RE: Silly 911 toofers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Anaxagoras -> RE: Silly 911 toofers (8/16/2011 12:45:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:

ORIGINAL: LanceHughes
Anaxagoras you have CMail

wont do ya much good because his titanic already sunk, but nothing like its about to.

Whisper all the sweet nothings you want buddy boy, it may give you some temporary comfort but won't change the truth that your opinions have been demolished (excuse the pun), which must be eating you up! lol

[sm=anger.gif]

temper temper,

LOL you can't read properly can you. I was pointing out that you must be angry. I'm pretty happy that I'm shredding your arguments as the others on here have also pointed out! [:D]

quote:


the only thing that can save your ass now is the mods dumping the thread.

LOL I wonder is that your strategy to riggle out of the trouble you are in?

quote:


Its not like I did not warn you people not to jump in before looking but you pushed it and now you get it

[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/Image8.jpg[/image]

LOL your fancy pictures and fonts won't get you out of the messy you made in your diapers! [sm=bury.gif]



Anaxagoras -> RE: Silly 911 toofers (8/16/2011 12:49:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
I was asked to post up this paragraph by another member of CM, wich makes a good point:
quote:

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

no columns outpaced the *cough* "collapse" of building 7. 


LOL obviously the post related to WTC One and Two. If you had bothered to read the link you would see that.



mnottertail -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 12:51:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

good enough, yes. (I am agreeing to A building not EVERY building in free fall) there is a grand exclusion going on here of variables and timings and so on.

But I have said again and again that building was in free fall for a time, had to be, it is everyday physics.


explain how a natural collapse can freefall when by definition that you agreed with a freefalling object has no supporting structure and in a natural collapse there is supporting structure

or we can go back to yes and no again



We do not answer disparate questions posed as though they maintain some relationship to each other. You have made several illegal soritical leaps of faith (a grand understatement) just here.

But I have answered each of these complex questions in kind, again and again since the inception of you cunundruming yourself with this.

A natural collapse (we have absolutely no doubt that there were no natural collapses in any of these wtc buildings) external forces (yanno, some of those variables we have been discussing that move some of the data points around a little).

Couple were hit by planes and had some issues in the resultant chains of events, and one hit by megatons of falling debris and suffering under other perturbations..................


So, we will go back to yes and no.




Real0ne -> RE: Silly 911 toofers (8/16/2011 12:51:55 PM)

ok lets start from the beginning.

LEAD NIST INVESTIGATOR Shuntar:

Freefall;  "WOULD BE A FALLING OBJECT THAT HAS NO ah... STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT" (video 3)


Shuntar lied in the above statement.

yes or no.



Real0ne -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 12:55:05 PM)

that last one was for anga or whatever the fuck his handle is

this is where you and I left off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

LEAD NIST INVESTIGATOR Shuntar:

Freefall;  "WOULD BE A FALLING OBJECT THAT HAS NO ah... STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT" (video 3)


Shuntar lied in the above statement.

yes or no.



No. Not whatsoever, thank you for playing but you are unable to cogitate.




Ok so shuntar did not lie, that is correct.


Is this a correct graphical approximation of a freefalling object

yes or no


[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/nistfreefalla002a.jpg[/image]





yes




is this a correct reasonably approximation for a freefalling building

yes or no

[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/nist002-1.jpg[/image]



good enough, yes.    





Did the full length of the roof line after the initial kink of a couple feet fall reasonably uniform and parallel with the ground?

yes or no


[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif[/image]



Anaxagoras -> RE: Silly 911 toofers (8/16/2011 12:57:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
ok lets start from the beginning.

LEAD NIST INVESTIGATOR Shuntar:

Freefall;  "WOULD BE A FALLING OBJECT THAT HAS NO ah... STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT" (video 3)


Shuntar lied in the above statement.

yes or no.

R0 actually pasted the very same comment from the previous page which I had replied to in depth. [sm=biggrin.gif]

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
well then lets start from the beginning.

LEAD NIST INVESTIGATOR Shuntar:

Freefall; "WOULD BE A FALLING OBJECT THAT HAS NO ah... STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT" (video 3)

Shuntar lied in the above statement.

yes or no.

No he didn't lie. You are going to strawman so I will add that neither did he mean that free-fall meant no bricks and mortar below it. It means the structural supporting components would not be below the collapsing structure, which would also be the case with a planned demolition.

This is what he said in totality which you conveniently decontextualised, idhonest individual that he is:
quote:

… a free fall time would be an object that has no … structural components below it...And that is not at all unusual because there was [emphasis in original] structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had … a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous.
Thus he is referring to the structural failures die to the supports.

This point is also amply illustrated in the report itself (see part 3.6 - page 44.) and the FAQ http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm - the point he made is that free-fall took place in one event in a sequence of structural failures. True global free-fall outside of any sequence of varying collapsing events simply didn't happen.


