Yahoo News reports story: "1,270 Architects/Engineers Reveal Hard Evidence of Explosive Demolition

Originally posted by Stewie
Let me tell you this. First, I have read your posts. I think you may benefit from a little constructive criticism.

Definition of FANATIC
: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion

Originally posted by bsbray11

lmao, I didn't deny it, I said WTC7 did free-fall.

Did you know the government has also admitted this by now?

Apparently not.

Yes, NIST has already been forced to admit WTC7 did in fact accelerate at free-fall.

Wait a second, so you want to believe NIST in somethings only and not on others?... Humm, nickpicking much?...

There ARE MANY other reports apart from NIST, and I showed a few of them and they all show that there was no controlled demolition...

Originally posted by bsbray11
Like I said, I doubt you understand the implication of this though, and you need some basic physics knowledge to understand what I was talking about in my quote above.

Keep at it, you're doing great.

Oh, you mean like copying, and pasting a couple of physic quotes, taking them out of context and then claiming they corroborate your dellusions?...

You don't know what physics is even if it bit you in the behind... don't make me laugh...

reply to post by bsbray11

I think it is admirable that you are so patient with those that are having a difficult time absorbing information. Of course, I am not speaking of anyone in particular.................that would be T&C, tactical error.

reply to post by Stewie


Naa, we have expressions on the right side for a reason and if you don't like me laughing at the stupidity of BSbray too bad...

A fanatic is someone who with no evidence whatsoever believes a story just because he/she wants to believe in it...

You people are not even aware that you are fanatics...

I can imagine the responses of the same old people who keep making the same old claims.. "don't post facts, that means you work for the government"... "You are a government kook because you don't believe what we BELIEVE"...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Wait a second, so you want to believe NIST in somethings only and not on others?... Humm, nickpicking much?...

No, it's this bizarre concept called "logic." I don't know if you've heard of it, but it's been around for a few hundred years and we've learned to use it to differentiate between fact and fiction, without having to just take someone's word for something.

NIST denied free-fall for years, much like you are continuing to do, both of you denying it out of simple ignorance.

NIST has already corrected this mistake. I guess next it's your turn?

There ARE MANY other reports apart from NIST, and I showed a few of them and they all show that there was no controlled demolition...

Oh okay, not it's not about free-fall anymore, it's about controlled demolition in general. See, this is called moving the goalposts. Moving goalposts is a logical fallacy. You were still dead wrong about there being no free-fall. WTC7 accelerated at free-fall. One step at a time buddy, baby steps.

Oh, you mean like copying, and pasting a couple of physic quotes, taking them out of context and then claiming they corroborate your dellusions?...

Once again... Can you provide a specific example?

I don't know what forums you're used to posting on, but around here you shouldn't say something unless you're ready to support it. In fact, don't even MAKE STUFF UP anymore unless you have proof IN the post where you're claiming this garbage.

You don't know what physics is even if it bit you in the behind... don't make me laugh...

You are making me laugh... I just showed you that you were wrong and you didn't even acknowledge it, just turn around and insult me.

Come on man, stop trolling.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Not as if making 100 false claims and accusations doesn't do the same thing... Also adding actual substance to your posts instead of just harassing us for saying things without ever explaining why they are wrong, or that we never even said to begin with.

Riiight as if you didn't begin responding by attacking me, but now, and like always you people try to play victim when your other tactics don't work...

BTW, have you changed your mind from the dozens of other posts where you write about explosives/thermite that you are now claiming there was no thermite/explosives used?... Make up your mind...

Originally posted by Stewie
I think it is admirable that you are so patient

The "discussion" on this thread has become so ridiculous, I really can't even take it seriously anymore. The only reason I'm responding at all is because I got tired of looking at that jumbled mess on the left side of the screen.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Naa, we have expressions on the right side for a reason and if you don't like me laughing at the stupidity of BSbray too bad...

On the "right side"? You're a truther now too?

