Remembering Building 7

[BeNotDeceived]

Look it up. Tell us how gravity and 10 floors can reduce a 110 story skyscraper to dust in 12 seconds?

Not to point out a consideration for context and physics, but I'm betting that you can balance a bowling ball on top of an empty toilet paper core just fine. After you've done so, lift the bowling ball up 1/4" off of that roll, and let go. Tell me how the roll holds up, with exactly the same weight bowling ball landing on it, as opposed to resting on it.

Also, BnD, you've left a few posts behind with only a link (after quoting another post). Please be mindful of Universal Rule 10:

"Do not EVER "link-and-run." If you post a link to something, always explain what's at the other end of the link, why it's important, and what you hope other readers / viewers learn from it. RULE OF THUMB: If it's not worth your time to describe it, then it's not worth our time to click on it."

Thanks!

It was a link to my original post that contained all of the motives. I'm not 'linking and running' as some might like to think, I'm posting information. that I hope most of you will look at in order to see the light about this issue.

[canpakes]

Not to point out a consideration for context and physics, but I'm betting that you can balance a bowling ball on top of an empty toilet paper core just fine. After you've done so, lift the bowling ball up 1/4" off of that roll, and let go. Tell me how the roll holds up, with exactly the same weight bowling ball landing on it, as opposed to resting on it.

Also, BnD, you've left a few posts behind with only a link (after quoting another post). Please be mindful of Universal Rule 10:


Thanks!

It was a link to my original post that contained all of the motives. I'm not 'linking and running' as some might like to think, I'm posting information. that I hope most of you will look at in order to see the light about this issue.

Understood for links within the site, but you have posted some to Youtube, DailyMotion, 911Truth and other outside sources. For those, please include a brief description of what folks are going to find at the other end of the link, be it a previous post elsewhere, a recipe for s'mores, a video of the cinnamon challenge, etc. ...

[Doctor Steuss]

Did people not get the damned memo about linking and running? C’mon, guys.

- Doc

My apologies. I was admittedly being petty.

The conspiracy appears to be confusing the thrust requirements at different atmospheric pressures to acquire given speeds at level flight, with the speeds that can be achieved through rapid descent. The conspiracy seems to be insisting that since on thrust alone, it would probably max out at around 260 mph (converting the thrust capabilities, and accounting for atmosphere psi differences), that it would be impossible to achieve those speeds in a rapid decent.

Bottom line, is that the 767-200 has a maximum approved dive speed (per the FAA) of 420 knots (483mph). This is what it can safely physically achieve by a normal person not intent on using it as a weapon.

But, the FAA needs to learn physics 101, and talk to some aviation experts, or something.

[doubtingthomas]

It was a link to my original post that contained all of the motives.

How do you explain the collapse of the east penthouse?

[Res Ipsa]

He's a moron because he is, and so are you for constantly throwing bogus claims of "basic physics" at us when neither of you don't even understand what the laws of physics are. Consider this moronic statement from Gage: ""It takes 2,800 degrees to begin to melt steel. It takes 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate it. Did that heat come from those few, small, scattered fires? We don’t think so. "

Whoever said the steel framing had to be "melted" in order for the building to collapse? I mean this is just pure stupidity at work here. Here is a blacksmith demonstrating how heated steel loses more than 70% of its integrity at 1500 degrees. This is why the building didn't collapses immediately. It took some time for the fires to spread and heat the steel beams.

For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT

In your convoluted worldview, there were mysterious Americans who had somehow managed to strategically plant explosives in a building that would be attacked by terrorists. Why? No one has been able to explain the logic in this. By blow up a building you know is already being attacked? In your idiotic scenario, for whatever inexplicable reason conspirators forgot the flip the switch to set off the explosives just as the planes hit. No, they were sleeping on the job we can only assume. Meanwhile, we're supposed to believe that a government that leaks information like a sieve is somehow able to guarantee the silence of the thousands of government officials who had to be behind such a massive campaign.

Yes, you're all damned morons.

If we were in a court of law and I was presenting my evidence and you yours, you'd be laughed out of the courtroom. You, sir, need to go back and re-take physics 101, or 099, that's how ignorant you are.

I take it you're not a lawyer. What you've presented so far would not get you in to a courtroom to hold a trial. You have doggedly refused to present evidence. "Oh yeah, explain this" "Oh yeah, explain that" is not evidence. But is the common form of conspiracy theory "argument." You wouldn't get laughed out of court. You'd get laughed out of the lobby.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

A relevant post and answer to the post that might shed light on BND’s conspiracy theory th8ng:

I feel for those that have to go through this, or deal with it

I've been only exposed to this via a friend who fell into the conspiracy stuff, then he fell into the Q thing a couple of years ago (have not spoken in a couple of years now). Watching this guy fall into this was very interesting. He is an educated (BS Science) hard working engineer (engineer = logic, thus one would think immune?). What he was consuming had no logic, and that always baffled me. He job and life was logic, and here he was believing illogical things without even pondering "how is that even possible?".

His brain food consisted of Breibart stuff, with a super focus on the comment section. That was all consumed on faith without question. That led to rest of the trail (conspiracy sites, youtube videos, etc...) where one can find more self reinforcing videos and such. Last contact included the usual trope of Hilary, Liberals, Swedes, Kids, Elites, Democrats, etc...

I've wondered how these things grab people and holds onto them. I'ld love to see some posts from clinical psychologists delving into the "how", which may help many people (trying to resolve this for themself or a family member).

