And nothing was pushing down on anything regarding the Towers. Gravity was pulling at it and all manner of structure was pushing up on it too... Apparently, there was more up then down for the longest time...
If they were trying to be objective at all, they would have at least loaded down the column they ignited thermite around with a bunch of weight like they did with the beam and the jet fuel. Instead, they made sure the column wouldn't fail by having it stand without any load, in a situation where even if the thermite was enough to turn the steel to the consistency of rubber it could have still stood.
It would be better if you could write a post actually adressing the OP, as the vast majorty of the posts in this thread do anything but.Can I write that 2000 replies to this thread is a little excessive?
Rather, they will flex while the structure collapses, and the force exerted in flexing them being imparted by the acceleration of gravity pulling down on them, and the resistance they provide reducing that acceleration bellow that of free fall as long as that structure is there to do so. Also note that we aren't talking about free standing column here, but rather a collection of columns laterally supported by their connections to each other though the beams and such which make up the floors of the building. Pretty much all of that structural resistance had to be displaced to facilitate the observed period of free fall.The vertical columns in a building ALWAYS have force pushing down on them 24/7 that is how the load is carried floor to floor all the way into the foundation. If those vertical members flex then they lose integrity and will cause the building to collapse.
I wasn't talking about destroying steel, I was talking about weakening it to the point of failure, which simply requires generating enough heat to do so, and ignited thermite generates a lot of heat. Again, had the beam exposed to thermite in the NG program been loaded with enough weight, it may well have failed, and that is just with the bog-standard sparkler dust they were using, not highly engineered nano-thermite which generates far more heat.Thermite as a means of destroying steel doesn't work well, it is slow and requires lots of material remain in place for a long period of time.
The most likely explanation for the nano-thermite found in the dust by various labs is that it was sprayed on by people thinking it was fireproofing, triggered by remote ignition mechanisms which also possibly were installed unwittingly. Regardless, I understand the difference between probability and possibility; do you?Does anyone really think that they could put enough of this nano thermite on the beams and keep it in place and ignite it and do it all without anyone noticing ?
Nano-thermite painted onto the beams would do a whole lot more to weaken them than the office fires claimed to have brought WTC7 down alone according to the official story. Besides, I don't claim to know what the nano-thermite found in the dust was used for, or how specifically the buildings were brought down, the only thing I'm in a position to say for certain is that the official story is physically impossible.If it was a horizontal steel column and you piled it up on top and let it sit there burning it might burn through. But a vertical column with some painted on ? no way.
I believe what is demonstratively true, I don't take faith based claims to be anything more than what they are, and I highly doubt you our anyone else has a front row seat with God. On the other hand, you falser seem to believe that God confirm the official story, much like young Earth creationist claiming the Bible proves the Earth is only six minimums old.Truthers will never believe what people tell them, they could have a front row seat with God himself showing them how it happened and they would still say there is a conspiracy.
The vertical columns in a building ALWAYS have force pushing down on them 24/7 that is how the load is carried floor to floor all the way into the foundation. If those vertical members flex then they lose integrity and will cause the building to collapse.
Thermite as a means of destroying steel doesn't work well, it is slow and requires lots of material remain in place for a long period of time. Does anyone really think that they could put enough of this nano thermite on the beams and keep it in place and ignite it and do it all without anyone noticing ? If it was a horizontal steel column and you piled it up on top and let it sit there burning it might burn through. But a vertical column with some painted on ? no way . Truthers will never believe what people tell them, they could have a front row seat with God himself showing them how it happened and they would still say there is a conspiracy.
It's sarcasm, which Tool's lyrics are full of.Your signature describes you well Kyle.
"I am just a worthless liar, I am just an imbecile. I will only complicate you, trust in me and fall as well. Trust me, trust me."
Wiki mischaracterizes Adam's statement, which you could have seen for yourself if you followed the citation to the interview transcript where he actually states:From Wiki: This is lyrics from "Sober" a song about a friend of the band Tool, whose artistic expression only comes out when he is under the influence.
As for what the Song is about, Maynard explains that here:The song and video are based on a guy we know who is at his artistic best when he's loaded.
It's saying why can't we get along? It's about unity.
As for the The CBC program, I'm guessing it will be another hit peace, though I doubt it could be as lame as the recent one from National Geographic.Pay no mind what other voices say
They don't care about you, like I do, (like I do)
Safe from pain, and truth, and choice, and other poison devils,
See, they don't give a fuck about you, like I do.