No thanks man, we don't need your help.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
BTW, have you changed your mind from the dozens of other posts where you write about explosives/thermite that you are now claiming there was no thermite/explosives used?... Make up your mind...

You never really knew what I thought to begin with, you've already proved as much.

All I asked was for you to back up your accusations with specific examples. So far you've been completely unable to do so.

I ask this to prevent you from continuing to make up lies. If you give specific examples of what I've been wrong about, we don't have to argue about what was said and what wasn't. Learn to quote specific posts and statements.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


your calculations of the traveled distance of an object falling from 1150 feet is incorrect.

gravity accelerates an object at a -32feet per second per second.

At the very start of the first second the object has not moved.
at the end of the first second the object is travelling at 32 feet per second.
at the end of the first second the object has fallen a total distance of 16 feet.

at the end of the second second the object is travelling at 64 feet per second
at the end of the second second the object has fallen a distance of 48 feet.
at the end of the second second the object has fallen a total distance of 16-48 feet or 64f

3sec velocity is 96 fps.
3 sec distance is 80 ft
3 sec total distance 144 ft

4. 128 fps
4. 112 ft
4. 256 ft

5. 160 fps
5. 144 ft
5. 400 ft

6. 192 fps this is slightly above terminal velocity (terminal velocity is 125 mph or about 187 fps)
6 176 ft
6. 576 ft about half of the height.

7. 192 fps
7. 176 ft
7. 752 ft total distance

8. 192 fps
8. 176 ft
8. 928 ft total distance

9. 192 fps
9. 176 ft
9. 1104 fet total distance traveled.

it will take @ nine seconds for a free fall object to hit the ground on earth, using terminal velocity of 125 mph.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

No, I must disagree.
A fanatic is a person that you will avoid if you can. For example, if a fanatic starts a thread, it will generally go nowhere. People will avoid the thread, the thread will die.
But fanatics come to OTHER peoples threads, and emote all over the place like a drunken sailor may lose his lunch after a few too many.
Of course you see my point, right?

stewie and bs bray do you guys have access to some valium?
not for us but i think i can get electric universe mailing address.

Originally posted by bsbray11

NIST denied free-fall for years, much like you are continuing to do, both of you denying it out of simple ignorance.

NIST has already corrected this mistake. I guess next it's your turn?

I don't give a rat's behind what NIST says... The EVIDENCE says the contrary...

Originally posted by bsbray11

Oh okay, not it's not about free-fall anymore, it's about controlled demolition in general. See, this is called moving the goalposts. Moving goalposts is a logical fallacy. You were still dead wrong about there being no free-fall. WTC7 accelerated at free-fall. One step at a time buddy, baby steps.

No, moving goalposts is trying to derail your own thread to "the two wars" instead of staying on topic, as to the claims made by the "1,200+ *cough*architects*cough*... And yes, your freefall" claims, alongside your claims of controlled demolition by explosives/thermite have been proved to be wrong, no matter how many times you copy and paste a couple of physics quotes, then take them completely out of context and claim they corroborate your fantasies... but apparently for BSbray that's "science"....

Originally posted by bsbray11

Once again... Can you provide a specific example?

Your entire rant is full of examples. You try to sound as if you knew what you were talking about, excerpt a few quotes from physics and then you want to imply everyone else but you know the answers.... If i were to excerpt your illogical rants i would have to write a book, and i don't want to write a book about BSbray lunatic ramblings...

I have already showed several times that the claims from these so called architects include the claim of "nano-thermite" being used, and i demonstrated that that research is a scam... but of course when evidence that debunks your claims is presented you make another conspiracy theory simply because you CAN'T accept FACTS...

Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't know what forums you're used to posting on, but around here you shouldn't say something unless you're ready to support it. In fact, don't even MAKE STUFF UP anymore unless you have proof IN the post where you're claiming this garbage.

I don't make stuff up... I leave that to the likes of you... You are very good at "making stuff up"...

