You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] DarkMath ago  (edited ago)

"Why do you insist on lying?"

The Hillary Clinton School of Bull Shit Strikes again.

"Then the outer shell comes down."

All controlled demolitions implode the interior first and then the "outer shell". That's so the building collapses in on its own footprint. Once again you prove my point. Thank you.

"We can see that roof collapses on the left side first"

Yes because the left side of the roof of WTC 7 contained an additional penthouse structure the right side didn't have. The fact the left side penthouse collapsed first is actually as much evidence of a controlled demolition as not. It certainly is easily explained with a controlled demolition. It was first because, duh, there was more there to blow up.

"Why do you think lying will help your argument?"

You're priceless AreWeSure. Let's review more of the Scientific Method. I'd like to introduce you to an American Physicist named Richard Feynman. He famously wrote:

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

That means you don't get to call a competing view "lying". The entire concept of attacking the person instead of the argument is anathema to Science.

:-D

0
1

[–] RweSure 0 points 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.

0
0

[–] 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