collapse front faster than falling debris?

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2
…
8

collapse front faster than falling debris?
Topic Started: Jul 6 2008, 01:04 PM (1,895 Views)
silverstein	Jul 6 2008, 01:04 PM Post #1
Posts: 58 Group: BANNED! Member #713 Joined: 07/06/08	Since I am now consigned to the skeptics section, for trying to have a debate regarding the collapse of the wtcs, I hope those involved in the debate in the lounge will continue it here. I certainly havent noticed any complaints from headspin, that our debate was cut short by the actions of a moderator, apparently so interested in the truth that he censors differing opinions as a matter of course. Anyway headspin, maybe you would like to back up your claims that the collapse front of the wtcs was moving faster than the falling debris? You werent doing very well at this in the lounge, maybe you would rather forget the topic? Edited by silverstein, Jul 6 2008, 01:04 PM.
Posts: 58 Group: BANNED! Member #713 Joined: 07/06/08


bobloblaw	Jul 6 2008, 01:05 PM Post #2
Posts: 179 Group: BANNED! Member #636 Joined: 06/05/08	Yeah, I got restricted to the Skeptics forum as well. Apparently Lin Kuei doesn't like it when troofers can't lie with impunity.
Posts: 179 Group: BANNED! Member #636 Joined: 06/05/08


BoneZ	Jul 6 2008, 01:13 PM Post #3
9/11 Researcher Posts: 189 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08	silverstein Jul 6 2008, 01:04 PM I certainly havent noticed any complaints from headspin, that our debate was cut short by the actions of a moderator, apparently so interested in the truth that he censors differing opinions as a matter of course. Nothing is being censored. Skeptics of 9/11 Truth have their own part of the forum right here to discuss anything they like. The rest of the forum is for 9/11 researchers to discuss and continue their research.



silverstein	Jul 6 2008, 01:15 PM Post #4
Posts: 58 Group: BANNED! Member #713 Joined: 07/06/08	bobloblaw Jul 6 2008, 01:05 PM Yeah, I got restricted to the Skeptics forum as well. Apparently Lin Kuei doesn't like it when troofers can't lie with impunity. Sorry to hear that. It doesnt do much for the credibility of the truth movement, when they have to rely on censorship in order to cover up blatant lies.
Posts: 58 Group: BANNED! Member #713 Joined: 07/06/08


Headspin	Jul 6 2008, 01:15 PM Post #5
Posts: 773 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	bobloblaw Jul 6 2008, 01:05 PM Apparently Lin Kuei doesn't like it when troofers can't lie with impunity. I don't wish to interact at your frequency, it truely is an ugly place to be.
Posts: 773 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Headspin	Jul 6 2008, 01:17 PM Post #6
Posts: 773 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	silverstein Jul 6 2008, 01:04 PM Since I am now consigned to the skeptics section, for trying to have a debate regarding the collapse of the wtcs, I hope those involved in the debate in the lounge will continue it here. I certainly havent noticed any complaints from headspin, that our debate was cut short by the actions of a moderator, apparently so interested in the truth that he censors differing opinions as a matter of course. Anyway headspin, maybe you would like to back up your claims that the collapse front of the wtcs was moving faster than the falling debris? You werent doing very well at this in the lounge, maybe you would rather forget the topic? do not pretend you did not read my response: silverstein Jul 6 2008, 12:34 PM Headspin Jul 6 2008, 12:30 PM that was an incorrect link, (google video new layout doesn't aid cut and paste for the links), here is the video i meant http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1414080954035203231&q=fairbanks+911+&ei=agBxSOGtCYyqiwKvy52iDw&hl=en Yes, I ve justed watched it, the collapse front is travelling more slowly than the ejected debris. Your point was? pause the video at 13 seconds. At this point in the video the top 2/3 of the building has exploded apart. tell me where the falling debris is below the "collapse front".
Posts: 773 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


bobloblaw	Jul 6 2008, 01:19 PM Post #7
Posts: 179 Group: BANNED! Member #636 Joined: 06/05/08	Headspin Jul 6 2008, 01:15 PM bobloblaw Jul 6 2008, 01:05 PM Apparently Lin Kuei doesn't like it when troofers can't lie with impunity. I don't wish to interact at your frequency, it truely is an ugly place to be. Yeah, really. That's why you say shit like this - Quote: pause the video at 13 seconds. At this point in the video the top 2/3 of the building has exploded apart. tell me where the falling debris is below the "collapse front". What a load of crap that is! The building has only just started to collapse at this point. Watch the video between 00:02 and 00:05 and tell me again that debris is not falling faster than the rate of collapse. If you do you are deliberately lying.
Posts: 179 Group: BANNED! Member #636 Joined: 06/05/08