He must be going through his on personal Groundhog Day which would explain a lot! [:D]




mnottertail -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 12:57:05 PM)

no, thats not where we left off. You have some fixing to do already.

ignored until there is foundation.




Real0ne -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 12:58:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

no, thats not where we left off. You have some fixing to do already.

ignored until there is foundation.




if you object to the question feel free to state your objection or do you expect the prosecution to "read your mind"?



Real0ne -> RE: Silly 911 toofers (8/16/2011 1:01:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
well then lets start from the beginning.

LEAD NIST INVESTIGATOR Shuntar:

Freefall; "WOULD BE A FALLING OBJECT THAT HAS NO ah... STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT" (video 3)

Shuntar lied in the above statement.

yes or no.

No he didn't lie.


Ok so shuntar did not lie, that is correct.


Is this a correct graphical approximation of a freefalling object

yes or no


[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/nistfreefalla002a.jpg[/image]



mnottertail -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 1:05:17 PM)

I did, dont be a fuckstick.

443. Is the goddamn problem explicated. 445 does not get an answer until you explain whether or not natural free fall and free fall are equivalent.

By example, if I throw you off the roof in a straight down motion with sufficient force you will reach terminal velocity faster (because of the added impetus of acceleration breaking the inertias sooner) than if you simply stepped off. (these things are important when dancing on the head of a pin).



Real0ne -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 1:10:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I did, dont be a fuckstick.

443. Is the goddamn problem explicated. 445 does not get an answer until you explain whether or not natural free fall and free fall are equivalent.



Ok I will clean it up.

explain how a "natural collapse" can freefall, when by definition (that you agreed with), that a freefalling object has no supporting structure. 

In a natural collapse there is supporting structure.




explain how a "natural collapse" can freefall



Anaxagoras -> RE: Silly 911 toofers (8/16/2011 1:14:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
well then lets start from the beginning.

LEAD NIST INVESTIGATOR Shuntar:

Freefall; "WOULD BE A FALLING OBJECT THAT HAS NO ah... STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT" (video 3)

Shuntar lied in the above statement.

yes or no.

No he didn't lie.

Ok so shuntar did not lie, that is correct.

Is this a correct graphical approximation of a freefalling object

yes or no

[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/nistfreefalla002a.jpg[/image]


You just put exactly the same question to Mnottertail, seems these days you can't do much more that copy and paste! [sm=biggrin.gif]

Its just a graph that looks like it appertains to free-fall but the real world reference points are not known so I have no idea what it is supposed to be about. Stop asking pointless time wasteing questions that try to make you look more knowledgeable than you are, and get to the fucking point.

If you need an education in the equations of free-fall then look at this: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1dkin/u1l6c.cfm



mnottertail -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 1:21:19 PM)

nope, clean it up some more. first off it is not a natural collapse and dont be trying to change that. Them planes hit that motherfucker, that debris fell on that motherfucker.

Nothing natural about that, it aint like the trees moving made the wind blow here.

There was a break in the integrity of the structure. A disconnect. You know, say I slice a sword across your spine, or drop a I beam on your head, the the backbone...your underlying structure is compromised.

And I did not agree that a free falling object has no supporting structure, you mean it to mean smoke and mirrors, vapor, asswipe and bullshit.

It has no supporting structural components beneath it. So, you are standing on your legs those tibia and fibula are goodamn sure supporting you right up until I drop an Ibeam on your fuckin head, and guess what, they aint supporting components to the structure beneath you now, you will buckle.

That chain reaction of failure of components isn't a new phenomenon in this old world.



Real0ne -> RE: Silly 911 toofers (8/16/2011 1:26:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
well then lets start from the beginning.

LEAD NIST INVESTIGATOR Shuntar:

Freefall; "WOULD BE A FALLING OBJECT THAT HAS NO ah... STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT" (video 3)

Shuntar lied in the above statement.

yes or no.

No he didn't lie.

Ok so shuntar did not lie, that is correct.

Is this a correct graphical approximation of a freefalling object

yes or no

[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/nistfreefalla002a.jpg[/image]


Its just a graph that looks like it appertains to free-fall but the real world reference points are not known so I have no idea what it is supposed to be about.


You have been called to testify as an expert knowledgeable and capable of determining and providing the court with a proper assessment in the matter concerning building number 7 on september 11 2001.

You have stated that you have no idea what this is about and if that is the case the court will be forced to dismiss you as an expert witness.

Please answer the question;

Is this a correct graphical approximation of a freefalling object

yes or no



Pedestrian -> RE: Silly 911 toofers (8/16/2011 1:28:34 PM)

Oops



Anaxagoras -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 1:31:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
nope, clean it up some more. first off it is not a natural collapse and dont be trying to change that. Them planes hit that motherfucker, that debris fell on that motherfucker.

Nothing natural about that, it aint like the trees moving made the wind blow here.

There was a break in the integrity of the structure. A disconnect. You know, say I slice a sword across your spine, or drop a I beam on your head, the the backbone...your underlying structure is compromised.

That chain reaction of failure of components isn't a new phenomenon in this old world.

Its the typical conspiracist batshit, deliberately ask the wrong fucking question to get the answer you want which is then artiifically pasted into the story. Suddenly its a natural collapse as one would find with normal structural deteoriation because er... tons of heavy masonry fell on it and fire raged through the building throughout the day! [8|]

Thus for the illooninati it was a planned demolition because (a) for a tiny fraction of its time it was in free-fall, and suddenly that is turned into proof of an actual free-fall collapse, when in fact a planned demolition involving free-fall collapse is for the entire duration of the event.



Real0ne -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 1:35:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

nope, clean it up some more. first off it is not a natural collapse and dont be trying to change that. Them planes hit that motherfucker, that debris fell on that motherfucker.

Nothing natural about that, it aint like the trees moving made the wind blow here.

There was a break in the integrity of the structure. A disconnect. You know, say I slice a sword across your spine, or drop a I beam on your head, the the backbone...your underlying structure is compromised.

And I did not agree that a free falling object has no supporting structure, you mean it to mean smoke and mirrors, vapor, asswipe and bullshit.

It has no supporting structural components beneath it. So, you are standing on your legs those tibia and fibula are goodamn sure supporting you right up until I drop an Ibeam on your fuckin head, and guess what, they aint supporting components to the structure beneath you now, you will buckle.

That chain reaction of failure of components isn't a new phenomenon in this old world.


Do you know what planet you are on?
This is about building 7 not 1 and 2..... LOL
No Planes hit building 7.

A collapse from fire is a natural collapse.

Now you wish to claim Dr Shuntar of NIST was lying in his following statement:

quote:


LEAD NIST INVESTIGATOR Shuntar:

Freefall;  "WOULD BE A FALLING OBJECT THAT HAS NO ah... STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT" (video 3)







Anaxagoras -> RE: Silly 911 toofers (8/16/2011 1:37:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
You have been called to testify as an expert knowledgeable and capable of determining and providing the court with a proper assessment in the matter concerning building number 7 on september 11 2001.

You have stated that you have no idea what this is about and if that is the case the court will be forced to dismiss you as an expert witness.

Please answer the question;

Is this a correct graphical approximation of a freefalling object

yes or no

I already answered the guy with this "Its just a graph that looks like it appertains to free-fall but the real world reference points are not known so I have no idea what it is supposed to be about. Stop asking pointless time wasteing questions that try to make you look more knowledgeable than you are, and get to the fucking point."

I asked him the fucking point but he ignores all the answers that don't suit him and the questions I put as well. Double standards anyone? [:D]

In Post 446 and Post 434 he blithely ignored my answer which appertains to his present query:
quote:

No he didn't lie. You are going to strawman so I will add that neither did he mean that free-fall meant no bricks and mortar below it. It means the structural supporting components would not be below the collapsing structure, which would also be the case with a planned demolition.

This is what he said in totality which you conveniently decontextualised, idhonest individual that he is: quote:

… a free fall time would be an object that has no … structural components below it...And that is not at all unusual because there was [emphasis in original] structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had … a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous.Thus he is referring to the structural failures die to the supports.

This point is also amply illustrated in the report itself (see part 3.6 - page 44.) and the FAQ http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm - the point he made is that free-fall took place in one event in a sequence of structural failures. True global free-fall outside of any sequence of varying collapsing events simply didn't happen.



mnottertail -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 1:37:36 PM)

when a free fall from fire (only) as you are having it happens on building seven you let me know. it has not happened to date, what planet are you on in your world?

And why would a free fall from fire be a natural collapse? I can think of many conditions when the fire would not be 'natural'. So, the homogenous statement is impudent on its face.



Real0ne -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 1:39:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
nope, clean it up some more. first off it is not a natural collapse and dont be trying to change that. Them planes hit that motherfucker, that debris fell on that motherfucker.

Nothing natural about that, it aint like the trees moving made the wind blow here.

There was a break in the integrity of the structure. A disconnect. You know, say I slice a sword across your spine, or drop a I beam on your head, the the backbone...your underlying structure is compromised.

That chain reaction of failure of components isn't a new phenomenon in this old world.

Its the typical conspiracist batshit, deliberately ask the wrong fucking question to get the answer you want which is then artiifically pasted into the story. Suddenly its a natural collapse as one would find with normal structural deteoriation because er... tons of heavy masonry fell on it and fire raged through the building throughout the day! [8|]

Thus for the illooninati it was a planned demolition because (a) for a tiny fraction of its time it was in free-fall, and suddenly that is turned into proof of an actual free-fall collapse, when in fact a planned demolition involving free-fall collapse is for the entire duration of the event.


No further questions your honor.


[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/irs_Judge_Grudge_2.jpg[/image]



you are dimissed






Page: <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875