Originally posted by bsbray11
Come on man, stop trolling.

Me trolling?.. naa, trolling is that your first response, and every response there after was to make ad-hominem attacks whenever we posted evidence that debunks your claim...and then you even go as far as claiming we didn't post any evidence at all...

People like you seem to become blind whenever the truth is presented...

Originally posted by Stewie

No, I must disagree.
A fanatic is a person that you will avoid if you can. For example, if a fanatic starts a thread, it will generally go nowhere. People will avoid the thread, the thread will die.
But fanatics come to OTHER peoples threads, and emote all over the place like a drunken sailor may lose his lunch after a few too many.
Of course you see my point, right?

Oooh i see... Well, my "flag contribution level" is completely blue... Meanwhile yours is completely white...so it means I have posted more threads that people have voted for than you, and BSbray put together... and BSbray has been around on his avatar several years longer than I have...

So I guess because my "flag contribution level" is all full i must be right, and you and BSbray are wrong right?...

I mean, that's the new lunatic excuse you just seem to have made up...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
I don't give a rat's behind what NIST says... The EVIDENCE says the contrary...

Well since your evidence is apparently better than NIST and everyone else on ATS on this subject, would you like to show it to us for once?

Btw, I did my own acceleration measurement of WTC7 and so did several others before NIST admitted it did indeed accelerate at free-fall. The fact that it was so easy to verify was why NIST was forced to admit it after trying to deny it for years.

So really, if you can show that it didn't, you would be refuting a number of independent analyses, including one that I personally conducted and is buried within my ATS posts somewhere.

Let's see what you've got.

No, moving goalposts is trying to derail your own thread to "the two wars" instead of staying on topic, as to the claims made by the "1,200+ *cough*architects*cough*...

Architects and engineers. Did you finally see that list that you were claiming didn't exist? Who's proving who wrong again? (I know, I know, you're proving me wrong, like none of us here can read. )

And yes, your freefall" claims, alongside your claims of controlled demolition by explosives/thermite have been proved to be wrong, no matter how many times you copy and paste a couple of physics quotes, then take them completely out of context and claim they corroborate your fantasies... but apparently for BSbray that's "science"....

I already asked once for you to give specific examples of what you're talking about, and instead you just repeat the same lies. It's official: you are trolling.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Once again... Can you provide a specific example?

Your entire rant is full of examples.

Of me proving everything you're saying to be nonsense. That's all I'm getting out of this. Are you going to have proof that WTC7 didn't free-fall in your next post? No, you're going to have more vitriolic garbage instead.

I have already showed several times that the claims from these so called architects include the claim of "nano-thermite" being used, and i demonstrated that that research is a scam...

Right, just like you proved that WTC7 didn't accelerate free-fall.

but of course when evidence that debunks your claims is presented you make another conspiracy theory simply because you CAN'T accept FACTS...

You might want to look up "projection" on a psychology website. It's when someone is having cognitive dissonance and they shift blame away from themselves by saying all their own problems really belong to someone else. I have been asking you for facts ever since we started this "discussion" and all you have been doing is making false accusations without being able to give specific examples of any of it.

reply to post by slugger9787


Would you mind to show us from WHERE did you pick up those calculations you just gave?...

Or are you just throwing numbers out of the blue?...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Would you mind to show us from WHERE did you pick up those calculations you just gave?...

Or are you just throwing numbers out of the blue?...

Have you ever had physics 101? I'm being serious. The first thing they teach you is kinematics.


I'm still waiting on you to prove that WTC7 didn't accelerate at free-fall.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Oooh i see... Well, my "flag contribution level" is completely blue... Meanwhile yours is completely white...so it means I have posted more threads that people have voted for than you, and BSbray put together... and BSbray has been around on his avatar several years longer than I have...

Ah, I see.

