandler claims a series of explosions were heard in the seconds before WTC7 fell. So which was it? Thermite or explosives?

And you're still stuck with the fact that Chandler's audio graph proves the sound he detected came from the partial roof collapse, not from explosives -- of which, none were seen or heard.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 25, 2013)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




so your whole point in this is that it does not fit neatly into a "classic" every day demolition mold is that it?

as if there is only one possible way to demolish a building.

even after people who were in the demolition biz for 30 years agree it was a demolition.

is that it?

Thermite cutters do explode but at a reduced noise level as rdx.  It does not mean there was no explosions.  Tards tend to have a one word fits all vocabulary.

The fact that explosions did occur despite its timing means audio proof of demolition.

7 was a classic demolition.












we do not *need* to hear any explosions to prove it was a classic "in the box" demolition.

seems you are trying to invent something frivolous again


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 25, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhMBjxyH9eg]What National Geographic has to say about thermite and 9/11/2001 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 25, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> What National Geographic has to say about thermite and 9/11/2001 - YouTube




waste

nothing like bringing yet another knife to a gun fight.

some back yard bozos trying to invent their own thermite cutter.  hilarious.

the patented version takes out a column the size of the wtc columns in millisecnds.

got any more back yard bozos you want to show us?


----------



## daws101 (Nov 25, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> dick101 said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...


disregarding all the other nonsense in the post ...
as always you twoofers got it backwards you are the complaintants  aka the plaintiffs it's on you to prove your accusations..you have not in 12 years done so.
instead you post a steaming pile of paranoid bullshit like the on above!


----------



## daws101 (Nov 25, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


bullshit! 
there is no difference in the sound of an explosion caused by explosives or explosions caused by heat or pressure.
please provide audio clips highlighting the differences....


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > dick101 said:
> ...



oops sorry folks nothing to see here.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 25, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


no thermite residue of any kind was found so you're talking out your ass.
that's all you've done in everything you've posted.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




none was looked for dumb ass.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 25, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...


yeah there is it's you showcasing your ignorance!


----------



## daws101 (Nov 25, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


bullshit![ame=http://youtu.be/OWpC_1WP8do]9/11 Debunked: Thermate Chemical Signatures Disproven - YouTube[/ame]







One of the pieces of evidence conspiracy theorists use to say the buildings were brought down is a photo with something they interpret as being left behind by a thermite reaction.  




There are a number of things they claim with this photo. One is the timeline. They say the photo has firemen which means this was during the rescue operation which only lasted two weeks. Why would they have fireman after the rescue operations? This suggests to them that the cut on the columns were made very close to September 11. The suggestion here is that it was done during the collapse.  

They claim that the angle of the cut can't be created by a welding tool and/or is designed to have the building fall in a certain direction.

The other is a yellow substance they claim is residue from a thermite reaction.  

Let's examine these claims one by one to see where the evidence takes us...

Timeline and Firemen

The rescue operation took about two weeks. They figured anyone left alive would have died by then anyway, so they started clean up operations and body recovery. During this time there was always at least 50 policemen and 50 firemen left on the scene to recover their fallen brothers. There were even more than that on ground zero until the city of NY told them to leave in November 2001. The city couldn't justify risking the health of 150 police and fireman for body recovery. In fact there was a protest about it which ended with the mayor allowing 50 members of each department on the scene.  


Citing safety concerns, Giuliani had sought to scale back the number of firefighters working at ground zero to 25. At one point there had been as many as 150 firefighters and police officers at the site. 
Thermite and Sulfur- Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




nothing official cited just cut and paste debunker opinions


----------



## daws101 (Nov 25, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 25, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXqs0ZYCHlA&feature=plcp]Controlled Demolition vs. Reality - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> edited spamhttp://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm



nothing to see here folks sorry


----------



## Faun (Nov 25, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


Your dementia is dripping like thermite ... you actually went from claiming explosions could be heard .... to claiming the incendiary used makes very little noise.

the fact of the matter is you make contradictory statements like that because even you can't find consistency in your hallucinations. 

The were no explosions in the moments before wtc7 collapsed. None were seen and none were heard. 

You relied on Chandler's audio graph as evidence of explosions heard (despite the fact that his graph is merely picking up the sound of the east portion of the roof caving in prior to the rest of the building) but now you stab him in the back to support your thermite explanation, which makes very little noise.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 25, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...


 
Addressing your legion of followers here again?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 25, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Controlled Demolition vs. Reality - YouTube




hey dumb shit this is a controlled demolition






no explosives used


how about this, not like the shit you posted






looks just like






you people are neanderthals living in a nanobox


----------



## daws101 (Nov 25, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> One of the pieces of evidence conspiracy theorists use to say the buildings were brought down is a photo with something they interpret as being left behind by a thermite reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 25, 2013)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




a roof caving in does not make explosive sounds.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 25, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Controlled Demolition vs. Reality - YouTube
> ...


