Ignatz goes back in his Box

[Ignatz]

[Ignatz]

[Ignatz]

[Ignatz]

[Ignatz]

[Ignatz]

[Ignatz]

[John White]

Ignatz: I thought you played your cards well in the debate I split this from

I'm not buying it personally of course, but it did make me chuckle with the clever way your line of reasoning avoided awkward and fundamental difficulties

Regretfully, I don't have time to debate the towers collapse again at this time of year, I'm rather busy socially, but I do appreciate the efforts you have made to raise the bar on your own posting, so I can only pass on my respect for it

Be assured though, that there is no sneaking past critics corner and out onto the main forums for long, posts can easily be moved back down here: but at least this way your argument is nicely displayed

[physicist]

[James C]

Ignatz,

We've been through all of this before. Perhaps it got a little too complicated for you last time? But whatever the reason, your arguments remain as lame and devoid of all subtsance as always, just like the official 9/11 story. Give up, your contributions are worthless!

[telecasterisation]

I did this composite a while back that shows the collapse, the angles and relationship of the upper section to the lower. It may help.

[Ignatz]

[physicist]

[Ignatz]

[James C]

Ignatz,

As I said, we've been through this before and not long afterward at least one shill decided to opt out; no doubt he realized his mistake.

Please show us exactly where the collision is supposed to take place between the rotating upper section and lower tower. This was one of the major issues when we discussed this back in October/November - why does the rotating body suddenly straighten as it falls? The answer is simple, the tower below was collapsing also therefore no longer acting as the support and fulcrum to the rotating section of building above. Destruction of the steel core = no fulcrum = no rotation.

It's simple as long as you don't close your mind.

[marky 54]

its getting stupid, the offical storey has so many points that dont makes sense. that is why so many people are asking questions. the failure to address any of those questions and simply change the laws of physics and common sense forever is the only response.

wether critics like it or not there is still a lot of stuff that dosnt make sense or is greatly misunderstood involving alot of things on 9/11.
i could'nt give a nonsense which side is right but you can not expect people to believe a report that dosnt cover or skips over some of the things seen/known about on the day. instantly your gonna get people shouting cover-up when the report fails in a lot of aspects, is underfunded compared to most and supervised by someone who is linked to the bush adminstration.

are they lieing or did they do a poor job with the investigastion? its one or the other because people are waking up to the fact theres is something not right with what we were told compared to evidence. im open minded enough to accept anything i myself think may be wrong, but while ever questions go unanswered or are just ignored people cannot get a better understanding. if critics somehow think there information and logic is trusted you could'nt be more wrong. no offense but i myself dont trust your entirely honest at all times. its not answers by critics thats needed, its answers by those in the proper authoritive postion that is needed. amd they can sit there and ignore the questions but while ever they do they wont go away and more and more people will be asking.

most people questioning the events are not conspiracy theorists, i myself have never thought anything was strange and never got involved in storeys that could'nt be proven untill looking back at 9/11. and the only reason i did then is because it sticks out like a saw thumb. it is so obvious it didnt happen how we were told when looking into it. that dosnt mean inside job 100% it could mean nist and the like did a piss poor job and are wrong on certain aspects.

i dont give a nonsense what critics think, untill the mainstream media address the issues and those in the correct authoritive postion address the issues,
critics can say what they want it aint gonna change a thing. mainly because they contridict each other, there arguements dont stand up or they change the offical version for the sake of being right, or repeat parts of the offical storey that are in question to start with.

the goverments and mainstream media could help to settle the debate by bringing it into the public arena for discussion, a run of chat shows with experts ect. but they dont why? because they know it wont stand up to scrutiny?

my whole point is the offical storey dosnt add up wether you like it or not and untill its addressed properly it wont change what people think. again i dont beileve critics they all have differant storeys to tell and i carnt be sure which to believe if infact they are believable to begin with.

if it was'nt a inside job how about us lot truthers/critics putting pressure on for a run of t.v shows to debate it? so that it can be disproved if people are wrong to question it. i carnt see it happening because they are scared but worth a try.

[Ignatz]

[physicist]

[Bushwacker]

[Ignatz]

[physicist]

[Bushwacker]

[physicist]

[Ignatz]

[physicist]

[Bushwacker]

[physicist]

[Ignatz]

[Bushwacker]

[James C]

Oh Ignatz,

You are so dumb!

The outer facade did not support the entire building. The facade and the core were independent yet worked together to distribute wind loading connected to one another only by the floor trusses. The core could have collapsed and the facade would have remained standing and vice versa. But for rotation to have occured, both would have had to have failed and the chance of that was zero. So regardless of the pictures of the outer facade bending (which you desperately claim to be the real evidence), it makes no difference, the failure of the facade would not have been able to pull the core which was itself a truly massive and, I'll repeat, independent structure; especially since the facade was lightweight and the core very heavy.

If you fell a tree (I've used a chainsaw on many in my own garden), the trunk does not suddenly crush the remaining stump as it rotates. So why do you suggest such a situation in this case? Could it be because you are talking utter * here (as usual). I think so.

By your logic, the upper section should have rotated then stopped when it hit the lower section. One would therefore expect to have seen a small time delay as the lower part of the tower started to fail under the new weight distribution. However, it didn't. It started to rotate then fell instantaneously downward as if the very structure to which it once belonged had fallen away faster than it. The rotation thus ceased since there was nothing below it to rotate against. In fact for a brief moment the upper section appears to hang in the air like some cartoon character falling off a cliff.

Come back when you can think logically!