Rat:
>tell you what... why don't you start off like
>an arrogant prick... thats a great way to engage.
Perhaps I should browse for a sampling of things you have called people over the last bit and see who comes off as the arrogant prick -- the evidence would show that I can't hold a candle to you in that area.
Anyway, when you continue to scream "free fall" when every picture out there shows you're out to lunch, expect it to be called like it is. Why do you continue to avoid me on that issue?
(and while we're on the avoidance subject... you're silence on the wtc7 "pull" issue is deafening. Here's my reasonable request from more than a year ago...
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=915171&highlight=rat#post915171)
>so let me get this straight... your answer regarding
>the squib 40 floors below the collapse is pressure
>from pancaking?
A: You're the one calling it a squib which shows nothing but presumption on your part. The glass is blowing out, that's a fact -- the question is why.
B: Did I ever even mention "pancaking"? The building is collapsing -- that also is a fact. Pancake or no pancake, the building is pressurized due to the collapse -- that also is a fact of physics.
>you do realise that the govt and most debunkers
>have abandoned the pancake theory, right?
Did I say anything about pancaking? Why to you keep bringing this up without me mentioning it? But--- while we're on the subject..
Would you mind providing me with some meaningful evidence that "the govt and most debunkers have abandoned the pancake theory". I'd be most interested in hearing the governments (and most "debunkers") takes on this.
>im sorry, but your pressurization theory seems to be
>far fetched. i have very little confidence that this force
>could have travelled this far and then be so concentrated
>as to pop out the window exactly like a squib.
If you were to brush up on your physics studies... you would find that pressure can "travel far" (to use your term) and when backed up by a motivating force can indeed be quite concentrated. But--- while we're on the subject..
In the scenario I described, it's not any particular "concentration" of pressure (floor wise) that would blow out the window -- the entire floor (or floors) *could* be at a nearly even pressure relative to each other and yet only one window blow (the weakest link, so to speak).
JB