[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Good that we have e2 as the independent arbiter.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Damn.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

If you want to know what I said, just read it again. It's not that complicated. It is noteworthy that you try so hard to make me say what you want me to say, though.

No arbiter is necessary to see you got busted for lying about what I said twice in a row. The evidence is right there one the screen. I didn't say what you INSISTED I said in either case, DEMONSTRABLY.

Victor thinks that not believing in obviously incoherent and ridiculous conspiracies is equivalent to going to bat for the integrity of the Bush administration.

Your inability to understand something does not indicate it is incoherent or contradictory.

It's just more of your quite consistent failure.

Thinks is incredibly generous for Victor. Most of this posts are just knee-jerk reactions to seeing a name he doesn't like.

What’s the P and not P that is being asserted?

Once you finish choking on your own rage you might see that i did not lie. A lie would mean I knowingly misrepresented you.

Let us try, once, to see if you are capable of reason.

The nist collapse time is published: an average 10 seconds. That is practically free-fall. With measurement uncertainties accounted for, it may well be free-fall. Either way, any faster fall rate would exceed g. By nist's own account. You said that it surprised you that the towers did not fall faster. Given you are here peddling nist conspiracy theories it is reasonable to assume you think the towers fell in 10 s, hence by implication you are saying you are surprised it did not fall faster than g.

And lo, another conspiritard posts a video showing some sticks falling faster than g.

Second, you post incoherent non-sensical contradictory scatter gun tosh about inward and outward collapse/buckling/whatever damn thing you said, and again I assume you are promoting nist fairytales. Which you deny, I mean support... somehow.

So yeah, blame yourself if I cannot understand your ramblings.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

I’m not understanding how inward buckling and outward collapse are contradictory. I’m not sure that’s the right way of explaining what happened, but I’m not seeing an obvious contradiction.

If you want to try to formalise that drivel go ahead. There cannot be both inward collapse and not inward collapse.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Oh dear. I think we broke him.

I assume they used two different words because they meant two different things by buckling and collapse. So now you’re asserting a strawman.

Well let us point out an even more obvious contradiction.

"Outward collapse".

Collapse by definition means downwards, not outwards. Hence my own assertion: there was no collapse. Gorgo style:

THERE WAS NO COLLAPSE.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Progressive collapse caused by inward buckling I think was the claim. Disproven by me btw.

But that's nist.

Gorgo gone rogue.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Lmao. Dude, your brain is broken.

Supports buckle inwards. The building collapses. Material is ejected in all directions, including outwards.

This is like that time when you didn't understand that 2 lines that are both perpendicular to a surface whose curvature is unknown are not necessarily parallel.

I looked around and found discussion of the difference between outward and inward collapse. Seems like people in mechanical engineering don’t accept that there’s a contradiction with saying “inward collapse”

https://www.academia.edu/22533888/No_sway_collapse_of_steel_frames_under_fire_conditions_A_parametric_investigation

academia

No-sway collapse of steel frames under fire conditions: A parametric investigation

Why do insist on using overly narrow definitions?

they lied about everything. but not this one single thing. seems legit.

The lied about WMDs so 9/11 was a massive conspiracy with complicity from thousands of other people who have never broken their silence. Seems legit.

Or wait, did Bush just pull this all off single handedly? Did he build the space lasers in his garage?

If the supposed lie makes more sense and has less contradictions than the “true story”, then I will say the supposed lie is more likely.

Also there was a congressional investigation on 9/11 so it’s not like we have to take Bush’s say so on this. I don’t think there was ever an equivalent investigation into WMDs.

And as with many things conspiracy related, I’m more likely to believe it the less moving parts involved. The most believable parts of the conspiracy are about the relationship between the Saudi royal family and US involvement in the Middle East, such as providing weapons that indirectly made their way into the hands of OBL, or using 9/11 as a pretext to go to war against Saddam. We can debate the involvement of the US with Al Qaeda without needing to say the collapse of the towers was a controlled demolition.

Apart from the buildings falling down. You know. That collapse.

by checkraisdraw m

I looked around and found discussion of the difference between outward and inward collapse. Seems like people in mechanical engineering don’t accept that there’s a contradiction with saying “inward collapse”

https://www.academia.edu/22533888/No_sway_collapse_of_steel_frames_under_fire_conditions_A_parametric_investigation

academia

No-sway collapse of steel frames under fire conditions: A parametric investigation

... See full post

Ok that is obvious but we are talking about material being ejected outward and upward, and only downward over a longer period of time, larger pieces disintegrating while they fall. This is in the video gorgo was referring to. With the outward collapse claim. We are not talking about buckling under weight which can obviously go either way. Collapse goes down, not out.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

See the video evidence above.

The buildings did not fall down.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk