Anaxagoras
Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline
|
Still can't master the quoting system on Collar Me after having posted on here for years, eh R0? 
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
LOL R0 this is too much, all the pictures show material coming from the sides of the two main towers in diagonals.
PICTURES GUB ASSESSMENTS, SIGNED AFFIDAVITS!
Where the fuck are they?
I suggest you contact NIST or FEMA about that or do you want me to do that for you as well? 
quote:
R0 don't start making unreasonable demands, I have already taken a good deal of time responding in detail to your bullshit.
What you dont have it admission you have noting!
Too bad you lose. PLONK!
You aint no daisy!
I replied to all your points but because I don't have the time or inclination to write R0 a thesis he thinks I have lost the argument? R0 does this to keep reminding us that talking with him must always descend into farce! Oh yeah and I'm not a daisy! lol
quote:
Next!!
Here is an answer to your desire for some proof of serious damage to the columns http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm which includes photographs of damage such as photograph three of a large area near the base of the building that was "scooped out" - self evidently serious damage where colums are located.
WHAT? a few broken windows? A few TINY SUPERFICIAL dents? LMAO
People who are expert dependents believe any fucking thing why is that?
Well I guess this constitutes a few broken windows and tiny superficial in R0's reality http://www.debunking911.com/7wtcc.JPG
I wouldn't like to see a building that R0 actually considers seriously damaged!
quote:
LOOK DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT AN ASSESSMENT IS? DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT OFFICIAL IS?
Dont pass off bullshit for data, just another EPIC FAIL to support the gubafias' claims.
You cannot provide that data as it does not exist but you certainly can dance with the other poster.
Do you take requests btw?
You asked for some pictures etc. to back up my stance. I did so. It is no wonder it is not enough for you. Nothing would ever be because you latched on to Jones' teat.
quote:
WTF, a physically divergent structure is common English simply meaning in this context a building constructed differently. Everyone knows there are numerous ways in which buildings can be constructed.
Oh ok more meaningless off point drivel.
FACTS talk bullshit walks!
Need donations for new shoes?
I was making a very simple point that many buildings are build differently. Next thing R0 will be asking me what do I mean if I say the Sun gives us light!
Its only off-point if R0 doesn't like the opinion presented. Many other posters where comparing WTC7 to other buildings and I made a simple point abiut comparing them!
quote:
I was replying to your point about the the investigation being assumption in which I cited the credentials of the people involved. You asked for names of those that did assessments.
Yeh and now they had to eat dirt and fix their FINAL REPORT because of conspiracy kooks who kicked their asses and made them look like fools in public just like their supporters LMAO
Once again they weren't corrected by David Chandler. They merely clarified their stance.
quote:
You are unbelievable bringing up peripheral issues to try to reinforce your point.
The POINT IS they had to rewrite their fucking report to what the conspiracy kooks claimed! LMAO
No they didn't change the substance of the report as I already explained and backed up with the FAQ on WTC 7.
quote:
I don't give a fuck who you want to sue. It is of no relevance unless you want to sue Osama. It was a terrorist attack for fuck sake. Buildings are not designed to be impervious to any type of destructive force.
Its relevant to FRAUD that is being perpetrated on the people by a gang of thugs called the gubafia
Well only relevant if you exist in a fucked up reality where you believe your government would be willing to kill 50,000+ of its own civilians as was the originally believed toll.
quote:
You probably did make such a claim in the past. I wouldn't put it past you. In any case you were replying to a post I had directed at another person so you stick to the points if you are replying to my posts.
Probably?
Thats cuz I'm your huckleberry!
WTF! I'm getting a bit tired of these gay themed replies R0.
quote:
quote:
Even NIST acknowledged that the building free fell. The video posted shows a side by side comparison. People that hang around on parrot debunker sites get shit on face. The question is why would anyone out here deny the truth like this?.
I didn't say it didn't go into free-fall at one stage, it did for a short time latterly but it was only a fraction of the overall time.
If there is anyone on here that gets shit on their faces repeatedly, it is your good self.
Nice! I like backpeddling you are doing fine!
Not backpeddling at all. It was only in free-fall for a fraction of the time it fell. It can't be said the building fell in free-fall overall which was my point.
quote:
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
irrelevant they admitted freefall
LOL again it was only for a small patch of time. This was correct according to their unrevised findings previously as well. The time they originally cited for the fall was correct.
quote:
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
•Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
•Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
•Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
No futher questions the plaintiff rests and move the court for summary judgment based on the facts that the RECORD SHOWS INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE that gubafia lied in its report, that trustees considered to be experts falsified said reports in an effort to defraud the american people, you may step down now
What bullshit! lol It was only in free-fall for a third of the time of the descent of the building from the uppermost 18 stories. It collapsed in a total of 16 seconds when it would should have been 7 seconds for it to truly be free-fall
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
nice rebuttal, I enjoy watching people swing from their own rope!
After proving they lied some people STILL sppport them why is that?
Well thats nice.. others like to see people swinging as well, especially those who are too delusional to realise the rope is tightening around their necks!
BTW its typical behaviour of a conspiracist to accuse others that disagree of being in the pay of the Gubermint! You're a textbook conspiracist R0, where's your Kool Aid?
< Message edited by Anaxagoras -- 8/12/2011 1:07:18 PM >
|
RE: There was a plane! - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread