So, you disagree with the points about the collapse made in that post. Why?

. The question I asked was concerning how the cars caught on fire. What debris fell on the cars? It was not about the specifics on how we may or may not agree or disagree with how the collapse happened.

2. You implied that the white things on the building next to the parking lot (in the picture) indicated that debris had fallen in that area because you are claiming that roof has debris on it.

And yet the debris that fell on the roof did not start a fire. In fact, it looks like paper or just dust.

But the alleged debris that fell in the parking lot was hot flaming debris, hot enough start cars on fire, melt the engines, tires, explode out the windows, melt the door handles etc.

And yet I did not see any of this flaming hot debris anywhere else in that parking lot laying around. (I'm sure some of it must have missed the cars and just would be lying around..still on fire.. but I don't see any of that.)

This is anyone's thread. Is this not a public forum?

He was wasting my time insisting I read his meaningless cut and paste responses insisting that they were a proper answer to my questions, ---which they were not.---which is a waste of my time.

Furthermore, as I asked you several pages ago on more than one occasion, if the firefighter's testimony is false, what do you suggest caused this?

If those two small statements made by some fireman are what you are calling the "firefighter's testimony" all I can say is that they were very brief and incomplete. According to Insurance records, around 3000 vehicles were destroyed because of that attack.

Also that "firefighter's testimony" does not answer any questions about the strange damage to so many vehicles.

To answer your question, "What do I suggest caused this..." I don't suggest anything.

I am simply asking questions because the official report does not have the answers. Oh they have "answers" but they are answers that distract and ignore strange anomalies.

Many times I have focused in on very specific points and questions that for me have not been answered, and I get bombarded with piles of rhetoric and insults.

But rhetoric and insults is what it seems like this thread is all about.

The answers are obvious to those whose ability to discern reality hasn't been disabled by prejudice. If you don't have credible alternative hypotheses in the face of the obvious, please bother someone else with it, I have a life.

Thought you guys might like this.
http://911truthersexposed.blogspot.com/2009/10/911-truthers-exposed.html

Thought you guys might like this.
http://911truthersexposed.blogspot.com/2009/10/911-truthers-exposed.html

The person who created this blog is obviously obsessed with truthers and has no life. LOL

end of Rope,start of ad-Hominem?

end of Rope,start of ad-Hominem?

The answers are obvious to those whose ability to discern reality hasn't been disabled by prejudice. If you don't have credible alternative hypotheses in the face of the obvious, please bother someone else with it, I have a life.

Accepting the rhetoric of an authority and assuming everything they tell you is true is NOT discerning reality.

Its just being lazy and letting everyone else do your thinking for you.

And of course, if you "have a life" you certainly don't have to respond.

Has your raving got a point?


Free FallAccording to Roedy Green's How You Know 9-11 Was an Inside Job:
All three World Trade Towers fell faster over the first half of the collapse than physics allows by free fall. That meant they had to have an assist, e.g. an explosive push from pre-planted demolition charges, not just gravity pulling them down. The maximum collapse for free fall is computed by
distance = g t
where g is the acceleration due to gravity 32 feet per second per second, and t is time in seconds. In other words, free fall collapse should start out slowly and accelerate faster and faster for the big finale.

This is just plain weird. Whether a building falls by deliberate demolition or catastrophic failure, the collapse will be governed by gravity. Even if you used a teleporter to magically make several stories vanish, the part above would only fall as fast as gravity would accelerate it. Only if there was some kind of thruster pushing the building down could it fall faster. Why install a useless Rube Goldberg device? Once the building begins to collapse, who needs anything to accelerate it? Gravity has a pretty reliable record of pulling things down. And where's the evidence for faster than free fall collapse?
The videos show that the towers took 15 seconds to collapse. The free-fall time for something to fall 400 meters is about 9 seconds. So, no, the towers did not fall faster than free fall.
911Research claims:
This rate is still much too fast to be explained by a gravity-driven collapse given that the descending rubble would have to crush and accelerate almost 1000 feet of vertical intact structure. It is especially revealing that each tower disappeared at about the same rate as the rubble fell through the air, as if the tower's structure provided no more resistance to the descent of rubble than did air. All photos of the collapse show a plume of debris extending far below the main level of collapse. So the debris did fall appreciably faster than the building itself. The building provided little more resistance than air for the simple reason that a skyscraper is mostly air.
In the photo at left the collapse is about where the cloud fills the entire width of the picture, but the debris in free fall has almost reached the ground.

Note that the debris is at least a building width beyond the building itself. No competent controlled demolition flings debris that far.

The fall doesn't have to crush the stories beneath. It merely has to stress the structural elements until the fasteners pop and the welds break. The impact of that pancaking material will cause the outer vertical members to bow outward, then fly outward violently when failure occurs. There's no need to appeal to explosives to fling material outward from the buildings.
If a story is 4 meters high, it will take an object about 0.9 seconds to fall one story, by which time it will be going 9 m/sec. So once the collapse starts, the overlying structure will be falling at 9 m/sec by the time it has fallen one story. If we crush the collapsing story into rubble half a meter thick and expect the collapse to stop at that point, what kinds of forces are involved? We go from 9 m/sec to zero in half a meter, or 1/18 of a second. However, during that deceleration the velocity is decreasing, and the average velocity turns out to be half of the initial velocity, so the crunch time is 1/9 second. So the acceleration is -9 m/sec divided by 1/9 sec = -81 m/sec2, or about 8 g's.
This is the difference between a static load and a dynamic load. In the north tower, with about ten stories above the impact, the dynamic load was about equivalent not to ten stories but to eighty, nearly the total height of the building. I doubt if the tower at that level was engineered to support eighty stories - why waste the steel? Actually the loads are much greater because the initial collapse involved a fall of about three or four stories, not just one, and the dynamic loads on the points that actually resist the fall - the welds and the rivets, will be far greater. If you try to stop the collapse in the millimeter or so a rivet or weld can deform before failing, you're talking hundreds of g's. In the south tower, where the top 25 or so stories fell, the impact load at eight g's would be equivalent to 200 stories, or twice the total height of the building. Some conspiracy buffs argue that engineering standards require a safety factor several times the actual load on the structure, but the dynamic loads would far overwhelm those standards.
This, by the way, is the reason controlled demolition works at all. If physics worked the way 9-11 conspiracy buffs think, once you blew the lower stories of a building, the upper part would just drop and remain intact. Of course it doesn't because once the building begins to fall, the dynamic loads are far beyond the static strength of the building.
911Research devotes a lot of effort to debunking what it regards as disinformation campaigns designed to deflect attention from the theory of controlled demolition. But we keep coming back to the fundamental issue how any building can fall faster than gravity or why a conspirator would feel the need to set up a mechanism to do something so useless.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911nutphysics.htm


Are you dragging up the old debunked stuff just to stall?

Thought you guys might like this.
http://911truthersexposed.blogspot.com/2009/10/911-truthers-exposed.html

If you link to a blog full of nothing but ad-Hominems what would you expect? Do you think the rules only apply to one side?

I had to archive this little gem.

http://vimeo.com/41963839

yep,a real Crown-Jewel!

Love it!

9/11 was an outside job!

The Ailiens Invaded!