Conspiracies - Page 149

**squigg58** · October 20th, 2012, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billybunter

Squiggs. With the greatest respect. If Bush himself told you what happened, you still wouldn't believe It.

I actually find that extremely insulting.

You seem to be suggesting that I don't question things or try to figure out what might have actually happened by looking at the available evidence, and weighing up that evidence.

I would care to bet that I have posted more photographs and eye-witness testimonies than you. Many members discuss those photographs and testimonies, challenge them, or apply different interpretations. When someone challenges what I put forward, I invariably reply. If I can't explain something, I say so.

If I make a claim, and someone asks for evidence or a reference, I will do my best to to provide evidence or a reference.

When I have asked for evidence or a reference to support a claim, some members will provide it. Some prefer to ignore such requests, or to simply repeat their claim ad nauseum.

I am happy to have others challenge my beliefs because, although I have my own opinions and views, I cannot say for certain what happened. I wasn't there, and I don't have all the facts.

If you believe you know the whole truth, that's fine. However, I'll make up my own mind.

I am not a mindless moron. I do not just accept "the official version" without question. If I did, I wouldn't bother looking at the evidence.

**billybunter** · October 20th, 2012, 08:28 PM

You have my sincere apologises. What I meant was we are not going to change each others minds. I respect your opinions on this. You have provided lots of great insight into what might have happened that day.

**squigg58** · October 20th, 2012, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rotobott

Let me make this clear, I don't assume to know what the ACTUAL fall time was.

There are conflicting claims about the "time to fall". I stated that it was about 15 seconds, but that was only based on watching videos.

Part of the problem is that there is a such a huge pall of dust that the top of the building is hidden, so it's well nigh impossible to say at what point the top hit the ground. Of course, we also have to bear in mind that the top is unlikely to have actually hit the ground as it would have landed on a large pile of debris, so wouldn't have fallen the full distance!

I attach the following video because it's one of the clearest views of one the towers collapsing, and illustrates the problem with the dust cloud.

In my opinion, the collapse starts when the counter ticks over onto 8 seconds. However, the end point could be anywhere between 19 and 22 seconds in my opinion. Assuming (for the sake of argument) the collapse started at 8 seconds, free-fall would result in the roof hitting the ground as 17.8 seconds. I would take some convincing that was the case, especially as large parts of debris which are moving at free-fall speed (ignoring any air resistance!) appear to be travelling faster than the collapse. The result is an unbrella shaped cloud of debris.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HmslIxPNvA

**squigg58** · October 20th, 2012, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billybunter

You have my sincere apologises. What I meant was we are not going to change each others minds. I respect your opinions on this. You have provided lots of great insight into what might have happened that day.

Apology accepted. Unreservedly.

**otokonomidori** · October 20th, 2012, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billybunter

Why are we talking about this all these years later? Because a lot of people just don't believe the official story.

The vast majority do though, and we can't all be stupid sheep who believe everything the authorities tell us. .

**DTravel** · October 20th, 2012, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nobody1

Found a small vid. It explains quite clearly what i mean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQAkgKQ7G-U

Speed is not acceleration. His physics is wrong and therefore everything he concludes from his incorrect assumptions are wrong.

Second, the weight of the falling top section kept increasing as it added the mass of the floors underneath as they were collapsed. They did not "disappear" or were "moved out of the way". They became part of the progressive collapse of the building.

Third, if the lower sections had been "pre-pulverized" to get them out of the way then the top section would have accelerated at 1g as there wouldn't have been anything to slow it down. Not the 2/3 g he pulls from who knows where.

Finally, he is literally completely ignoring the mass of the floors and contents. In his analysis only the vertical members could do damage or fall. He does not address what happened when the top section falls onto the horizontal floor below.

Edit: my apologies to those who posted a more thorough debunking of the video before I posted the above. I saw the post with the link, watched the video and then posted the above before reading further along the thread.

**DTravel** · October 21st, 2012, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nobody1

Found a small vid. It explains quite clearly what i mean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQAkgKQ7G-U

I was having trouble with this video earlier because what the maker was saying was so far removed from reality that I couldn't immediately understand it enough to explain what was wrong with it. It finally just came to me. He sounds like he believes that a five pound weight falls faster than a one pound weight and was trying to use incomplete parts of the math showing that they don't to support his belief.

**billybunter** · October 21st, 2012, 09:13 AM

All that in 9.2 seconds. I can't believe it. Sorry.

**MrInBetween** · October 21st, 2012, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DTravel

I was having trouble with this video earlier because what the maker was saying was so far removed from reality that I couldn't immediately understand it enough to explain what was wrong with it.

I'm glad it's not just me then. I'm not the best at maths/physics but I like to think I can get the gist of an argument if it's presented properly. If the people who do know about these things find it hard to figure out what this guy's saying, then I don't feel so bad that I can't.

**squigg58** · October 21st, 2012, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billybunter

All that in 9.2 seconds. I can't believe it. Sorry.

Sorry ... I'm not sure what you're referring to. All what in 9.2 seconds?

October 20th, 2012, 08:28 PM	#1482
billybunter R.I.P. Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Gone But Not Forgotten Posts: 14,404 Thanks: 51,687 Thanked 252,380 Times in 14,171 Posts	You have my sincere apologises. What I meant was we are not going to change each others minds. I respect your opinions on this. You have provided lots of great insight into what might have happened that day. __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

October 21st, 2012, 09:13 AM	#1488
billybunter R.I.P. Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Gone But Not Forgotten Posts: 14,404 Thanks: 51,687 Thanked 252,380 Times in 14,171 Posts	All that in 9.2 seconds. I can't believe it. Sorry. __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.