There must be a serotonin rush involved (look at what I found or figured out). The echo chambers are obvious in their impact. The push back against others who are not part of this is an obvious defense mechanism that can be driven by many things (lost investment fallacy, etc...).

Reading these stories is very sad, and makes me wonder if we as humans can not process the fire hose of text / video / audio thrown at us. Have we created something in technology that we are unable to evolve quick enough to handle (individually and as a species), is it outpacing our ability to manage it sensibly? So often, when I see a success, a part of that seems to include "disconnecting that internet feed".

To those posting whom have fixed their lives, that is very brave of you to share you journey and many people appreciate it. And hopefully it helps other on that road to recovery.

A response:

You're a mathematician. You teach god-tier math at the local university. Your whole world is based on numbers, logic, reason and rationality.

On the way home from work, one day, you see a father slap his 4 year-old full across the face. It pisses you off. It makes you more angry than anything you've ever seen. You're boiling. You actually want to go over there and bash the dad. It's not your business, it's not something you should really do, you haven't thought through the consequences, but you really, really want. to. hit. this. man.

After a few moments, and some time to reflect, you realize that it would have been a really bad idea to hit this guy. You call the cops, instead and you've done all you can. You go back to math.

Now, imagine that you are tapped into a source of information that finds the exact same emotional nerve that was triggered when you saw the dad hit his kid. You still can't do anything about it, but you are just so angry, every day. It never occurs to you that your mathematical life is the answer for this influx of angering information. And that information is hitting all your moral buttons, constantly, all day. Until you can no longer distinguish between what you're reading and the people (like-minded) who you're interacting with online and reality.

It no longer matters what you think or how. It only matters that this emotional, knee-jerk reaction keeps getting touched, because it is addictive and it feels good to think about something and to be angry. To have a cause. Even if it is based on complete BS which you otherwise have the skills to discern for what it really is.

I used to think that people who believed in Q stuff and conspiracy thinkers didn't have critical faculties. It turns out that they do, but they willingly and willfully subdue them to get a feeling of righteous indignation and anger, because that actually feels like something to them.

This is why and how they get addicted to Q stuff. Emotions.

Outrage is a powerful and addictive emotion.

- Doc

[dantana]

Not to point out a consideration for context and physics, but I'm betting that you can balance a bowling ball on top of an empty toilet paper core just fine. After you've done so, lift the bowling ball up 1/4" off of that roll, and let go. Tell me how the roll holds up, with exactly the same weight bowling ball landing on it, as opposed to resting on it.

I was thinking about coming up with a similar analogy, but you've nailed it. Mine was going to be something about holding a block of concrete over ones head.

[BeNotDeceived]

If we were in a court of law and I was presenting my evidence and you yours, you'd be laughed out of the courtroom. You, sir, need to go back and re-take physics 101, or 099, that's how ignorant you are.

I take it you're not a lawyer. What you've presented so far would not get you in to a courtroom to hold a trial. You have doggedly refused to present evidence. "Oh yeah, explain this" "Oh yeah, explain that" is not evidence. But is the common form of conspiracy theory "argument." You wouldn't get laughed out of court. You'd get laughed out of the lobby.

For presenting facts, eyewitness testimony and concrete evidence? Whatever you say.

[Marcus]

For presenting facts, eyewitness testimony and concrete evidence? Whatever you say.

Speaking of your 'facts,' you still haven't explained your two comments here:

Jet fuel is 3/4 kerosene and does not burn with intense heat.

but tell me how a small amount of jet fuel can be sprayed into a building, travel 1,000 feet to ground level and then burn as molten steel?

Can you explain how 'unburnable' 3/4 kerosene traveled 1000 feet and then turned into molten steel?

You started this conversation referring to your 7 years of research and a documentary. Later, you defined it as a rough draft no longer available, but surely you have a script? Or something written based on your research? Please post what you have, because your explanations so far are derivative and contentless.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

You started this conversation referring to your 7 years of research and a documentary. Later, you defined it as a rough draft no longer available, but surely you have a script? Or something written based on your research? Please post what you have, because your explanations so far are derivative and contentless.

Well, so far we have:

1) A lie about having read the 2008 Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A).

2) A lie about having a documentary.

And not answered:

3) Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report?

4) Which unconstitutional legislation and new government departments in the last 21 years have restricted your freedom of speech? Note: The Patriot Act was literally not unconstitutional.

5) Which parts of those statutes contain new restrictions on freedom of speech?

6) What education, training and or experience gives you the expertise to understand and evaluate scientific evidence, investigate and evaluate the entire set of available facts, evaluate the reliability of eyewitness accounts, and determined whether the consensus explanation for what happened to the buildings violates the laws of physics?

7) How much effort have you spent understanding and considering the rebuttals to evidence you cite and the conclusions you draw from it?

8) Describe, as accurately as you can without reference to any materials, what the consensus view is and the relevant evidence that the consensus view relies on and the conclusions it draws from that evidence? (Can you do it in an accurate and non-pejorative manner?)

9) Why wouldn't we expect this from a 100 ton projectile, traveling at 460mph, filled with tens of thousands of liters of combustible liquid? <- The answer provided was a dodge.

10) Is this the paper you're referring to?

11) How much weight was each floor rated to carry?

12) If I provide the basic floor load for the WTCs, would that move the needle ref the towers collapsing?

13) Can you explain how 'unburnable' 3/4 kerosene traveled 1000 feet and then turned into molten steel?

I’m starting to feel like we’re not having a good-faith exchange with BND.

- Doc