Avenger	Jul 6 2008, 01:31 PM Post #8
Posts: 478 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: Sorry to hear that. It doesnt do much for the credibility of the truth movement, when they have to rely on censorship in order to cover up blatant lies. NIST apparently fell for the lie, since they themselves claim the towers fell at free-fall speed. I think they were basing that assessment on the seismic data. I think the seismic data has each tower collapsing in about ten seconds. Video evidence suggests otherwise, but how can the seismic data be wrong? The only thing I can think of is that something other than the collapses produced those spikes in the data.
Posts: 478 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08


silverstein	Jul 6 2008, 01:34 PM Post #9
Posts: 58 Group: BANNED! Member #713 Joined: 07/06/08	I dont think Ive ever seen such wilful misrepresentation of video evidence. Oh wait, of course I have, this is the truth movement I am debating. The debris is CLEARLY falling faster than the collapse front, not just in this video, but every video I have ever seen. Your denial of this is quite remarkable, headspin.
Posts: 58 Group: BANNED! Member #713 Joined: 07/06/08


Headspin	Jul 6 2008, 01:37 PM Post #10
Posts: 773 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	bobloblaw Jul 6 2008, 01:19 PM Headspin Jul 6 2008, 01:15 PM bobloblaw Jul 6 2008, 01:05 PM Apparently Lin Kuei doesn't like it when troofers can't lie with impunity. I don't wish to interact at your frequency, it truely is an ugly place to be. Yeah, really. That's why you say shit like this - Quote: pause the video at 13 seconds. At this point in the video the top 2/3 of the building has exploded apart. tell me where the falling debris is below the "collapse front". What a load of crap that is! The building has only just started to collapse at this point. Watch the video between 00:02 and 00:05 and tell me again that debris is not falling faster than the rate of collapse. If you do you are deliberately lying. http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1414080954035203231&q=fairbanks+911+&ei=agBxSOGtCYyqiwKvy52iDw&hl=en the dark band you see around the tower in the video is the lowest skylobby, below this skylobby is the bottom 3rd of the building. at two seconds into the video clip above the top 2/3 of the building has been destroyed. please show me where the debris is ahead of the "collapse front" at this point. at this point i am not interested in the video between 2-5 seconds.
Posts: 773 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


silverstein	Jul 6 2008, 01:38 PM Post #11
Posts: 58 Group: BANNED! Member #713 Joined: 07/06/08	Quote: "I think the seismic data has each tower collapsing in about ten seconds." I think you would be wrong then. The seismic data picked up the first debris to hit the ground, at freefall speed. But then again you knew that didnt you? Edited by silverstein, Jul 6 2008, 01:38 PM.
Posts: 58 Group: BANNED! Member #713 Joined: 07/06/08


bobloblaw	Jul 6 2008, 01:39 PM Post #12
Posts: 179 Group: BANNED! Member #636 Joined: 06/05/08	Quote: at this point i am not interested in the video between 2-5 seconds. Of course you're not interested in that part of the video because that's the part that clearly shows debris falling faster than the rate of collapse! Good grief. You are more dishonest than CIT. Edited by bobloblaw, Jul 6 2008, 01:40 PM.
Posts: 179 Group: BANNED! Member #636 Joined: 06/05/08


BoneZ	Jul 6 2008, 01:41 PM Post #13
9/11 Researcher Posts: 189 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08	silverstein Jul 6 2008, 01:34 PM I dont think Ive ever seen such wilful misrepresentation of video evidence. Oh wait, of course I have, this is the truth movement I am debating. I'm sorry, why are you here again? Seems that your only purpose is to come here and start shit with the members of the 9/11 truth movement. You have yet to have a sensible, logical, researched arguement. All you're doing is blowing steam up people's asses and not showing anything to back up your claim. They 9/11 Truth movement is chock full of scientific, physical and forensic evidence proving alot of these theories. So how about you stop typing, and go try to read and learn something. Oh wait, that would be the logical thing to do.....



