Ahmadinejad at Columbia - where's the love for the non-moonbat speakers?

Haroki · Oct 3, 2007

Quote from DrEvil:

No the Main building structure (north wall as you put it) takes 6.5 seconds to fall to the ground. This can be seen on any CNN, FOX, BBC footage, as well as in your's.

**** Right.

47 steel columns were disturbuted thoughout the building, not just under th penthouse ... hell what do you think was holding up the perimiter of the building! But yes, the main columns were blown out first by thermite, this is the only way to get a building to collapse ino on itself. That's a fact!

****Thermite doesn't "blow". Demo charges do, however, and none are heard during the collapse. That's a fact !

Again, the perimiter steel supports were in place and should have provided resistance after central columns were blown out. So sorry Haroki, but thousands of tons of concrete and steel just don't "get out of the way" unless they are exploded out of the way.

****So how much resistance should the exterior columns provide? Should it have gone clunkity clunk, clunkity clunk, like that one CTer asserts? Is that how it works?

Again, no demo charges can be heard. That's a fact ! You lose !

The floor demolished from the ground up, you can see this is as the top floor are still intact as they approach the ground. As each floor from the basement up collapses there are less floors above it bearing down so yes what i said was correct. The force (weight) from above was decreasing and this shoudl have resulted in a deceleration, not the acceleration taht can be seen in any of the footage.

**** Ahhh, now I get your point. E=M*C(squared). If you understand this, then you can understand why velocity is the real driver in any energy equation. This is why, once 7 STARTED falling, and all that mass got moving, nothing was gonna stop it nor slow it down. You lose !! You've been debunked !!

Your question has nothing to do with it. However assuming that the volleyball occurs no extra aerodynamic drag they should fall at the same speed.

Force = gravity * mass

The force of gravity is greater on the bowling ball than
on the volley ball, proportional to their mass.
This means that if the bowling ball has twice the mass of the volleyball it will be pulled toward
the earth with twice the force.
However, as the acceleration is proportional to the force
divided by the mass. This means that the bowling ball will be accelerated
twice as slowly as the volleyball given the same force. So in order for the bowling ball to move
at the same rate as the vollleyball, the bowling ball must be submitted to twice the force. And this is exactly
what the force of gravity does.

**** Whoo hoo !! He got it right !!! Get yourself a cookie !!

I have a question for you. Take the top floor of building 7 and drop it from the same height as the original building 7, how long to hit the floor? Roughly 6 seconds. Now what happens if we put steel structures and concrete below that top floor and drop it again, how long? Well considerably longer than 6 seconds, how about "it aint going anywhere fast"!

**** Again, this is incorrect when you consider E=M*C(squared). Once 7 gets moving at all, the C(squared) part of the equation drives the amount of energy available in the collapse WELL beyond the ability for any remaining floors to slow it down. Also, you are assumimg the the floors available to slow the descent to be intact. This is wrong. You lose ! Again !

Actually, you still don't answer why building 7 met no resistance even round the perimeters to fall in 7 seconds. I think you need to do some studying of the FACTS yourself Haroki.

**** Actually, you haven't proven that the exterior columns should have provided resistance. You have no structural engineers that have looked at design specs and explained why. Because there are none. That's a fact ! You lose !!!

what are the odds that all the fireproofing fell off in just the right places, even far from the point of impact? Without much test data, let's say it's one in a thousand. And what are the odds that the office furnishings converged to supply highly directed and (somehow) forced-oxygen fires at very precise points on the remaining columns? Is it another one in a thousand? What is the chance that those points would then all soften in unison, and give way perfectly, so that the highly dubious "progressive global collapse" theory could be born? I wouldn't even care to guess. But finally, with well over a hundred fires in tall buildings through history, what are the chances that the first, second and third incidents of fire-induced collapse would all occur on the same day? Let's say it's one in a million. Considering just these few points we're looking at a one in a trillion chance, using generous estimates and not really considering the third building (no plane, no jet fuel, different construction [for WTC 7]).

**** Who says that the fireproofing fell off? Typical strawman argument there. FACT !!

Who says there had to be forced oxygen fires ? More made up facts. You've been debunked !

Why would all of the trusses need to soften in unison? Once enough have weakened, collapse will initiate. Once that happens, E=M*C(squared) takes over. Debunked !!

7 had somewhat similar construction in that it had a huge truss arrangement of the ConEd substation that dominated the bottom 7 floors - which were basically an atrium to accomodate the electrical equipment. And while there was no jet fuel, there were emergency generators that would have self-started - like a Prius - and pumped diesel into the fires. Remember the video I posted? Debunked !

More...

I answe everything that isn't an erroneous statement on your part.

You lose !

Fact!

Haroki · Oct 3, 2007

Quote from Haroki:

Well, you've got your interpretation of Silverstein says, and the rational have theirs. That's why it's dumb to discuss it - it's all about someone's interpretation of what he's referring to. If you want to claim it as fact, then I can introduce as fact that he denies ever ordering the firemen to "pull" one of his buildings, and the argument goes nowhere. I'm trying to introduce facts into the argument that can be discussed rationally.

