Creative Speculation

cbrer

(1,831 posts)

18. Potential yes, but...

Sun Feb 19, 2012, 11:14 PM

Feb 2012

"The roof line of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to
have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared. A
downward acceleration of the falling upper block implies a downward net
force, which requires that the upward resistive force was less than the
weight of the block."

Is there not a constant effect? That would rule the whole theory suspect.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

85 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

OK then. Just the facts. 9-11 [View all] cbrer Feb 2012 OP

I stopped at #1. zappaman Feb 2012 #1

actually it doesn't weaken steel Rosa Luxemburg Feb 2012 #30

Did I use the wrong word? zappaman Feb 2012 #31

Facts? These questions show that you've already been bamboozled William Seger Feb 2012 #2

Pancake theory leaves Politicalboi Mar 2012 #63

Nonsense will never change my mind, but actual evidence certainly would. William Seger Mar 2012 #67

I would really like to know what you believe to be the relevance of point 1 jberryhill Feb 2012 #3

Not completely cbrer Feb 2012 #4

Keep up the inquiry, please. earcandle Feb 2012 #5

"Conflicting data"? William Seger Feb 2012 #6

Indubitably (sp?) cbrer Feb 2012 #7

If you don't have the background to wade through the equations used... AZCat Feb 2012 #8

Not asking for defense cbrer Feb 2012 #10

If you could apply the laws of physics to 9/11 as you claim, you LARED Feb 2012 #13

Uh... Yes, you did. AZCat Feb 2012 #15

I stand corrected cbrer Feb 2012 #17

Have you read the NIST NCSTARs? AZCat Feb 2012 #22

If you "don't have the background to wade through the equations"... William Seger Feb 2012 #23

Those curves are typical... jberryhill Feb 2012 #9

Steel cbrer Feb 2012 #11

No one has told you to STFU jberryhill Feb 2012 #12

I need to start using the sarcasm emoticon cbrer Feb 2012 #14

"Lots of conflicting information by credible sources exist" jberryhill Feb 2012 #34

Google cbrer Feb 2012 #20

I misremembered the name jberryhill Feb 2012 #24

Thanks for the link cbrer Feb 2012 #25

This is pure nonsense.... jberryhill Feb 2012 #33

Maybe you can answer this for me then BobbyBoring Mar 2012 #54

And your explanation for that is....? jberryhill Mar 2012 #57

Here's one BobbyBoring Mar 2012 #58

Yes, David Chandler is a kook William Seger Feb 2012 #16

Potential yes, but... cbrer Feb 2012 #18

"... is shown to have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared." William Seger Feb 2012 #26

He states that it's in the video. cbrer Feb 2012 #27

I meant "shown" as in "demonstrated conclusively" William Seger Feb 2012 #28

Thanks cbrer Feb 2012 #29

Two weeks have passed and still no response, even LARED Mar 2012 #45

Weak assed effort cbrer Mar 2012 #46

Here is what I am seriously suggesting LARED Mar 2012 #50

An open mind cbrer Mar 2012 #53

Honestly is appreciated nt LARED Mar 2012 #62

I'll quibble with #4 OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #59

Quibble noted LARED Mar 2012 #61

seems fair, although personally I would avoid legal terms of art OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #70

nice post -- I'll just point out a recurring typo OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #32

And... cbrer Feb 2012 #19

For someone who claims to be curious, why have you not read any critical analysis of this POS? jberryhill Feb 2012 #35

Partial link- sorry cbrer Feb 2012 #21

"2. Timing does show some free fall throughout collapse of towers." jberryhill Feb 2012 #36

As I previously noted cbrer Feb 2012 #37

It doesn't require any particular expertise... jberryhill Feb 2012 #38

You were able cbrer Feb 2012 #39

No, you are not seeking information jberryhill Feb 2012 #40

here's the thing OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #41

Based on sources cited here cbrer Mar 2012 #47

"Please read these quotes and comment as to veracity." jberryhill Mar 2012 #51

My little personal story libodem Mar 2012 #42

I don't understand zappaman Mar 2012 #43

I know it is silly libodem Mar 2012 #48

"a bunch of nomads and a camel" jberryhill Mar 2012 #52

yes and no OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #60

Finally!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BobbyBoring Mar 2012 #55

I would have got it a lot sooner zappaman Mar 2012 #56

Well... terrafirma Mar 2012 #44

So amazing...after all these years libodem Mar 2012 #49

Lobby windows blown out Politicalboi Mar 2012 #64

Situational evidence cbrer Mar 2012 #68

You can add two more indicators of an inside job.... Mr. Skeptik Mar 2012 #69

huh? OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #71

Sure, Mr. Skeptik Mar 2012 #73

Nonsense William Seger Mar 2012 #74

darn it, you type too fast! OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #76

I guess it depends... William Seger Mar 2012 #78

yeah, it's easy to end up making people's arguments for them OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #81

seriously? OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #75

lots of odd assertions here OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #72

Oh and Politicalboi Mar 2012 #65

Oh boy, such nonsense sgsmith Mar 2012 #66

This thread is a hoot!!! Broderick Mar 2012 #77

I was hoping cbrer Mar 2012 #79

Have you drank too much Broderick Mar 2012 #80

you're not familiar with "formulae"? OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #82

chime in about what? I'm confused OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #83

No reason cbrer Mar 2012 #84

yes, there is a lot to be learned (or that can be learned) OnTheOtherHand Mar 2012 #85