silverstein	Jul 6 2008, 01:45 PM Post #14
Posts: 58 Group: BANNED! Member #713 Joined: 07/06/08	Quote: "They 9/11 Truth movement is chock full of scientific, physical and forensic evidence proving alot of these theories." Then you wont have any problem explaining how the debris was falling more slowly than the collapse front? Thats the point of this thread. Or would you rather let headspin embarrass himself further? Edited by silverstein, Jul 6 2008, 01:45 PM.
Posts: 58 Group: BANNED! Member #713 Joined: 07/06/08


Headspin	Jul 6 2008, 01:50 PM Post #15
Posts: 773 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	bobloblaw Jul 6 2008, 01:39 PM Quote: at this point i am not interested in the video between 2-5 seconds. Of course you're not interested in that part of the video because that's the part that clearly shows debris falling faster than the rate of collapse! Good grief. You are more dishonest than CIT. to show that the building is collapsing faster than debris is falling, it is only necessary to show a video of the building collapsing faster than falling debris which up to the first 2 second mark it does. did it occur to you that the destruction of the lower part of the building slowed because there was no destructive devices or explosives in that part of the building? did it occur to you that explosives blast material in all directions (including downwards). why have you avoided my question: please show me where the debris is ahead of the "collapse front" at the 2 second mark in the video after 2/3 of the building has been destroyed.
Posts: 773 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


mynameis	Jul 6 2008, 01:51 PM Post #16
Internet Jujitsu Posts: 1,438 Group: Members Member #50 Joined: 01/15/08	silverstein Jul 6 2008, 01:45 PM Quote: "They 9/11 Truth movement is chock full of scientific, physical and forensic evidence proving alot of these theories." Then you wont have any problem explaining how the debris was falling more slowly than the collapse front? What is a collapse front?



mynameis	Jul 6 2008, 01:52 PM Post #17
Internet Jujitsu Posts: 1,438 Group: Members Member #50 Joined: 01/15/08	Headspin Jul 6 2008, 01:50 PM why have you avoided my question: please show me where the debris is ahead of the "collapse front" at the 2 second mark in the video after 2/3 of the building has been destroyed. This actually makes sense and makes silvershill sound nonsensical. Edited by mynameis, Jul 6 2008, 01:54 PM.



Headspin	Jul 6 2008, 01:53 PM Post #18
Posts: 773 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	silverstein Jul 6 2008, 01:45 PM Quote: "They 9/11 Truth movement is chock full of scientific, physical and forensic evidence proving alot of these theories." Then you wont have any problem explaining how the debris was falling more slowly than the collapse front? <snip insult> that is my question to you, seems you are confused.
Posts: 773 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


BoneZ	Jul 6 2008, 01:53 PM Post #19
9/11 Researcher Posts: 189 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08	silverstein Jul 6 2008, 01:38 PM Quote: "I think the seismic data has each tower collapsing in about ten seconds." I think you would be wrong then. The seismic data picked up the first debris to hit the ground, at freefall speed. But then again you knew that didnt you? You have got to be kidding me? Seismographs don't pick up miniscule things hitting the ground. Do you realize how much power is needed to cause a seismograph to record readings? 0.5 - 5.6 kg (12.4 lb) 23.5 MJ -- Large Hand grenade 1.0 - 32 kg (70 lb) 134.4 MJ --- Construction site blast 1.5 - 178 kg (392 lb) 747.6 MJ - WWII conventional bombs 2.0 - 1 metric ton 4.2 GJ ------ Late WWII conventional bombs 2.5 - 5.6 metric tons 23.5 GJ -- WWII blockbuster bomb 3.0 - 32 metric tons 134.4 GJ -- Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb 3.5 - 178 metric tons 747.6 GJ - Chernobyl nuclear disaster, 1986 4.0 - 1 kiloton 4.2 TJ ---------- Small atomic bomb Edited by BoneZ, Jul 6 2008, 02:06 PM.



