It means allowing people to the freedom to vote for or against a new investigation as they choose, rather than having that choice stripped from them by the powers that be.
We've got conclusive proof that the official conspiracy theory is false, the most flagrant example presented in the OP. You on the other hand have your head buried deep in the sand to ignore anything of the sort.
I'm not intrested in guesses.
Sure enough, I let you falsers refusal to address the facts of the OP sway me from my previous plan.
Rather, he referred to a book, but I wouldn't expect a falser like yourself to respect the difference.
A man of faith in God, as am I. I figure a solid understanding of theology helps one know better than to ascribe Godly qualities of being all knowing, all powerful and all loving to human entities such as our government and media hence vesting them with such faith like you falsers absurdly do, atheists and otherwise.
From what I've seen of him, his understanding seems to be derived from rigorous research and investigation, rather than deferring to others to do his thinking for him as you are so obviously fond of doing.
I looked though questions years and considered them reasonable. I'm not going to dig them up for you now though as you are free to do your own homework.
Rather, 50% suspect foreknowledge, while 66% called for another investigation.
I don't seek to prove anything, but rather my interest in discussing the facts and letting the chips fall where they may, while your interest is obviously in doing anything but.
Says the guy who challenged me to make the OP and has yet to adress it.
I'm a person with a solid grasp of the physics involved.
Rather, you are claiming that the vast majority of physicists, engineers, and architects in this world have taken the time to look into the fall of WTC7, while I highly doubt that is the case, and am fairly sure you can't prove anything of the sort. I find your claim particularly dubious considering the Zogby poll I linked above found only around 28% of NYC area residents even knew WTC7 fell, and they live right around it.
I provided the facts to prove it right there in the OP, and neither you or anyone else has been able to refute them, not that one could rightly expect anyone to.
It puts him in the majority here on this forum anyway, but in the grand scheme of things even just believing al Qaeda was behind the attacks puts him in the minority.
I'll do that just as soon we finish discussing the evidence I provided in the OP. Granted, that point could never come as long as you are unwilling to even start addressing the facts I presented in the OP.
That is explained in the article I linked.
You haven't provided any evidence. Your boneheaded insistance that you have doesn't make it so. All you have done is to state a claim with no evidence to back it up and then you present no explanation of the physics to expound on your claim. In fact, your pathetic attempts to explain the physics demonstrates clearly to anyone that you are in WAY over your head here.
And How do you know that the supports were simply not providing negligible resistance? Show me the math to show that the supports would have provided enough resistance to cause an 8 story fall to be indistinguishable from free fall.
Yep, that's a definition all right.
Ok, So now we know that free-fall technically doesn't happen on earth. That's nice and all. But where is the fact that the structural supports simply were minimal? Heck, So long as each support failed or was near failing before the falling portion hit it, it would appeared to free fall.
You just said free fall was impossible. And they agreed, it is impossible. But a big enough group of people got together and found a number reasonably close to free fall that they conceded and used the term.
And this proves? Yes, the building fell faster at a period of time. Again, I will call your attention to the fact that you have yet to prove that the resistive force of a failing support or even a full blown support would have been strong enough to slow the top section from falling.
Gee, a column that is failing doesn't stop a huge hunk of mass from falling. Imagine that.
And here you jump into the land of fiction. You simply assume that complete removal is the ONLY way without even considering the possibility of a weakened support frame. Tell me, Have YOU ever seen a steel building collapse due to weakened structural support? By what authority can you claim that this never happens? Are you a demolitions expert?
Or option three, accept that this post proves nothing and your continual reference to it only shows what an idiot you are.
The exterior of the structure consisted of columns as well. While those columns were not designed by themselves to handle the gravity load of the building (they were designed to tolerate lateral and some tortional loads) they would still stand until enough of the interior beams had broken away because the beams at each floor imparted vertical stiffness to the exterior columns. Once enough internal beams were gone and no longer imparted enough rigidity to the exterior columns, the entire exterior structure was bound to come down because those exterior columns weren't designed to handle the massive load suddenly shifted to them.Originally posted by: LunarRay
Well, so far, aside from a few folks who know or at least accept with some degree of skepticism that I'm trying to understand stuff when I ask a question or proffer a concept or my current understanding and ask if that is right, reasonable or if folks have issue with it, I get bombarded with prove it and such... How do I prove a question? Ask it again, maybe
My Dynamic Defiance of obvious Logic means......
Obvious logic... Gravity.... It stood until it fell, vertical support ceased to provide support to keep the coyote up there on the roof. Some portion fell at or near free fall acceleration. Meaning everything keeping it up fell at once or nearly at once OR only what was needed to keep the coyote up there was viable until that support ended, tout de suite.. or some variation thereof. I see symmetrical while ElFenix says it wasn't.
Dynamic defiance... Dynamic is sorta movement... not static. So, while the inside moved about, the outsides defied the fall somehow. But, obviously cuz it could and did. NIST can print a forest worth of paper and have every engineer or AIA on the planet agree but I like to visualize, in this case, what others say can't be or is be.... And that is what I'm trying and others are trying to deal with... In short, what happened and when did it happen and could it happen in any other sequence. You see, once you can visualize the sequence you can accept the reasonableness of it... IF one is not otherwise blinded to that. When one can't agree with the 'fired did it' one then is tempted to introduce other forces to show how it happened... Like steel eating termites.
Pssst. 1100C is not hot enough to melt steel either. As far as eutectic reactions, that's already been dealt with in links I posted previously. You're a dollar late and a day short on that subject, as usual.
I'm still waiting to hear your own explanation of why you continually dote on that issue as if it means anything. Of course, you've never explained your beliefs in this forum and run away when questioned on those beliefs, or post some vague handwaving bullshit. There's nothing pseudo about my skepticism because it was already clear long ago that you're yet another truther poser acting as if you understand the facts when you're really simply blinded by your own ignorance.
Facebook
Twitter