When all else fails, claim you're right because your flag bar is completely blue.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


check the math yourself.
I calculated the speed in fps the object fell for each individual second
i calculated the distance the object fell for each individual second
i calculated the total distance the object fell at the end of each second.

what more do you require.
it takes an object from 1150 feet @ 9 seconds to hit the earth.

it only falls 16 feet after the first second NOT several stories and its velocity continues to increase in speed up to terminal velocity of 125 miles per hour or about 187 feet per second.
the object would reach terminal velocity five somewhere around five to six seconds into its fall.
it would continue to fall at terminal velocity till it hit the earth.
that is why my figures do not show an increase in velocity for the last three of four seconds.

there were several people who jumped that day, and their time and velocity could be used to compare against the time the bottom edge of the damage building hit the ground.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Well since your evidence is apparently better than NIST and everyone else on ATS on this subject, would you like to show it to us for once?

you are talking as if noone else in the past has shown that you are not only wrong, but a fanatic who can't accept when you are wrong...

Originally posted by bsbray11
Btw, I did my own acceleration measurement of WTC7 and so did several others before NIST admitted it did indeed accelerate at free-fall. The fact that it was so easy to verify was why NIST was forced to admit it after trying to deny it for years.

Oooh goody, goody... You also picked your videos and edited them too right?...

Originally posted by bsbray11

Let's see what you've got.

I already showed SEVERAL TIMES the facts, even from MIT, and other INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATORS...and i posted those links twice because you SUDDENLY become blind when the truth is posted in front of you...

Meanwhile you have "your own nickpicked videos, and your own BS calculations" which together with videos of REAL controlled demolitions being compared with the WTC collapse shows that you don't know what the heck you have been talking about all these years...

BSbray, it won't matter how many times you copy and paste a couple of physic quotes, then take them out of context and claim "see i am right?"...

Originally posted by bsbray11
Architects and engineers. Did you finally see that list that you were claiming didn't exist? Who's proving who wrong again?

(I know, I know, you're proving me wrong, like none of us here can read.

)

Well i guess none of them did a good research because in 5 minutes of destroyed the claim of the"nanothermite paper".... But hey, keep believing the "architects/engineers" who couldn't even research the claims they make properly....

Originally posted by bsbray11
I already asked once for you to give specific examples of what you're talking about, and instead you just repeat the same lies. It's official: you are trolling.

And I already asked you several times... ARE YOU NOW CLAIMING THERE WERE NO EXPLOSIVES/THERMITE USED, THAT THE TOWERS DIDN'T COLLAPSE AT FREE FALL, AND THAT IT WASN'T IN GENERAL A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION?... Are you changing your mind now?....

Originally posted by bsbray11
Of me proving everything you're saying to be nonsense. That's all I'm getting out of this. Are you going to have proof that WTC7 didn't free-fall in your next post? No, you're going to have more vitriolic garbage instead.

in what dimension that that happen?... WTC7 collapsed by parts, AND THAT IS NOT HOW CONTROLLED DEMOLITION WORKS... Are YOU going to claim that WTC7 collapsed all at once, and not by parts?....

Originally posted by bsbray11
You might want to look up "projection" on a psychology website. It's when someone is having cognitive dissonance and they shift blame away from themselves by saying all their own problems really belong to someone else. I have been asking you for facts ever since we started this "discussion" and all you have been doing is making false accusations without being able to give specific examples of any of it.

Well, apparently your shrink has been keeping you up-to-date as to your condition...

BTW, BSbray when I said we have expressions to the right for a reason, i was talking about the emoticons we have to the right whenever we post a thread...

I don't want to be part of this lunatic, fanatical group "911 truthers" which can't even do proper research... Thanks, but no thanks...

reply to post by slugger9787


How in the heck does that show the WTC collapsed at freefall when even the seismic readings show that there was no freefall?...

Sorry but making up numbers doesn't prove anything... What object are you talking about you were counting?... you people can't even present a concise argument...

In fact if we listen form the start of the collapse, until the end of the collapse of the towers we KNOW that they didn't collapse at "freefall"...

www.youtube.com...