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 25, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MusSulcJwSk]Richard Gage 9/11 - Explosive Contradictions! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Nov 25, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


yes it does. as the parts of a roof are under pressure from holding up the roof,  when for what ever reason that pressure released it explodes, a collapse makes  of 100's of different sounds  and untrained ear like yours has a hard time telling the difference a tire blowing out and and a pistol shot (both explosions.)


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...






you area top shelf idiot



*Government Killing of Civilians by Gas*

                                                                                                           By Mike Holmes
                                                                                    August 31, 2013

    One point that needs to be made, but rarely if ever mentioned,  is that in the supposed rationale for US attack on Syria to  avenge/prevent claimed civilian deaths by government gas attacks, the US  government itself has used similar weapons openly as recently as the  FBI/ATF attack on the Branch Davidian compound near Waco Texas in the  spring of 1993.
 76 men, women and children died in this senseless military style  assault which used highly lethal military CS gas as a primary weapon. CS  is not a nerve agent and it doesn&#8217;t in normal concentrations cause  immediate death. But it is highly flammable, persistent and designed to  incapacitate targets by causing massive biological reactions including  inability to breathe, massive tearing in the eyes, nose bleeds, etc.
 The Davidians were totally surrounded, posed no threat to others, and  responded with weapons fire only after the ATF/FBI attacked with  military style firearms. After the initial government assault was  repelled, and after a long standoff, an impatient President Clinton and  his Attorney General Janet Reno ordered an all-out military assault on  the compound, despite the fact that the only legal justification was a  single warrant for David Koresh on unproven charges. The presence of  innocent group members was ignored, nor was there any planning for  medical aid or fire suppression.
 The rest is history. Special military tanks were used to puncture  compound walls and insert large quantities of CS gas. CS gas grenades  were used from military stores along with 2 metal CS pyrotechnic M651E1  shells. Other pyrotechnic devices and flammable rounds were also fired  into the buildings despite known dangers of CS gas ignition and chemical  changes to the CS in fires making it even more deadly.
 Wikipedia has more details. The video &#8220;Rules of Engagement&#8221; makes it  clear that this was a deliberate effort to kill those inside.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...








just stfu and proof it  never seen so much pure bullshit as you post


----------



## Faun (Nov 25, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



If you want proof, just look at a video of the building as that portion of the roof is collapsing ... windows in the floors beneath it can be seen popping out. 


Now is that the _thoom, thoom_ sound described? Who knows? Could be. Or that sound could be the sound of the roof crashing through the floors below it. Either way, it wasn't from explosions intentionally detonated as none could be seen or heard before that part of the roof gave in. And Chandler's audio graph proved that with impeccable timing, starting *after* the east portion of the roof is seen collapsing and lasting a couple of seconds.


----------



## Faun (Nov 25, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Controlled Demolition vs. Reality - YouTube
> ...



How would we know there were no explosives used in the images you posted? You posted gif's with no sound and which begin at the moment the building begin collapsing and not the seconds leading up to the building collapse where explosives could be evident.

Are you always this deceptive?


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 25, 2013)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...




nope you can find all this shit readily avail on the net.  gifs dont have sound.


once again thermite cutters can slice through in milliseconds.  No need for prep work then.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 25, 2013)

"If you like your idiotic conspiracy theory, you can keep your idiotic conspiracy theory. *Period.*" 

~ Richie "Little Dickie" Gage - Assholes & Excrement for Nine Eleventy Troof(.org) - 2006


----------



## Faun (Nov 25, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


You're funny. It's not really my job to unt your videos down. It's enough for me to point out that you're showing videos edited from the start of a building collapse and without sound -- and then claiming to have videos that don't exhibit explosions; which would normally occur before the starting point of the videos you posted and would produce sound.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 26, 2013)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




thats because you need go no further than the visuals to understand my point. there is no reason for the sound what so ever.   

No sound is required to prove that 7 was a demo nist already proved that.

I have no idea what you are so diligently spinning your wheels on trying to accomplish.


----------



## Faun (Nov 26, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



You're the one who was claiming there was the sound of explosions. You even posted a video from someone who claimed to detect the sounds of explosions.

It's funny how quickly you abandoned those noisy explosions once it was pointed out to you that those sounds were actually the roof caving in.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > dick101 said:
> ...



So, what....Now you're Perry Mason? The plaintiff is Isaac Newton.... nipple nuts. You're saying the official explanation is the way it happened. I'm just an anonymous internet guy, I'm not making any accusations. It's not me saying your wrong, it's just me agreeing with that Newton guy. Now, you can think whatever you like of me (and you'll probably be right) and keep up all the name calling, distraction and denial, but it doesn't show any exception to the free fall rule. If you can't do that, well.... you're screwed. 

