John P.
Posts:
29
Registered:
8/4/06
|
|
Re: The Physics Establishment: Choir Of Parrots
Posted:
Aug 12, 2006 3:31 PM
|
|
"Schoenfeld" wrote in a message
>>> You're right, the the north tower did not collapse in the 6 seconds
>>> 'conspiracy theorists' claim WTC 7 collapsed in.. I never thought of it
>>> in that way, thanks for clarifying that up, Goldstein...
>> Or the 9.5 I listed in the above paragraph. Are you dyslexic or just
>> illiterate?
> The South tower collapsed in 9.5 seconds is the contention of those who
> populate reality, the south tower. You are showing video of the North
> tower.
Do I need to type slower for you or something? It is said, by alternate
conspiracy theorists, that WTC 1, 2 and 7 fell at freefall speed. Freefall
speed for the towers would be 9.5 seconds (actually, 9.22), for WTC 7, it
would be 6.5 seconds. If you see a video that clearly shows the North tower
fell in excess of 12 seconds. Collapse videos of the South tower show it
also fell in excess of 12 seconds. Collapse videos of WTC 7, that show the
entire collapse (most alternate conspiracy sites only show the last 7
seconds of it), show that building took at least 13 seconds to collapse as
well.
Therefore, alternate conspiracy theorists who claim the buildings fell at
freefall speeds are wrong. They need to ignore readily available evidence to
make such claims.
> NIST admit they cannot account for WTC 7...
Actually, NIST has not yet released their report on WTC 7 (although they
said they would do so by July 2005 - over a year ago)
>... FEMA does not even mention it. 9/11 Commission
> report does not mention WTC 7. Your mind cannot
> comphrehend reality.
No... it's true. I cannot comprehend your reality. There is plenty of
information available, including FDNY statements, that make it clear *why*
WTC 7 collapsed. As to the exact mechanism... you are correct, no on to date
has provided such details. Given that there is zero evidence to suggest WTC
7 collapsed for some other reason, why would one even bother looking?
>> Your inability to respond to any of the facts present, or to provide
>> counterarguments or evidence is noted.
> How is it possible to respond to someone who says that WTC 7 did not
> collapse in 6 seconds when the video clearly shows that it collapsed in
> 6 seconds?
Yes... a 6 second video would tend to make it appear so. If you look at the
entire collapse, you cannot come up with 6 seconds inless you intentionally
ignore watching all but the last 6 seconds of the collapse.
> Why are you showing video of the North tower?
To show that it did not collapse in 9.5 seconds.
> Given that all indicators show a new government-sponsored 9/11 attack
> is on the verge of execution, wasting time arguing with you is
> dangerous waste of time.
Uh oh.... UFO's hovering around your window again? Are you hiding under the
bed as you type this? Have you built a bunker in the back yard and stocked
it with 10 years of freeze dried food?
Shhhh.... there goes a black helicopter!
AAAAAHHHHHHH
HHHHHHH
HHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHH!
|
|
