[–] RweSure 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
I call you a liar because you insist on lying. You use a deceptive clip and claim that the "perfect symmetry" proves it must be a controlled demolition. Then when I point out you are being deceptive and not showing the full collapse and it was actually highly asymmetrical, you act like you never claimed the opposite.
Then you make a new claim that an asymmetrical collapse also proves a controlled demolition.
And I call you a liar because I had previously pointed how how deceptive your clip was and you went ahead a d used it with full knowledge it was deceptive.
Your new claim is also high order nonsense.
All controlled demolitions implode the interior first and then the "outer shell". That's so the building collapses in on its own footprint.
This is incredibly silly and ignores the fact of how WTC was built and how it differs from other buildings. There is no one size fits all. And there's dozens of examples of demolitions that show you wrong on YouTube. Here this highly asymmetrical collapse starts on the left outer than middle than right outer. https://media2.giphy.com/media/9zA9uLCuGqScM/giphy.gif
Also you had that nonsense explanation about the additional structure at the ready, didn't you? It just shows you knew your clip was deceptive and did not show the entire collapse sequence.
It was first because, duh, there was more there to blow up.
Holy Lord in Heaven, this is dumb. I'm going to give you a chance to rephrase this to make it less dumb, because there's no possible way you meant this.
In terms of how WTC 7 fell, the direction was inluenced by the structural damage caused by the collapsing Towers. Something nobody could have planned for.
[–] DarkMath ago (edited ago)
"I call you a liar"
In science you don't get to call people "liars". Actually the whole idea behind science is to have differing opinions. Right now as I write this brilliant physicists are researching things like Super Symmetry, String Theory, High Temperature Super Conductivity etc etc. There are a panoply of opinions about all of them. Just those 3 examples may total to 20+ differing theories. All but 3 of those you would call "lying". Is that even a useful accusation? Can you imagine Professor Jim Gates opening a lecture at CERN accusing Professor Mikhail Shifman of "lying"?
The worst I ever heard was Newton accusing Leibniz of plagiarism but that's not in the same ball-park. Scientists don't dismiss competing theories with the accusation their opponent is "lying". Even the thought is comical. You would get laughed out of a conference. By your definition AreWeSure
ABOUT 99% OF SCIENCE IS LYING.
Full Stop.
Grow the fuck up. Rewrite your response to me and please remove your accusation that I'm "lying".
:-D
[–] RweSure ago
You know you were being intentionally deceptive. You know because I had already pointed it out.
You know that you argued perfect symmetry equaled a controlled demoliton and when I pointed out it was actually a highly asymmertrical collapse, you pretended you never made that argument.
How does that happen without you intentionally lying? Did you forget you using a deceptive video YET AGAIN?