So when will Deuces finally start addressing physics questions that people are asking him?

JJ if I have a different opinion why can't I just be wrong? Why do you see me as lying? I think you are being too emotional about this stuff.

I don't know. One day I will live up to my ideals and address physics questions, go into details, answer people's question, and cite my sources. Until that day I will just make up wild allegations with no basis in reality just like you.

Okay, so now you've posted a video that shows the towers didn't fall at free fall acceleration. Glad we can put that false claim to rest.

Do you have an answer for MvdB's question?

Itt Deuces has been arguing that buildings that are demolished fall at free fall. Now that he has posted evidence that the WTC did not fall at free fall, he should be able to exclude demolition as a cause for the collapse.

Do you think that the analysis is not accurate with regards to the lack of deceleration? I think it is pretty straightforward. And if you agree with micro's analysis of the bowling ball experiment then you should start to feel a little unsettled.

There is a tutorial on Chandler's site on how to use the software. He isn't fudging anything. I mean, even NIST had to admit free fall on building 7. I predicted that before I ever read the report simply because you can't start telling lies using publicly available video evidence to which everyone has access. How is Chandler lying? Or do you not believe there should be any deceleration observed?

I shouldn't have to prompt you for further explanation. You accused me of lying but yet haven't given me the courtesy of telling me the truth. That's pretty rude dude.

No, I never said that. I quoted NIST saying the buildings fell at approximately free fall. I have actually asked opposing posters to provide acceleration profiles of other controlled demolitions for comparison if they know where to get these. My guess is buildings tend not to fall at absolute free fall under demolition due to incidentally supportive elements which are not targeted by demolitions, human error, friction, and other incidental forces.

Wookie's question is really basic and it's telling that you are dodging it like this.

I have a good idea of what Bazant is saying while you don't. Since you haven't shown the ability to take in sources when I cite them, I don't really see why I should try to explain Bazant to you.

I might do it, but not before respond to the Chandler article

Yawn. Once again, you make claims about me that are easily disproved. One of these days you might even muster up an apology.

If you disagree with analysis by distinguished scientists and engineers at one of world's leading research institutions, then by all means please answer this one simple question:

What rate SHOULD the towers have fallen?

Please show your work in your reply.

This is pretty funny. Not supported by the video you posted but still funny.


You still refuse to understand that once the building starts to collapse nothing is going to stop it because the dynamic load is too great for the lower floors. What happens at the interface between the falling floors and standing floors is immaterial as long as the descending mass retains enough dynamic energy to overcome the next floor in the building. The only reason you are being obtuse about this is because it doesn't support your controlled demolition theory.

TLDR, has Deuces evolved from "we cant tell what knocked down the buildings" to full borne, it was super-secret nano thermite, no chance the planes knocked down the building, lunatic at this point?

Dueces is LIHOP. The 19 hijackers spent 6 months planting explosives and nanothermite while everyone just watched and then they crashed planes into the towers setting off timers just before impact.

No, that would be you.

Clearly you're still mad that I wouldn't write a dystopian novel for you about a post peak future. I'm sorry, but I don't have to do so for the arithmetic to still be on my side, not yours.;

It has nothing to do with what I think, and everything to do with how compromised your cowardly position has been the whole time.

You didn't vote, moron. And your exhaustive reluctance to simply restate your alleged position shows you're not proud of it in the wake of the assertions by U.S. lawmakers.

And yet "Al Qaeda acting alone" was an option!

So I guess its likely I don't think any of the options in that pole reflect my opinions on 9/11.

As for the rest, you're the one that keeps trying to engage with me. Maybe stop doing that if you don't want to tell me what you think? I'm not going to waste time repeating myself when you won't tell us what you think just because you have a little man-crush on me.

Actually, nothing reflects your opinions on 9/11... Besides your ridicule of anyone who doesn't buy the official story. So in the spirit of someone like Gambool, you're just a troll with no actual position of your own.

If that's what you need to tell yourself, being a textbook narcissist. Back here in reality, I merely view you has a rather horrible poster on this topic, and enjoy cornering you and your empty logic.

And, I just told you what I think. If you're still butthurt that I won't write an essay for you re: post peak, I don't much care. But what does that have to do with your perpetual and cowardly evasiveness re: 9/11?

I enjoy that I can see the edits people make.

so Jiggs, do you buy any of the truther crap on controlled demolition?

so, this whole 'free fall' thing, what is that about?

are people claiming the buildings fell at a speed that could only happen in a vacuum, thus the buildings were never actually there and 9/11 never really happened and it was all special effects?

No. Measurements of the tops of the buildings show that the tops of the buildings fell at approximately free fall accelerations.

Some special people think that this means more than it means.

It's simple:

Deuces has been explaining for a few hundred posts that free-fall speed is a proof of controlled demolition.

In recent developments he found a youtoob explaining that the buildings fell slower than free-fall speed, and that it also proves controlled demolition.

I dont think that speeds faster than free-fall have been discussed yet but I'm pretty sure that they would prove controlled demolition too.

I think his position in regards to the top of the building not being able to completely collapse the building also puts him on the hook for the ENTIRE BUILDINGS being wired to explode in such a way that it looked like the top of the building crushed the bottom part. That is just awesome!

I wanted to vote, but am sure the correct answer is "deuces and jiggs" and they keep spouting nonsense to throw up off from getting to the truth.

The claim is that the towers couldn't have fallen so fast because the superstructure would slow them some, even as it failed. Ergo, only controlled explosions instantly vaporizing supports could have allowed free-fall velocity.

Problem being that they have no quantification of how much resistance that particular design should have presented. But a real-world experiment showed that once the initial floor went, the falling mass achieved near-instantaneous collapse of subsequent floors. As somebody said Deuces demonstrated, the velocity approached, but did not reach, free-fall. So no physics violation. It's all based on "seems to me that sounds too fast." "And the gummint never proved the building could fall that fast, so implosions."