silverstein	Jul 6 2008, 01:56 PM Post #20
Posts: 58 Group: BANNED! Member #713 Joined: 07/06/08	mynameis Jul 6 2008, 01:51 PM silverstein Jul 6 2008, 01:45 PM Quote: "They 9/11 Truth movement is chock full of scientific, physical and forensic evidence proving alot of these theories." Then you wont have any problem explaining how the debris was falling more slowly than the collapse front? What is a collapse front? The area of destructiion that moves down the building as it collapses. I would have thought that was obvious. If you watch the progression you can clearly see the debris ejected sideways travelling faster than the collapse, at least most people notice this.
Posts: 58 Group: BANNED! Member #713 Joined: 07/06/08


bobloblaw	Jul 6 2008, 01:59 PM Post #21
Posts: 179 Group: BANNED! Member #636 Joined: 06/05/08	Headspin Jul 6 2008, 01:50 PM to show that the building is collapsing faster than debris is falling, it is only necessary to show a video of the building collapsing faster than falling debris which up to the first 2 second mark it does. did it occur to you that the destruction of the lower part of the building slowed because there was no destructive devices or explosives in that part of the building? did it occur to you that explosives blast material in all directions (including downwards). why have you avoided my question: please show me where the debris is ahead of the "collapse front" at the 2 second mark in the video after 2/3 of the building has been destroyed. I'm sorry but I'm not even going to reply to this ridiculous bullshit. You are making shit up.
Posts: 179 Group: BANNED! Member #636 Joined: 06/05/08


mynameis	Jul 6 2008, 01:59 PM Post #22
Internet Jujitsu Posts: 1,438 Group: Members Member #50 Joined: 01/15/08	silverstein Jul 6 2008, 01:56 PM mynameis Jul 6 2008, 01:51 PM silverstein Jul 6 2008, 01:45 PM Quote: "They 9/11 Truth movement is chock full of scientific, physical and forensic evidence proving alot of these theories." Then you wont have any problem explaining how the debris was falling more slowly than the collapse front? What is a collapse front? The area of destructiion that moves down the building as it collapses. I would have thought that was obvious. If you watch the progression you can clearly see the debris ejected sideways travelling faster than the collapse, at least most people notice this. What does that have to do with the fact there was no resistance to the collapse at near free-fall gravity speed?



bobloblaw	Jul 6 2008, 02:01 PM Post #23
Posts: 179 Group: BANNED! Member #636 Joined: 06/05/08	mynameis Jul 6 2008, 01:59 PM What does that have to do with the fact there was no resistance to the collapse at near free-fall gravity speed? No resistance to the collapse? You might want to run that by your conspiracy pal Headspin here. I believe he just told us that only the top portion of the building was rigged for CD.
Posts: 179 Group: BANNED! Member #636 Joined: 06/05/08


silverstein	Jul 6 2008, 02:02 PM Post #24
Posts: 58 Group: BANNED! Member #713 Joined: 07/06/08	mynameis Jul 6 2008, 01:59 PM silverstein Jul 6 2008, 01:56 PM mynameis Jul 6 2008, 01:51 PM silverstein Jul 6 2008, 01:45 PM Quote: "They 9/11 Truth movement is chock full of scientific, physical and forensic evidence proving alot of these theories." Then you wont have any problem explaining how the debris was falling more slowly than the collapse front? What is a collapse front? The area of destructiion that moves down the building as it collapses. I would have thought that was obvious. If you watch the progression you can clearly see the debris ejected sideways travelling faster than the collapse, at least most people notice this. What does that have to do with the fact there was no resistance to the collapse at near free-fall gravity speed? Erm, that the fact it wasnt at freefall speed shows that there was resistance?
Posts: 58 Group: BANNED! Member #713 Joined: 07/06/08


Headspin	Jul 6 2008, 02:03 PM Post #25
Posts: 773 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	bobloblaw Jul 6 2008, 01:59 PM Headspin Jul 6 2008, 01:50 PM why have you avoided my question: please show me where the debris is ahead of the "collapse front" at the 2 second mark in the video after 2/3 of the building has been destroyed. I'm sorry but I'm not even going to reply to this ridiculous bullshit. You are making shit up. http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1414080954035203231&q=fairbanks+911+&ei=agBxSOGtCYyqiwKvy52iDw&hl=en pause the video at 13 seconds tell me where the falling debris is below the "collapse front". edit - can i use your quote in my signature? the bit about you not being able to respond. Edited by Headspin, Jul 6 2008, 02:05 PM.
Posts: 773 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
…
8