All you have to do is answer *one question* and I'll be on your side (as revolting a prospect as that is).... The real problem for the story you support is that a falling body only has a certain amount of gravitational potential energy. For a falling body to go into free fall, none of that gravitational potential energy can be used to overcome any resistance or it will fall at a slower rate.

It's you that must do the explaining. It's only *one question*. To succeed in proving an exception to the law of falling bodies, all you have to do is explain how a falling body could go into free fall in spite of having to use some of its gravitational potential energy to overcome resistance in the process. 

Can't you answer even *one question* about *one fact*?

*So, I ask you again Mr. Nipplenuts, and I strongly advise you to think carefully
before you answer and remember you're still under oath.... 
Can you or can you not prove that Mr. Newton is wrong?​*


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 26, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...



Are you saying that it was 100% impossible for the remaining, damaged, weakened structure of the lower floors to become overloaded and fail?

All you need to do is answer a couple of questions. 

According to the graphs (both NIST's and Chandler's) there is a time of no freefall at the beginning when the roofline begins to descend. How was that accomplished? What started the entire roofline to descend at LESS then freefall acceleration?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 26, 2013)

It has been explained to you E.L.C. I even used your own words from the other forum!



Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > No other Stages need to be considered because *nothing*, and *no number of "Stages"* leading up to or following Stage 2 can alter the conditions required (it's that damn Newton guy again!) for gravitational acceleration during that 2.25 seconds.... clown.
> ...


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


thermite does not have a residue shit fer brains


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 26, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> It has been explained to you E.L.C. I even used your own words from the other forum!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




yah yah grunhilda but this is reality





*
there is no less than freefall*


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 26, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > It has been explained to you E.L.C. I even used your own words from the other forum!
> ...



Are you saying that NIST's and Chandler's graphs are lying?


----------



## daws101 (Nov 26, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


another classic twoofer dodge....Waco has fuck all to do with 9/11 even thought you wish it did!


----------



## daws101 (Nov 26, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


thanks for again showcasing you lack of education and in the teens IQ.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 26, 2013)

Faun said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...


He's not smart enough to be deceptive.
notice he never posts links to his shit!


----------



## daws101 (Nov 26, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...


matter of fact he is...or to be more accurate his theory is incomplete..  
that in it'self make your(chandlers) conclusions invalid..


----------



## daws101 (Nov 26, 2013)

Interestingly, you do not, and cannot get a period of free fall in a controlled demolition(CD). The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down. 

 You will always have resistance from the floors, and other structure left inside.

 It's not true when "truthers" say the only explanation of free fall is CD, it's the reverse, and the NIST report explains this with progressive collapse.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Interestingly, you do not, and cannot get a period of free fall in a controlled demolition(CD). The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.
> 
> You will always have resistance from the floors, and other structure left inside.
> 
> It's not true when "truthers" say the only explanation of free fall is CD, it's the reverse, and the NIST report explains this with progressive collapse.



*Oh great, here we go with more "dawsian physics 101"....*


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 26, 2013)

chandler picked up some new software that was far more accurate, the very beginning and ending of charts are often not reliable.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 26, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Let's look at YOUR quote from another thread over at the Science Chat Forum.



You're actually trying to use my theories to show an exception to Newtons laws? What a nut! You can look at my quotes and animations all you want, but like I said, I'm just an anonymous internet guy like you. Tearing down my theories won't get you the exception to Newtons laws you're looking for (and very badly need in order for your story to work). *Why not just admit you can't find one?* 



Gamolon said:


> Let's break that down shall we?



More "Three Card Monte"? *No thanks!*



Gamolon said:


>





Gamolon said:


> So you admit that a buckling column could indeed contain a period of free fall after bifurcation, but fail to apply this to a structure?! What the fuck man! This PROVES that your lack of knowledge regarding structures is in play here.



I'm not admitting anything, there's nothing for me to admit.... clown. I said it seemed "*likely*" and that it "*may*" shorten the fall time. Even if that happened, it wouldn't reach the ground at the same time as the control on the right. Anyway, you keep trying to focus on me as if maybe one of my ideas will prove Newton wrong....  Focussing on me won't help you. It doesn't matter what either of us say. It's about what *Newton* said. *Answer* the *question*....

*How can a falling body could go into free fall in spite of having to use some of its gravitational potential energy to overcome resistance in the process?*

So which will it be.... *Newtonian* physics on the left, or *dawsian* physics on the right? I'll stick with the Newton guy.... you guys *suck!*


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 27, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> *How can a falling body could go into free fall in spite of having to use some of its gravitational potential energy to overcome resistance in the process?*



And this is where you're wrong dumbass.

