Creative Speculation

Ace Acme

(1,464 posts)

48. Ding! Ding! Ding! nt

Reply to jesters (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 10:15 PM

Dec 2013

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

83 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I'm lost on terminology; i.e. free fall [View all] Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 OP

You're right. But some people here apparently believe buildings are supposed to collapse slowly. TheWraith Dec 2011 #1

Lol. Um, no. jesters Jan 2012 #4

Skyline Towers, Baileys Crossroads, Virginia, 1973 William Seger Jan 2012 #19

Which, if you had read the post I was replying to jesters Jan 2012 #27

Wrong again William Seger Jan 2012 #32

Free Fall jberryhill Dec 2011 #2

I chortled. n/t Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #3

Everyone says "near free fall"... deconstruct911 Jan 2012 #5

no, I don't think free fall is inherently contrary to a controlled demolition hypothesis OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #6

"...(although you'll still find some people who seem to think it did).." jesters Jan 2012 #7

Still exhibiting your lack of understanding about Bazant Zhou? Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #8

Still claiming that he doesn't? jesters Jan 2012 #9

Sigh. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #14

A free fall drop jesters Jan 2012 #17

Sigh. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #18

One wonders if it is a LARED Jan 2012 #10

You don't have to wonder. jesters Jan 2012 #11

Look what up? LARED Jan 2012 #12

Good for you. jesters Jan 2012 #13

Ding! Ding! Ding! nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #48

I'm thinking inability to understand. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #15

Heh. jesters Jan 2012 #16

status: false OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #20

OTOH says "False!" and then proceeds jesters Jan 2012 #21

Once again demonstrating for all LARED Jan 2012 #23

I note that you didn't respond to any of my points OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #24

Wrong again William Seger Jan 2012 #22

Doesn't matter how he derived it jesters Jan 2012 #25

Here we go again... William Seger Jan 2012 #26

Pay attention. jesters Jan 2012 #28

Oh, so it was just another pointless red herring, devoid of any actual argument? William Seger Jan 2012 #29

Not really. jesters Jan 2012 #31

Some "truthers" DO claim free fall in the towers... William Seger Jan 2012 #33

"it's 'truthers' who still claim free fall for the towers" OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #35

"I am stating that he is the only 9/11 researcher who is claiming free fall" Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #36

omfg. How ridiculous does this need to get? jesters Jan 2012 #37

There is nothing for me to be embarrassed about here, particularly in regard to Bazant. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #38

Bolo boffin, jesters Jan 2012 #39

As long as you keep misrepresent Bazant's work so egregiously Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #40

that is factually incorrect OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #41

From Bazant & Zhou, 2002 jesters Jan 2012 #42

again, this refutes your point literally on its face, and more thoroughly in context OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #43

No jesters Jan 2012 #44

"his calculations" of what? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #45

No. jesters Jan 2012 #46

right, that's what I said OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #47

Shyam Sunder said the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, and he said that was freefall. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #50

Can you calculate what the "free fall" time would be for a building resembling the twin towers? AZCat Dec 2013 #51

Why should I? Isn't Dr. Sunder's estimate good enough for you? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #52

It's not me who has a problem with the NIST reports. AZCat Dec 2013 #53

Where do you get the idea that I have a problem with the bulk of the information Ace Acme Dec 2013 #54

From reading your posts - that's where I get the idea. AZCat Dec 2013 #55

What conclusions are you assuming for me? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #56

Of course - why would you double-check a simple calculation... AZCat Dec 2013 #57

Dr. Sunder is the expert. Do you think he's wrong? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #58

Do you understand the concept of irony? n/t AZCat Dec 2013 #59

Why, no, not at all! I'm sure your understanding of it eclipses mine completely! nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #60

That's what I thought. AZCat Dec 2013 #61

What makes you think I reject NIST's work? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #62

Other than your repeated assertions that the NIST lied... AZCat Dec 2013 #63

There is no reason for me to calculate free fall time. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #64

Because you can't? That's okay. AZCat Dec 2013 #65

It's trivial. "Won't = Can't" is a dumbass formulation. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #66

What is trivial? The calculation? AZCat Dec 2013 #67

Yes, the calculation is trivial. The demand that I perform it is insulting. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #68

Insulting? Really? That's one of your more ludicrous claims. AZCat Dec 2013 #69

I am not relying on Dr. Sunder's authority. You are. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #70

Oh really? AZCat Dec 2013 #71

I repeated his claim because that is the official time. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #72

Well, then, I guess that's the end of the internet (at least for your type). AZCat Dec 2013 #73

What gives you the idea that I support conspiracy theories? nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #74

<error> Internet not found. </error> AZCat Dec 2013 #75

IOW, nothing. You made it up. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #76

Why are you still here? AZCat Dec 2013 #77

I could ask you the same question. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #78

I'm here for interesting discussions of the collapses... AZCat Dec 2013 #79

You neither demonstrate your competence nor my incompetence. You make empty claims. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #80

I don't have to demonstrate your incompetence - it's demonstrated in your posts. AZCat Dec 2013 #81

Empty claims from a guy who claims to be a cat. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #82

Does your post have a point? AZCat Dec 2013 #83

Free fall ... T S Justly Jan 2012 #30

Zero G William Seger Jan 2012 #34

Unintentionally tautological, Seger refutes himself yet one more time. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #49