9/11 Fourteen Years Later

[TESLAMotors]

So not only do you make up theories of remote control debris; not only do you ignore actual facts and inconvenient questions; not only do you change the topic when your claims are destroyed but now you repeat questions that have already been answered.

what's not factual?

2 planes, 3 buildings,
3 buildings straight down.

which part is incorrect?
You haven't answered directly, you're dancing, like NIST and Bush.

 

[fuji]

Ahh, Fuji, you failed, you can't answer and refute Newton's 3rd Law so you dismiss it because you know your answer (if honest) would be, "yes it's relevant, therefore, I can't explain how there was no resistance and why 110 stories crashed straight down in less than 10 seconds".
You failed, I'll call it at 8:24pm.

None of your claims have been worth considering after you and your sources were exposed as frauds.

 

[TESLAMotors]

For reference, one of the posts where Tesla made his central claim, which revealed that he and his "experts" are just fraud artists.

He is trying to ignore that he posted this....

I'm not ignoring anything. Ask me, I'll gladly answer.
What are you raging on about? LOL

Yuu're the one that was quiet until your BFF IM649 came in and replied.
You know it. LOL

 

[TESLAMotors]

None of your claims have been worth considering after you and your sources were exposed as frauds.

You're casually dismissing Newton's 3rd Law of motion simply because it doesn't fit your ideological alignment with the neo-cons. It's that simple. We all know, you're pro-America, pro-Israel, apparently anti-science now.

You said the building collapsed because of the "pancaking" effect, one floor upon the other crashing down.
BUT you also said Newton's 3rd Law is "not relevant" in the falling of the towers, when in fact, it CLEARLY IS relevant.
Mass with force MEETING another (much BIGGER lower thicker structures, columns and trusses, along with the foundation/EARTH) mass with force.

You can't deny science when it's in your face and here you are BLATANTLY doing so. LOL

 

[TESLAMotors]

Basic LAWS OF MOTION.

 

[TESLAMotors]

 

[TESLAMotors]

 

[TESLAMotors]

The core and the rest of the building didn't get pulverized into dust. There were large pieces of debris. You are just babbling nonsense now.

The fact is you claimed it fell like a controlled demolition. The fact is it didn't fall that way.

What are you even still debating????.

And I don't say the building pancaked. I pointed out that YOU CAN SEE IT PANCAKE. That is a fact the debate proceeds from, not something up for discussion.

"PANCAKE" <----really? that would mean Newton's 3rd Law IS IN FACT relevant, however, you said it's "not relevant".

Which is it Fuji?

 

[fuji]

I'm not ignoring anything. Ask me, I'll gladly answer.
What are you raging on about? LOL

Yuu're the one that was quiet until your BFF IM649 came in and replied.
You know it. LOL

Are you still claiming the building came down like a controlled demolition? Or do you now admit that claim and the video you posted were frauds?

You posted a video from one of your YouTube "experts" which chose a view of the WTC where the impact site and below were obstructed by another building, whereas any other view of the building would have highlighted that the WTC collapsed differently.

 

[TESLAMotors]

Done here.

Don't break the keyboard in a fit of rage Fuji.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Basic LAWS OF MOTION.

I'm sorry but that silly experiment is silly. An architect is no structural engineer. His example is no analogy by any stretch.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Bricks and ice are solid. The WTC was not solid. The weight of the top floors was sufficient to 'peel back' the exoskeleton as it barreled down.

 

[TESLAMotors]

GP, you can pretend you're in limbo, not fooling me dude. You're trying to be subtle, but it's not working (on me anyway).
Pretend you're so dumbfounded by it all, you seem to be the one that's challenged mentally by it all. lol

You can't dispute scientific fact.


You can't have your pancake and eat it too, right Fuji? LOL

 

[TESLAMotors]

Bricks and ice are solid. The WTC was not solid. The weight of the top floors was sufficient to 'peel back' the exoskeleton as it barreled down.

...and in the process pulverize the SOLID THICK CORE in less than 10 seconds.
And the debris selectively fell only onto WTC7.

Dude, stop pretending. Your act is up too. lol

 

[GPIDEAL]

The falling debris created an enormous amount of heat along with the kinetic impact. The potential gravitational energy turned into heat as the falling objects impacted.

Conservation of energy requires that the energy of the falling mass be preserved so you can work out how much potential energy is locked up in holding that much concrete in the sky: all that turned into a huge amount of heat, weakening and ultimately bringing down the core, parts of which which did briefly stand after the rest came down.

I don't know about heat generation weakening lower building sections as it came down since there wasn't enough time, BUT there definitely was a lot of heat generated in the collapse which resulted in endless fires in the debris pile.

 

[Titalian]

I'm sorry but that silly experiment is silly. An architect is no structural engineer. His example is no analogy by any stretch.

TES is right, there was absolutely no resistance non nada with all three buildings that came down. That itself is suspicious enough and all brought down by fires which
has never ever happened to any skyscraper in the entire world, yet three came down that day. Holy shit are you guys serious.

 

[fuji]

You're casually dismissing Newton's 3rd Law of motion simply because it doesn't fit your ideological alignment with the neo-cons. It's that simple. We all know, you're pro-America, pro-Israel, apparently anti-science now.

You said the building collapsed because of the "pancaking" effect, one floor upon the other crashing down.
BUT you also said Newton's 3rd Law is "not relevant" in the falling of the towers, when in fact, it CLEARLY IS relevant.
Mass with force MEETING another (much BIGGER lower thicker structures, columns and trusses, along with the foundation/EARTH) mass with force.

You can't deny science when it's in your face and here you are BLATANTLY doing so. LOL

I'm not dismissing Newton's third law. I'm dismissing you, your fake YouTube experts, and your ludicrous conspiracy theory. You were caught posting fake experts who created a clearly fraudulent video and you staked your reputation on it by calling it the best evidence you had.

You are done.

 

[basketcase]

I meant to say 30% slower than freefall.

...

I guess that puts to rest the demolition claims you were going with.

AS for debris, it's amazing isn't it.
US POSTAL, VERIZON, unscathed

So are you claiming that the debris was purposely directed to certain places?

 

[basketcase]

what's not factual?

2 planes, 3 buildings,
3 buildings straight down.

which part is incorrect?
You haven't answered directly, you're dancing, like NIST and Bush.

What's with the repeated spamming of an already answered question?

Is not not factual?

2 planes, 3 buildings.

All 3 buildings fell straight down.



What's incorrect?

So not only do you make up theories of remote control debris; not only do you ignore actual facts and inconvenient questions; not only do you change the topic when your claims are destroyed but now you repeat questions that have already been answered.

You mean besides the perfect symmetry part you omitted from this post?

Speaking of self contradictory, I'd also take issue with the straight down (as your debris map clearly shows that wasn't the case) .

 

[fuji]

...and in the process pulverize the SOLID THICK CORE in less than 10 seconds.
And the debris selectively fell only onto WTC7.

Dude, stop pretending. Your act is up too. lol

The debris did not selectively fall, twit. If it had hit the Verizon building you would be claiming that was selective. If you randomly fire into a crowd of people you weren't selectively targeting the person the bullet hits.