Just stay with me,
safe and ignorant, go,
back to sleep, go
back to sleep
As for the The CBC program, I'm guessing it will be another hit peace, though I doubt it could be as lame as the recent one from National Geographic.
All they have to do is showcase enough nuts who think the Pentagon was blown up from the inside or that the planes that hit the towers were holograms and leave out any real discussion of actual proof that the official conspiracy theory is false to make it a hit piece. I haven't seen the program yet, and the link now says it won't be available online until the 29th, but I'd wager that is exactly what they did.
As for the The CBC program, I'm guessing it will be another hit peace, though I doubt it could be as lame as the recent one from National Geographic.
I just finished watching that Fifth Estate show on my DVR.
All the points they covered have already been discussed in this thread. The show pointed out some anomalies in the official explanation and the twuthers inability to formulate any rational credible alternative explanation.
The main conclusion is that twuthers assert the official explanation is not possible and that once they convince enough people, another official investigation will be done to find out what really happened.
From my perspective, the twuthers came out looking like a bunch of loons.
On a side note, Kylebisme has been nominated by several people for the 2009 AT ownage of the year award. I think it would be well deserved as he put a lot of efforts into it.
I just finished watching that Fifth Estate show on my DVR.
All the points they covered have already been discussed in this thread. The show pointed out some anomalies in the official explanation and the twuthers inability to formulate any rational credible alternative explanation.
The main conclusion is that twuthers assert the official explanation is not possible and that once they convince enough people, another official investigation will be done to find out what really happened.
From my perspective, the twuthers came out looking like a bunch of loons.
On a side note, Kylebisme has been nominated by several people for the 2009 AT ownage of the year award. I think it would be well deserved as he put a lot of efforts into it.
I'm not familiar with the photo you refer to, but the evidence I've seen makes it rather clear that it was hit by something, and I'm not certain it was the plane claimed by the official story, but have yet to see any hard evidence to rightly refute the story either. That was the problem with the CBC program, it wasted a lot of time on some guy claiming the Pentagon was blown up from within yet showed now evidence to support the claim, and they also wasted a lot of time with some fool claiming to have proven all the phone calls from the planes were faked and all sorts of other nonsense he didn't even come close to proving. That said, at least the didn't pull in the nutjobs who think the videos of planes hitting the towers are faked and that the towers we destroyed by satellite based directed energy weapons.Interesting you mentioned 'blownup from inside'... I saw a photo with columns bent outward.. only two of them but still it is interesting.
Mackey doesn't get it, and is frustrated by his own cognitive dissonance. I ran into him over at JREF forums, where he contested me with one ridiculous argument after another. It ended with when I pointed out the fact that he was making the argument of claiming the buildings came down without the use of explosives while also claiming it would have taken far too much explosives to bring the building down, the same false dichotomy argument I called TLC on here earlier. In response he deflected by falsely accusing me of not understanding calculus in regard to another part of the discussion to claim I wasn't worth his time, putting me on his ignore list. I've see many people accuse Mackey of being intentionally deceptive, but I rather figure he is just too wrapped up in himself to maintain a reasonable grasp of reality.Aside from Mackey being a wise acre but probably a frustrated nice guy at heart tired of dealing with folks who 'just don't get it'...
He's been nominated by TWO mentally challenged people. That hardly counts. Especially since there's little (see: none) ownage happening TO him. Keep on truckin, though.
much like the JFK documentaries where they show the film which proves the fatal bullet came from the front, yet fill the program with so much other nonsense speculation and refutations which mislead people into believing the official story of Oswald having taken the fatal shot from behind.
It makes him someone who morons like you think is retard.
Far more than I could be expected to recount here. I don't even believe any particular conspiracy theory in regard to the murder of JFK, but I know for a fact the fatal shot didn't come from anywhere close to the direction which Oswald is claimed to have been, as I've seen the film footage which proves as much. By far most Americans have come to terms with the fact that Oswald did not act alone, though I can't say I'm surprised that you and Frist are among one in ten still clinging to the official myth of that, morons that you are.Have you ever heard a conspiracy you could not believe in?
It's proven by every video which shows the roofline as it comes down, but if' you are asking which video NIST used to confirm the period of free fall, that is the first clip shown in this video which which I linked in the OP. If you want to see an actual video analysis of the rate of fall, you can view one of those here.I missed it, but where is freefall proven? If you would be so kind as to provide the video used I would appreciate it.