What was providing the resistance below? Show me YOUR calculations and drawings that prove that the eight floors worth of REMAINING/DAMAGED structure could provide enough  resistance to slow the load of the remaining upper structure. 

Can you? Is this why, after 12 years not one single architect or engineer has been able to provide this proof?

The problem is your lack of structural knowledge. You are trying to debate something regarding a subject that you have know working knowledge of. 

Do you understand that a structure is comprised of many components to function as a WHOLE, as one unit? Do you understand that when you weaken/damage/fail certain parts of said structure, the structure as a WHOLE (as it was designed) is now comprised and cannot FUNCTION as it was designed?

If you start removing components, the the load on the remaining components increases. There then becomes a point in time were the REMAINING structure will reach a point of ZERO RESISTANCE. You're too stupid to figure that out though.

Explain something to me.

What caused the ENTIRE roofline to start it's descent as shown in both NIST's and Chandler's graph? There is a point BEFORE the freefall that the entire roofline is moving downward at less than freefall. What caused that?

Are you afraid to answer that for some reason?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 27, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> *How can a falling body could go into free fall in spite of having to use some of its gravitational potential energy to overcome resistance in the process?*
> 
> So which will it be.... *Newtonian* physics on the left, or *dawsian* physics on the right? I'll stick with the Newton guy.... you guys *suck!*



Tell you what E.L.C. Let's see if you're smart enough to answer this question.

Which part of your animated gif does Chandler's graph match better? Show me which "block" representation shows the very first part of his graph which shows LESS THAN FREEFALL.




You do realize that the "Vy" points in his graph represent the corner of the roof right?


----------



## daws101 (Nov 27, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Interestingly, you do not, and cannot get a period of free fall in a controlled demolition(CD). The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.
> ...


golly that was underwhelming


----------



## KokomoJojo (Nov 27, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > *How can a falling body could go into free fall in spite of having to use some of its gravitational potential energy to overcome resistance in the process?*
> ...




*well if that is such a stumbling block for your simple mind why dont you use his new version?

*
*





 it shows there is no stage one which matches what we see above, no stage one, nist fudged the data.*






ELC still has you by the short hairs


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 27, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> *How can a falling body could go into free fall in spite of having to use some of its gravitational potential energy to overcome resistance in the process?*





Gamolon said:


> And this is where you're wrong dumbass.



Well, the answer to a question would be right or wrong, not the question itself.... dumbass. Since there was no answer to the question, it simply remains an unanswered question.  




Gamolon said:


> What was providing the resistance below? Show me YOUR calculations and drawings that prove that the eight floors worth of REMAINING/DAMAGED structure could provide enough  resistance to slow the load of the remaining upper structure.




See? Right back to focussing on me. The calculations governing this scenario (WTC 7) were carried out by Isaac Newton centuries ago you fool.... *F* (force) = *M* (mass) x *a* (acceleration). I asked you how a falling body could go into free fall in spite of having to use some of its gravitational potential energy to overcome resistance in the process, and you, using your single brain cell, respond by demanding I provide calculatons verifying Newton's conclusions! The only way free fall can occur is if there's no mass in the way offering resistance, and there can be no mass in the way for the entirety of the duration of the time it occurs or the fall time will not be the same as a free fall time where there is no mass in the way. That's what Isaac Newton said.... not me. You're insisting that despite there being mass in the way (eight stories of a steel frame building), that some peculiar never before seen process of progressive structural failure briefly created conditions that somehow allowed the visible upper portion of the building to fall as if through air for over a hundred feet. You are in disagreement with Isaac Newton on that, and it is therefore up to you to prove an exception.... not me.     



Gamolon said:


> Can you? Is this why, after 12 years not one single architect or engineer has been able to provide this proof?



It's not rocket science (well, maybe to you it is). The building collapsed. There was mass in the way. It went into free fall. Hence.... The mass in the way must have been removed by some external force because there's no other way free fall can occur. Google "Isaac Newton" if you don't believe it or can't understand it. Any equation I or any one else does, or has done, or can do to "prove" it would only be a restatement of Newtons well known observation.... *F* = *M* x *a*.  



Gamolon said:


> The problem is your lack of structural knowledge. You are trying to debate something regarding a subject that you have know working knowledge of.



I know, I understand nothing and you understand everything. I'm an asshole and a liar, I'm a coward and a thief, I'm a (now confirmed) twoofer, I don't brush my teeth often enough, I sniffed my finger once after scatching my ass, I peeked through the bathroom door keyhole when I was a kid and saw my (really hot) Aunt Hazel naked, etc., etc. Whatever man. I've already heard all that. Doesn't help your argument, doesn't prove an exception.... clown.  



