Do people still believe 911 wasnt a inside job?

Remember this?

For e.g: 'The government told us that we had witnessed a "gravitational collapse"; what is now referred to as a "pancake collapse"'

...isn't their position now (I'm not sure it even was)...

Where in the NIST report does it say that?

I guess you didn't look either.

...and this: Is your article talking about 'conservation of momentum'?

Thus, comparatively speaking, it seems highly unnatural and illogical in multiple ways (as well as misleading) to focus on conservation of momentum rather than conservation of energy...
http://www.911blimp.net/FreeFallFAQ.htm

So once (sorry, twice) you have ignored questions and tried to ask me questions instead.
As a diversionary tactic - it sucks.

Hey, lets talk about the central column again.

 

Odon, I recall asking you to explain how law of conservation of energy affected the collapse of the WTCs. All you've done is dance around that. Do you believe that the NIST Report claims that the law of conservation of energy or mementum was satisfied when it came to collapse?

Central column? Describe that central column.

 

Yes, AFTER I asked you about your article. I asked you a question FIRST. Did you answer that? NO. So why should I answer your question? If you are waiting for me to say: 'No it didn't' so you can say: 'I told you so' - you will be waiting a long time. If you are waiting for me to say: 'Yes it did' - you will be waiting a long time. I've not 'danced around that' - I'm waiting for you to answer my questions first - given I asked first. I guess I will be waiting a long time too.

 

joke
/jōk/
Noun
A thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, esp. a story with a funny punchline.

 

That central column hit you right in the head, didn't it?

I hope this serves as an example to jmt of what happens when an official-liner is faced with the laws of physics as they pertain to the core-structure's effect on the collapses. They don't go there.

 

Nope.

We've already been through it before. It was sarcasm. Ignore the questions and ask another to avoid the answers.

 

Odon, I put up something for you to look at concerning the laws of physics. If you disagree with what those laws state as far as the effect the core-structure would have on the collapse, point it out. What do you disagree with?

Odon, the buildings would have toppled.

 

Describe that central column.

 

You said something that was inaccurate about the article ('conservation of momentum') - it even calls it misleading - which is quite amusing. Now you can't bring yourself to admit it. The article starts from this premise: 'The government told us that we had witnessed a "gravitational collapse"; what is now referred to as a "pancake collapse"'. Which I asked to be proven.
If an article is responding to something that isn't accurate - isn't that a straw man argument? Certainly posting it in 2013 is. Unless you can show where the gov' has now concluded it was a "gravitational collapse"; what is now referred to as a "pancake collapse". It looks like the article was written a few months before the NIST report was published.
Like I said, I'm sure their physics are accurate - but it's now out of date and irrelevant.

 

I already did.

 

I did this maze in one min!

 

My eyes crossed after 30 seconds.

 

You can talk about what you want, Odon, but you're failing to explain how the law of the conservation of energy or momentum had no effect on the collapse. If your point is that physics dictates that the core-structure--the biggest an heaviest part of the building--offered no resistance to speak of, explain the logic behind that kind of thinking.



Even as you read what I've just written, you understand completely that the cores offered all kinds of resistance that would have cause the buildings to topple instead of virtually free fall.

 

...I'm not listening.


Yeah, I know.

I've explained my point twice now - you just choose not to listen.

 

No, Odon, you did not explain even once how the law of conservation of energy or momentum affected the collapse of the WTCs. So, I'm listening for your first response to that.

What does the NIST Report say about the effect that the law of conservation had on the collapse?

 

When you wake up, and you're ready, go ahead and explain how the law-of-conservation-of-energy pertains to the collapses; specifically as it pertains to the speed of collapses.

 

Consider a case where you are innocent and on trial for a homicide that you didn't commit and for which there was no evidence. Yet, the prosecution says that you committed the crime and hid all the evidence in such a way that no one will ever be able to figure out how it was done. The prosecutor says, "How dare you question my claim. You have no idea how clever the defendant is and how many times he has done it before."

Those are not arguments. They are beliefs or simply statements.

Then imagine the prosecution responding to being called out on its lack of evidence by saying, "The prosecution is right and you're wrong because your statement is based on an assumption that something can't happen in a way that is so clever that no one will be able to figure it out and on an assumption that the defendant's alleged criminal behavior operates on a policy of transparency"

The issue is that the prosecution provided no objective evidence for its claim and that its statements don't lend themselves to being falsified

 

I like your courtroom/prosecutor analogy. However, you assume that evidence of past false-flag operations activities connected to the accused would have no bearing on their guilt or innocence. Also, in a court of law, the accused would have been asked by the prosecution why they had the evidence carted off and shipped away before any investigation. It was a crime-scene! Is that how protocol works in your book of law concerning crime scenes?

In a real court of law, the prosecutor would ask what the investigators found after testing for explosives. What do you really believe a prosecutor would say if he was told that no such tests were done? I mean really! What do you really think? Personally, I would think that any prosecutor worth his salt would ask why such tests weren't done. And what do you really believe the prosecutor would say to the defendant when his answer to that question is: "Why test for something that isn't there?" Maybe in your court system prosecutors are easier because they follow a different protocol.

Speaking of protocol, how about the nation's internal defense system that morning? Planes flying around inside U.S. airspace unchallenged for how long? How many airforce bases in the vacinity? In a court of law, a judge would have demanded an explanation for that, you know? The defendent can destroy countries in record time, but was as helpless as the Gazans agaist the IDF when it came to stopping passenger jets? How niave do you think judges are, anyway?

I remember watching the morning local news the day after. The anchor reported that the reason that jets weren't scrambled that morning was because of confusion. And as she's reading the script, they put up a short little video of a fighter-jet going in circles on a runway on some military base. Tells you who they believe they are talking to, at any rate.

Had there been a real court case complete with prosecutors, etc., your analogy would have a place.

 

curious but why do 911 truther always bring up buliding 7?


I never really care about that build not that it wasnt important but I feel you dont need to look into that...