| JREF Homepage | Swift Blog | Events Calendar | $1 Million Paranormal Challenge | The Amaz!ng Meeting | Useful Links | Support Us |
 |
|
| JREF Homepage | Swift Blog | Events Calendar | $1 Million Paranormal Challenge | The Amaz!ng Meeting | Useful Links | Support Us |
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Notices |
|
Advertisement
|
| Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
23rd November 2011, 08:53 AM
|
#41 |
|
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,692
|
Based on the clip I saw I think you made a reasonable case (pardon the pun). It's not how I would've worded about the freefall but the point you made on it about the net resistance was going well in the right direction IMO. People like him believe that the towers collapsed "too fast" and claim that the building offered no resistance to a static weight, when the forces were actually dynamic.
Personally the free fall argument is a moot point because to me... they make to argument purely to avoid having to make a technical case for what initiated the collapse, something that the canard doesn't address at all... |
|
__________________
Graduation on 8/13/2011 8D |
|
|
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