Gamolon said:


> Do you understand that a structure is comprised of many components to function as a WHOLE, as one unit?



No, I thought it was all made of styrofoam.... Doesn't help your argument, doesn't prove an exception. 



Gamolon said:


> Do you understand that when you weaken/damage/fail certain parts of said structure, the structure as a WHOLE (as it was designed) is now comprised and cannot FUNCTION as it was designed?



No, I thought weakening structures became stonger as they got weaker, and weaker as they got stronger.... Doesn't help your argument, doesn't prove an exception.



Gamolon said:


> If you start removing components, the the load on the remaining components increases. There then becomes a point in time were the REMAINING structure will reach a point of ZERO RESISTANCE. You're too stupid to figure that out though.



On the way to any point of zero resistance in any progressive structural failure, the failing component will still be resisting the load as it fails, it doesn't just go from 100 percent to 0 percent (unless one uses dawsian physics). As the severity of the failure continues to increase over time, the component will resist the load less and less, but no progressive structural failure can have the same fall time as an object falling through air.... clown. 



Gamolon said:


> What caused the ENTIRE roofline to start it's descent as shown in both NIST's and Chandler's graph?



I don't know.... What do you think? Maybe Roy Rogers used his lasso on it, maybe Superman was banging Lois Lane in the basement and got a little excited.... Or maybe it took a moment for timed explosives going off in rapid succesion to completely remove the supporting structure. I kind of like the Superman scenario.... Doesn't help your argument, doesn't prove an exception.



Gamolon said:


> There is a point BEFORE the freefall that the entire roofline is moving downward at less than freefall. What caused that?



Maybe Superman wasn't quite finished yet and just kind of held up the building until he was, then he grabbed Lois and flew away so fast nobody saw them. Yeah, I think that's how it went down man.... Doesn't help your argument, doesn't prove an exception. 



Gamolon said:


> Are you afraid to answer that for some reason?



Well, at the very top of your last post you quoted the question I've been asking right from the start before launching into a bunch of horse shit and focussing on me instead of the topic again.... Looks like you're afraid to answer that for some reason.... clown.


----------



## E.L.C. (Nov 27, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> ....it shows there is no stage one which matches what we see above, no stage one, nist fudged the data.



Yeah, they call it "dry labbing".... it's when you take a foregone conclusion and construct a theory to fit. It's the kind of thing perpetual motion inventors do (with about the same chance of success, *zero*). In this case you sandwich the unacceptable free fall time of the building between two other non-free fall times to get an average/total time that corresponds to what you already had in mind. "Three Card Monte" Gamolonian physics.


----------



## E.L.C. (Dec 1, 2013)




----------



## Gamolon (Dec 2, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> See? Right back to focussing on me. The calculations governing this scenario (WTC 7) were carried out by Isaac Newton centuries ago you fool.... *F* (force) = *M* (mass) x *a* (acceleration). I asked you how a falling body could go into free fall in spite of having to use some of its gravitational potential energy to overcome resistance in the process,



There was no resistance idiot! That's what I'm trying to explain to you! Your lack of structural design knowledge is what's fucking up your comprehension of what happened.

The "structural resistance" you keep blathering about that needed to be "overcome" in order for the upper remaining structure to go into freefall acceleration was not there. It was overcome in the FIRST PART OF THE GRAPH from both NIST and Chandler you moron! It's been explained to you countless times, but you're too stupid to understand.

The beginning of each graph shows the roofline staring to descend at LESS THAN FREEFALL which indicated the DAMAGED/WEAKENED structure below is FAILING. Then there comes the point in the graph where the load becomes too much for the FAILING structure below to hold up at all and enters freefall acceleration.

JESUS H. CHRIST!!!!



Now I'm going to ask you, yet again.

What started the LESS THAN FREEFALL descent shown at the very beginning of NIST's and Chandler's graph? See how that works? The ENTIRE roofline was in a downward motion PRIOR to the freefall period you keep squawking about. 

BTW, what happened to this:


E.L.C. said:


> I'll illustrate how explosives might have done it, including a detonation sequence that fits the observations, and also a complete (pet) theory I have that's consistent with physical principles that shows how the observed free fall might have occurred without explosives that I haven't seen anywhere yet.... I'll produce the animations that describe them (probably this evening, but don't fucking rush me).



Oh yeah, you "pussied" out:


E.L.C. said:


> I don't need to come up with any explanation and it probably wouldn't make any difference even if I did.





Typical truther bullshit. 



E.L.C. said:


> I know you and your cohorts would all rather focus on me, it makes it much, much easier to avoid the astoundingly simple science involved.



