So still think the towers were brought down without bombs?

[ChumpDumper]

Fine, do a arc analysis of your own pic, tell me, do things fall upward? because they are there.

Could you rewrite that in English?

Is the building falling upward so it got behind the debris? Is that what you are saying?

[ChumpDumper]

No, free-fall would mean that there was catastrophic truss failure at all levels, a statistical impossibility.

So the buildings didn't fall at a free-fall rate. Thanks for the admission.

[Nbadan]

No, when the building collapses the lowest point should be equal to the arc of the falling trusses, since that is the strongest part of any building, in any 911 video, you can see piles of debris that are expanding upward from what science says should be the lowest arc of collapse.

[ChumpDumper]

Ok, I can see you no longer wish to discuss this rationally.

I can see you never wished to discussed this rationally at all. You could never admit to something as painfully obvious as the fires on the north side of 7 WTC. Remember when we were talking about 7 WTC before you changed the subject yet again?

[Nbadan]

So the buildings didn't fall at a free-fall rate. Thanks for the admission.

No, te ally it fell faster, thus the need for a va e effect like that produced by detonated charges.

[Nbadan]

I can see you never wished to discussed this rationally at all. You could never admit to something as painfully obvious as the fires on the north side of 7 WTC. Remember when we were talking about 7 WTC before you changed the subject yet again?

I did bring up the fires again. The fact there was little or no visible fires on the critical 6 and 5th floors where FEMA and the preliminary NIST report said there was that cased a 'conspiratorial like' chain of reactions that consequently led to the collapse of WTC7.

[ChumpDumper]

How did the buildings fall faster than free fall when the debris fell faster than the buildings. You really have to explain why the debris fell faster than "faster than free fall" before you can switch subjects again.

[Nbadan]

How did the buildings fall faster than free fall when the debris fell faster than the buildings. You really have to explain why the debris fell faster than "faster than free fall" before you can switch subjects again.

Look, it you throw a rock tied to wire and a rock not tied to wire off a building simultaneously, which one will fall faster?

[Nbadan]

* that should be rocks of equal density and weight

[ChumpDumper]

I did bring up the fires again. The fact there was little or no visible fires on the critical 6 and 5th floors where FEMA and the preliminary NIST report said there was that cased a 'conspiratorial like' chain of reactions that consequently led to the collapse of WTC7.

Dan, maybe you are taking some kind of medication that makes you forget things. Here is what you said.

Now get this: the fire burnt for about 7 hours. During this seven hours, the fire never managed to reach the northern side of the building.

Here's a link in case you need proof.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=110

Now after all the pictures that have been posted of the north side of 7 WTC on fire, I ask you this:

Did fire reach the north side of 7WTC?

[ChumpDumper]

Look, it you throw a rock tied to wire and a rock not tied to wire off a building simultaneously, which one will fall faster?

If debris falls off a building that is falling faster than free-fall into a vacuum, which one will fall faster?

[Nbadan]

Dan, maybe you are taking some kind of medication that makes you forget things. Here is what you said.

Here's a link in case you need proof.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=110

Now after all the pictures that have been posted of the north side of 7 WTC on fire, I ask you this:

Did fire reach the north side of 7WTC?

So what's your point Chump? Fixation a problem for you?

[ChumpDumper]

Actually, your outright refusal to acknowledge a simple fact in the face of overwhelming evidence has indeed become a fixation for me. It's fascinating that you can't bring yourself to say "yes, there were fires in the north part of 7 WTC." It's that important to you to never concede even the smallest point, isn't it?

[Nbadan]

There was a fire visible through a window on the North side of the Tower, hardly a fire on the north side of the building, but if it will suffice your fixation then yes, there appears to have been a insignificant fire on the North side of WTC7. There feel better now?

[ChumpDumper]

Thanks for correcting your own inaccurate statement.

[smeagol]

I'll let you in a little secret.

I'm the mastermind behind 9/11. I planned the attack and hired my two most trusted friends, mookie and Dan. They planted explosives inside WTC 1 and 2. They also put some in WTC 7, for the of it.

It was me who pulled the trigger, though.

Now I live in Argentina, so catch me if you can.

(yes, this is how stupid tou two guys sound)

[Nbadan]

There's a lot you don't know about 911. Read.

[ChumpDumper]

If he's read these threads he knows about all he needs to know.

[Nbadan]

Well then, we should send this thread to NIST and the Smithsonian because we've solved a complex puzzle that some of the greatest academic minds in the world have been unable to form a consensus on, even 6 years later

[ChumpDumper]

Which great academic minds are pushing the controlled demolition angle again?

Charlie Sheen?

Rosie O'Donnel?

[Extra Stout]

* that should be rocks of equal density and weight

I flunked physics.

[ChumpDumper]

Grades don't matter while super vacuums exist outside of controlled demolitions.

[Phenomanul]

* that should be rocks of equal density and weight

I flunked physics.

In physics terms....

nbadan has a flawed misunderstanding behind the concept of mass. Moreover, this mental hinderance prevents him from understanding the fundamentals behind the conversion of a mass's potential energy to kinetic energy through the momentum provided by gravitational acceleration.

In laymen's terms....

nbadan needs to brush up on his physics.

[mookie2001]

like Dr. Steven E. Jones?

[Nbadan]

In physics terms....

nbadan has a flawed misunderstanding behind the concept of mass. Moreover, this mental hinderance prevents him from understanding the fundamentals behind the conversion of a mass's potential energy to kinetic energy through the momentum provided by gravitational acceleration.

In laymen's terms....

nbadan needs to brush up on his physics.

Your a moran. Why don't you try and answer my questions if you think you have such a masterful understanding of physics. I added those qualifiers just so anyone who attempted the question would assume that the rocks were of equal surface area.