And you never commented on the NIST 7 Report. What do you have to say to that? You were so sure that there was no ongoing investigation of the circumstances about the collapse of 7 that you were willing to call me a liar. But your "belief" that the illuminati won't investigate 7 has been shown to be the fabrication of CTerz.

Why no retraction?
More...

Yes I did

DrEvil · Oct 3, 2007

Quote from Haroki:

I answe everything that isn't an erroneous statement on your part.

You lose !

Fact!
More...

You retard, you are trying to use E=mc(squared), which is einstein's theory of Special relativity to discuss gravity? You have just revealed what little grasp of physics you have! You fool, its Newtons laws of gravity model the behavour of gravity.

You are a joke Haroki. Oh, btw, thermite doesn't explose like a grenade so no there wouldn't be any loud explosions. Here is a demonstration of thermite that clearly shows this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM

DrEvil · Oct 3, 2007

Any sane person would agree that the owner of building 7 admitting that it was demolished is pretty damning evidence. however, to have it further corroborated by John Kerry makes it even more alarming. Of course you refuse to answer this because you can't. You fool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5JVYTxjmdc

Haroki · Oct 3, 2007

Quote from DrEvil:

Testimonies of FDYN and NYPD officers who heard explosions coming from wtc1and wtc2 good enough for you:

More...

Nope, not good enough, especially in those creatively edited videos. I need to hear testimony of scores of demo charges going off, for each building, at the time of collapse.

Not before, during. Preferably on video also, since they're always loud enough to be heard.

BTW - this is NOT an explosion, but sounds EXACTLY like the ones heard on 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI-ENqgjQXM

Next !

You lose !!!

DrEvil · Oct 3, 2007

Quote from Haroki:

Nope, not good enough, especially in those creatively edited videos. I need to hear testimony of scores of demo charges going off, for each building, at the time of collapse.

Not before, during. Preferably on video also, since they're always loud enough to be heard.

BTW - this is NOT an explosion, but sounds EXACTLY like the ones heard on 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI-ENqgjQXM

Next !

You lose !!!
More...

for the second time fool, thermite doesn't explose like a grenade so no there wouldn't be any loud explosions. Here is a demonstration of thermite that clearly shows this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM

Capiche?

Btw, i'm still laughing at your E=mc(squared) comments. You need to get yourself an education if you don't want to look like such a fool in future.

Haroki · Oct 3, 2007

Quote from DrEvil:

You retard, you are trying to use E=mc(squared), which is einstein's theory of Special relativity to discuss gravity? You have just revealed what little grasp of physics you have! You fool, its Newtons laws of gravity model the behavour of gravity.

More...

Who said I was discussing gravity? I'm talking about the amount of energy being generated when the (building's) mass (M) starts moving (Csquared).

The remaining structure must be able to absorb that energy to stop the fall. If it can't, things go on unimpeded. That is the nature of it.

And since you like to present yourself as scholarly. Try this. In it, every recitation of Newton is thoroughly debunked.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

You lose !!

Haroki · Oct 3, 2007

Quote from DrEvil:

for the second time fool, thermite doesn't explose like a grenade so no there wouldn't be any loud explosions. Here is a demonstration of thermite that clearly shows this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM

Capiche?

Btw, i'm still laughing at your E=mc(squared) comments. You need to get yourself an education if you don't want to look like such a fool in future.
More...

Thermite Debunked !!

You lose !!

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wGnSFwL8a10"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wGnSFwL8a10" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

DrEvil · Oct 3, 2007

Quote from Haroki:

Who said I was discussing gravity? I'm talking about the amount of energy being generated when the (building's) mass (M) starts moving (Csquared).

The remaining structure must be able to absorb that energy to stop the fall. If it can't, things go on unimpeded. That is the nature of it.

And since you like to present yourself as scholarly. Try this. In it, every recitation of Newton is thoroughly debunked.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

You lose !!
More...

You are making it worse for yourself idiot. C refers to the speed of light. So unless you are referring to the buildings particles approaching the speed of light, then yes, newtons laws of conservation of momentum describes the law of gravity. They really debunked newtons laws of physics? Ok little fella, you got me beat, if you are breaking the laws of physics now. Wow, even by your standards Haroki, that is stupidity on a scale that the world has never seen. You fool.

dddooo · Oct 3, 2007

Quote from DrEvil:

Testimonies of FDYN and NYPD officers who heard explosions coming from wtc1and wtc2 good enough for you:
More...

Bullshit. I was there on 9/11, I was on Wall street. My friends, co-workers, millions of americans were there, at the time the towers fell (around 10-11 am) no one had been evacuated yet so millions of people who worked in downtown Manhattan were still there just a few hundred yards away from the towers. No one heard no stinking explosions, not a single person.