You're the one claiming you have a "pet theory" asshole, not me. I love how you said you'd provide an explanation on how you think it happened then turn around and run with your tail between your legs. THEN you claim we're focusing on you and shouldn't be. What a fucking headcase! We focus on you because you're the one with the damn comprehension problem. You keep spouting off about Newton/freefall, but ignore the explanation.

Your (and Koko's) problem is that you are afraid to explain how the initial, less than freefall descent of the roofline began BEFORE the freefall period. This simple event throws a LOAD of problems into your idiotic claims. Koko just runs around in circles and posts gifs instead of debating. You make claims and then run.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 2, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> the very beginning and ending of charts are often not reliable.





Only because it ruins your beliefs moron! 

Between your completely fucked up "fizix" problem showing you don't understand units of measurement, your claim that movies and live TV are both pre-recorded, your claim that the plane wing went BEHIND a building in the video when you had the WRONG location of the building, and countless other fuckups, it's no wonder everyone thinks your an idiot.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 2, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> You're insisting that despite there being mass in the way (eight stories of a steel frame building),



WRRRRONNNGGGGG!!!!!

The eight stories already started to fail PRIOR to the freefall period. The REAMING structure's integrity was ALREADY comprimes when the the penthouse and internal structure collapsed earlier. 

Think about this asshole. What was left of the structure AFTER the east penthouse collapsed? How did it damage the reaming structure? What loads were present on the remaining structure? What was the perimeter facade designed to support?

Once again, just for you.

Both graphs (NIST and Chandler) show that what remained of the structure AFTER the east penthouse collapsed, started to descend DOWNWARD at lees than freefall. I'll post both graphs again if you need me to. That shows the ENTIRE lower structure beginning to fail and why the ENTIRE roofline started to move downward.

It couldn't have been explosives because the truther mantra states the simultaneous explosives would cause freefall. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN did it. This is why Koko tries so hard to now show that "the beginning of a graph" is unreliable. Because it nlows hia claims out of the water.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 2, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > See? Right back to focussing on me. The calculations governing this scenario (WTC 7) were carried out by Isaac Newton centuries ago you fool.... *F* (force) = *M* (mass) x *a* (acceleration). I asked you how a falling body could go into free fall in spite of having to use some of its gravitational potential energy to overcome resistance in the process,
> ...



By now it should be clear that KooKoo is just a curmudgeon lookin' for a fight and getting bitch-slapped just turns him on. ELC has been to the med cabinet once too often and can no longer be trusted to operate heavy equipment or empty his own diaper.


----------



## Rockland (Dec 2, 2013)

"I don't need to explain jack shit" is the standard twoofer reply when they're backed into a corner.  Of course, they demand explanations over and over again from us, so they can reject them.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 3, 2013)

Hey E.L.C., Koko...

What caused this WTC7 movement prior to freefall?


----------



## daws101 (Dec 3, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Hey E.L.C., Koko...
> 
> What caused this WTC7 movement prior to freefall?


best imitation of koko..."did you make that in your mom's house"....butt hurt etc..."
how'd I do?


----------



## Steven_R (Dec 3, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Hey E.L.C., Koko...
> 
> What caused this WTC7 movement prior to freefall?



Grey Alien Ninja Demolition Teams funded by the Zionist Illuminati New World Order. It's as clear as day to anyone not in on the conspiracy.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 3, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Hey E.L.C., Koko...
> 
> What caused this WTC7 movement prior to freefall?









[/KooKoo mode]


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 4, 2013)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Hey E.L.C., Koko...
> ...





Magic. Fits E.L.C. and Koko perfectly.

The reason these two idiots are focusing on just the freefall portion of the collapse is because if any other part of the entire collapse is considered, it kills the explosives or removal-of-eight-floors-worth-of-columns-by-some-unknown-means crap they continually spew.

Why?

Simple. They like to claim that the only way the ENITRE facade/roofline came down at freefall was by the simultaneous removel of eight floors worth of columns. My question is, if explosives were used to remove eight floors worth of columns, and immediately start the entire roofline to descend at freefall, then what the fuck caused the building to kink inward and then have the roofline descend at LESS than freefall PRIOR to the freefall initiation?

Let me make this clear for out two resident morons.

If some event removed eight floors of support columns to start the freefall descent portion of the collapse, why did the entire roofline start to descend at LESS than freefall PRIOR to the freefall?

What caused a portion of WTC7 to bulge as witnessed by firefighters earlier in the day? What caused the building to lean as proven by a transit set up by the firefighters? What caused the east penthouse to fall into the building? There was movement of the building 2 minutes or more PRIOR to the onset of the collapsed when certain videos were analysed.

All this is evidence of the weakening of the structure followed by load redistribution, which eventually led to the global collapse of what remained of WTC7.

