Started by AtheistMoFo, January 19, 2014, 09:48:42 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"For the obvious reason that controlled demolition is the only possibility. Even if there were other possibilities, controlled demolition being the most obvious and most likely, Occam's Razor would have it that an investigation should be carried out from that perspective.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Also, care to provide some math proving that Building 7 was in freefall? (I happen to know that freefall would have been quite a lot faster.)
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Also, care to provide some math proving that Building 7 was in freefall? (I happen to know that freefall would have been quite a lot faster.)I could, but I won't. Why should I bother?
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"You know the fucktards like to harp on about Building 7 being the first steel structure building to collapse from fire, but how many steel structure buildings have had to deal with a large, out of control fire for several hours? Shit, how many with construction similar to Building 7 have had to do that?
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"If I had not read it with my own eyes, I would not believe that I am being accused of sounding like a theist for having blind faith in the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"But because I can not point a finger at who placed the explosive charges, and because I can not describe in detail how they managed to rig the demolition, that is seen as sufficient proof that demolition could not have happened.
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Sure, fires that burn hot enough can cause steel to loose some of its strength. I never claimed otherwise. It is a gradual process that causes the steel to get weaker and weaker with the passage of time. Theoretically it could cause a building to collapse, even though it never happened before 9/11 and never since. But steel does not instantaneously loose all of its strength at once. Full support to zero support in a tiny fraction of a second. Only some type of incindiary device can do that.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Mofo..the notion jet fuel doesn't get hot enough to melt steal makes sense if all you do is pour a bit of kerosene on it and toss a match on it. You're lucky to melt a beer can then, but toss several hundred tons of older building material, plastic, furniture, who knows what else and extreme violent forces into a funnel that creates a vacuum and now you have a giant blow torch and melting steel becomes pretty fucking easy.
Quote from: "jumper"[snip]
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Wow. Consider it refuted. No reasoning, no logic, no evidence, but Thumpalumpacus refutes the laws of physics, and presto, they are refuted.