This is why assholes like Gage like to publish horseshit claiming the ENTIRE building collapsed in 6 or 7 seconds. Because stating the truth, with all the facts above including the east penthouse collapsing first, then the west penthouse, followed by the facade, doesn't sound right when coupled with "they used explosives".


----------



## KokomoJojo (Dec 5, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




Retardo Maximus,
Nothing like coming out here and proving that 11 yo kids are far smarter than you are.  That goes for all the tards that are cheering you on as well.

It freefell, NIST admitted it, get over it.  

Unless you can show another steel hirise that completely freefell straight down other than with the use of explosives on any other date than 911 you have nothing, nada zippo. 

Right when I think nothing can shock me you people raise the standards of stoopid to new levels.  LMAO


----------



## Rockland (Dec 6, 2013)

Looks like 7 sacks o' shit's "A fake plane was added for south tower explosion" thread went poof.  7's posting of the same stupid gifs over and over and over for hundreds of pages was probably starting to fuck up the board software or something.

The CTs are certain to cry "Waaaah! They're censoring Da Twooff!" and "They're scared of us!!11!one", conveniently overlooking the fact that 7's idiocy was allowed to continue for over *two years*, and hundreds of pages.

I guess 7's suck puppet, KaKa, will have to troll even harder now.


----------



## Rockland (Dec 6, 2013)

Gamolon said:


> Magic. Fits E.L.C. and Koko perfectly.



[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSf9aEETnvE"]Rowan Atkinson "Magic"[/ame]


----------



## KokomoJojo (Dec 6, 2013)

Rockland said:


> Looks like 7 sacks o' shit's "A fake plane was added for south tower explosion" thread went poof.  7's posting of the same stupid gifs over and over and over for hundreds of pages was probably starting to fuck up the board software or something.
> 
> The CTs are certain to cry "Waaaah! They're censoring Da Twooff!" and "They're scared of us!!11!one", conveniently overlooking the fact that 7's idiocy was allowed to continue for over *two years*, and hundreds of pages.
> 
> I guess 7's suck puppet, KaKa, will have to troll even harder now.



yeh but Im no fun because I hand you your asses. LOL


----------



## KokomoJojo (Dec 6, 2013)

Rockland said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Magic. Fits E.L.C. and Koko perfectly.




how incredibly sore your asses must be.

so now you believe physics is magic.....how incredibly fucking tarded you are.

I havent seen this much butt hurt from you people in years.

Walls starting to close in ya little too much I see.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 6, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Rockland said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like 7 sacks o' shit's "A fake plane was added for south tower explosion" thread went poof.  7's posting of the same stupid gifs over and over and over for hundreds of pages was probably starting to fuck up the board software or something.
> ...



Pompous AND delusional. You're the whole package, Princess.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Dec 6, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Rockland said:
> ...




no evidence to that claim is on file.  nice try jerking off and shooting blanks


----------



## KokomoJojo (Dec 6, 2013)

Rockland said:


> Looks like 7 sacks o' shit's "A fake plane was added for south tower explosion" thread went poof.  7's posting of the same stupid gifs over and over and over for hundreds of pages was probably starting to fuck up the board software or something.
> 
> The CTs are certain to cry "Waaaah! They're censoring Da Twooff!" and "They're scared of us!!11!one", conveniently overlooking the fact that 7's idiocy was allowed to continue for over *two years*, and hundreds of pages.
> 
> I guess 7's suck puppet, KaKa, will have to troll even harder now.




while 7 had one or 2 good points in his arsenal unfortunately I had to argue on the side of the OSHuggers because some of what his reasoning was fucking out there. unfortunately.  

But then all the official footage is based on blobs too. 

So I supposed he and the huggers have one thing in common


----------



## Rockland (Dec 6, 2013)

You talkin' to me, KaKa troll?  You're on my Ignoramus List, remember?  Nothing you troll about is of any importance, except to your butt buddies 9/11 Whackjob and T.N.U.C.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Dec 6, 2013)

Rockland said:


> You talkin' to me, KaKa troll?  You're on my Ignoramus List, remember?  Nothing you troll about is of any importance, except to your butt buddies 9/11 Whackjob and T.N.U.C.


----------



## Rockland (Dec 6, 2013)

What you talkin' 'bout, Willis? 

Do you even understand the concept of an Ignore List?  I. Can't. Hear. You.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 6, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Rockland said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like 7 sacks o' shit's "A fake plane was added for south tower explosion" thread went poof.  7's posting of the same stupid gifs over and over and over for hundreds of pages was probably starting to fuck up the board software or something.
> ...


only in your wettest dreams.
in reality you'er a fuck up!


----------



## daws101 (Dec 6, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Rockland said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


who are "you people"?
unless you really are 7's sock, you could not have known "us people" for years.
yep, fucking delusional !


----------



## daws101 (Dec 6, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > Rockland said:
> ...


well kinda ....he is a princess but has no package...


----------



## daws101 (Dec 6, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


really? just everything you post proves sayit's statement true.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Dec 6, 2013)

Rockland said:


> What you talkin' 'bout, Willis?
> 
> Do you even understand the concept of an Ignore List?  I. Can't. Hear. You.




well if the only way you can avoid having your ass handed to you is to put people on ignore we wont hold it against you


----------



## KokomoJojo (Dec 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


your not qualified to make that claim


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 6, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



Which doesn't mean it's not true. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you really aren't as goofy as your posts make you seem. It's time for you to come out and admit you're just fuckin' around and don't really believe the silly shit you post here. 
C'mon, Princess ... 'fess up. You can't be as stupid as you pretend.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Dec 6, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




at least someone takes you seriously, 







carry on


----------



## KokomoJojo (Dec 7, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Let's look at YOUR quote from another thread over at the Science Chat Forum.
> ...




way to go!

a 2fer!

you handed dawtard and gamoronclown their asses all in one clean sweep!

and they negged you for teaching them newtons laws.

ungrateful bastards they are.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 7, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...



So then you are as stupid as your posts would indicate. A brain is a terrible thing to waste, Princess ... seek qualified professional help.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Dec 7, 2013)

SAYIT said:


> KokomoJojo said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...




the difference between you and I is that I have the working knowledge to understand when you have had your asses handed to you.  You on the other hand arent qualified to even choose which expert to believe.  In other words you are just a dumb ass being led around by the nose of whatever makes you feel good despite reality.

Enjoy the ride.  Carry on talking to your cow audience.  Who can argue with that level of intelligence.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 9, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


yes I am,because I already did and it's fact!
what a douche nozzle!


----------



## daws101 (Dec 9, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > KokomoJojo said:
> ...


working knowledge MY ass!
you, as evidenced by your insipid ignorant self important blathering have no knowledge working or other wise of even the most basic logical concepts..


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 10, 2013)

two farts in a row from you dawgshit.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 10, 2013)

E.L.C. said:


> *Far out man!* Thanks ZenBubba and mamooth. I want to go ahead but this thread has to be clean or I'm getting out of here. I reported the post by *9/11 inside job* as having nothing to do with the topic. If this is really a science forum, that post will be removed. I'll post then.... Am I being unreasonable?



here is the perfect PRIME example of what i was talking about earlier,how these government agents trolls go and whine to the mods all the time.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Dec 10, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


> E.L.C. said:
> 
> 
> > *Far out man!* Thanks ZenBubba and mamooth. I want to go ahead but this thread has to be clean or I'm getting out of here. I reported the post by *9/11 inside job* as having nothing to do with the topic. If this is really a science forum, that post will be removed. I'll post then.... Am I being unreasonable?
> ...




ELC and the truthers handed them their asses so many times I lost count LOL


----------



## daws101 (Dec 10, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > E.L.C. said:
> ...


that's a nice fantasy..
you lost count? the you must really suck at physics.....


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 12, 2013)

someone farted in here.


----------



## Faun (Dec 12, 2013)

This is still going on?? Dayam. There are a 100 fucking videos of the plane flying into the tower and no evidence whatsoever on the planet that *every single video* shot that was altered and not a single person who recorded noticed their video was modified to edit in a plane.

There is no greater lunacy on the face of the Earth greater than Truthers. They make Birthers look like Einstein.


----------



## KokomoJojo (Dec 16, 2013)

Faun said:


> This is still going on?? Dayam. There are a 100 fucking videos of the plane flying into the tower and no evidence whatsoever on the planet that *every single video* shot that was altered and not a single person who recorded noticed their video was modified to edit in a plane.
> 
> There is no greater lunacy on the face of the Earth greater than Truthers. They make Birthers look like Einstein.




no see you got it ass backwards again.

when the gubmint officially records it as a plane the gubmint has to prove it was a plane.  not me.  if you believe da gubmint and want to stand by your man then you can be my guest and prove it.

good luck with that since every video I have seen is faked


----------



## daws101 (Dec 17, 2013)

KokomoJojo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > This is still going on?? Dayam. There are a 100 fucking videos of the plane flying into the tower and no evidence whatsoever on the planet that *every single video* shot that was altered and not a single person who recorded noticed their video was modified to edit in a plane.
> ...


bahahahahahah!


----------



## daws101 (Jan 9, 2014)

E.L.C. said:


> *XXXX*


thinks? if he's a real research physicist he would say that he speculates that it popped.


----------

