RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (Full Version)

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



Message

Anaxagoras -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 1:42:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
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.

Learn how to fucking read properly. He mentioned the material hitting Tower 7. A natural collapse is one caused by naturally occuring internal degredation. The same is the case with someone dying from natural causes in old age such as organ failure.

quote:


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)


Ahhh, more of the copy and paste routine... even though it was comprehensively answered repeatedly which you completely ignored.



Real0ne -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 1:44:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

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.


its fundamental physics.

You certainly can have a raging fire, you can even nuke 1/2 the building away.

then you watch it hours later globally freefall.  That cannot happen.

If it does not freefall then it is a natural collapse as Dr Shuntar was explaining.

However if it does freefall then it is an unnatural collapse because freefall is impossible in a natural collapse.

regardless if it had raging fire or half was blown away.


quote:

LEAD NIST INVESTIGATOR Shuntar:

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



Anaxagoras -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 1:47:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
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

I asked R0 his point which he completely ignored as he ignored my repeated responses about the NIST leader which htis whole point appertains to.

Now the fancy photos routine again, the mark of desperation as R0 goes up in smoke! [sm=angry.gif]



Real0ne -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 1:49:08 PM)

You have been dismissed sir, do we need to have the sheriff escort you out of the courtrom. 



Anaxagoras -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 1:50:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
You have been dismissed sir, do we need to have the sheriff escort you out of the courtrom. 

More of R0's delusional fantasies or he can't bear having his precious opinions shredded? Answers on a Post Card... [;)]



Anaxagoras -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 1:52:24 PM)

...besides which can anyone seriously expect to get any sense out of a googley eyed furball? [:D]



Real0ne -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 1:55:15 PM)

stop blaming your incompetence onto me.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 1:55:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

...besides which can anyone seriously expect to get any sense out of a googley eyed furball? [:D]


Better chance of thea avatar saying something that makes sense than R0.



mnottertail -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 1:55:48 PM)

so, structural compromises from causes 'unnatural' including megatons of falling debris, and fire.

OK, have it 'natural' although I am not wholeheartedly in favor.

however:


If it does not freefall then it is a natural collapse as Shuntar was explaining.

(I do not have any citation available anywhere where he said that, the one you keep quoting says something vastly different than that, and if he did say what you said, he is mistaken).

However if it does freefall then it is an unnatural collapse because freefall is impossible in a natural collapse. (and I know he isnt cretinous enough to say that stupid shit. How do I know this? Because he is capable of bipedal locomotion and has a prehensile digit).

(no, the trees moving does not make the wind blow)

If you are not for us, you are against us. (no excluded middles allowed, and you are making a like arguement and it does not follow from an excluded middle).



Anaxagoras -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 1:56:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
stop blaming your incompetence onto me.

Says the googley eyed furball... [8D]



Anaxagoras -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 1:58:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
...besides which can anyone seriously expect to get any sense out of a googley eyed furball? [:D]

Better chance of thea avatar saying something that makes sense than R0.

I wonder could there be truth to the idea that some people begin to embody some of the characterists their avatars? It could be truth with R0 at least! [:D]



Real0ne -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 2:14:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

so, structural compromises from causes 'unnatural' including megatons of falling debris, and fire.

OK, have it 'natural' although I am not wholeheartedly in favor.

however:


If it does not freefall then it is a natural collapse as Shuntar was explaining.

(I do not have any citation available anywhere where he said that, the one you keep quoting says something vastly different than that, and if he did say what you said, he is mistaken).

However if it does freefall then it is an unnatural collapse because freefall is impossible in a natural collapse. (and I know he isnt cretinous enough to say that stupid shit. How do I know this? Because he is capable of bipedal locomotion and has a prehensile digit).

(no, the trees moving does not make the wind blow)

If you are not for us, you are against us. (no excluded middles allowed, and you are making a like arguement and it does not follow from an excluded middle).



quote:

so, structural compromises from causes 'unnatural' including megatons of falling debris, and fire.


Like I said you can burn the shit out of it, nuke 1/2 of it away and if it freefalls an hour later it is not a "natural collapse"

It is "impossible" for a natural collapse to freefall.  There are no exceptions, however there are variants where one could set up another.   Such as a natural collapse tips over the edge and then freefalls to the ground.  That would still be a natural collapse but would have both variants.

quote:

LEAD NIST INVESTIGATOR Shuntar:

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


He says it right in the first couple minutes during the conference.

The quote even includes his stammer, there is no material or substantial difference in the written versus the stated quote as anyone can see/hear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw






mnottertail -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 2:20:54 PM)

It is "impossible" for a natural collapse to freefall.

There is nothing in the world that supports this, so perhaps you can give us a citation.

And I dont give the glimmer of a fuck how many times or in what bolds and underlines you tag parts of his sentences....

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

There are no other exclusions and no other inclusions. Fuckin free fall is free fall. we all know what it means.

You walk off a roof. Is it natural? cuz you are gonna free fall. I throw you off a roof, is it natural, cuz you are gonna free fall. I hit you in the head with a fuckin baseball bat, you go flying off the roof, are you in free fall at some point? is it natural? I blow your ass up off a fucking launching pad made of foam and rubbers and you go sailing off the building, is it natural and are you in free fall?

I take a torch and burn off one of your legs and you tip over off the side of the building, are you in free fall? Is it natural?




Real0ne -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 2:28:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

It is "impossible" for a natural collapse to freefall.

There is nothing in the world that supports this, so perhaps you can give us a citation.

And I dont give the glimmer of a fuck how many times or in what bolds and underlines you tag parts of his sentences....

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

There are no other exclusions and no other inclusions. Fuckin free fall is free fall. we all know what it means.

You walk off a roof. Is it natural? cuz you are gonna free fall. I throw you off a roof, is it natural, cuz you are gonna free fall. I hit you in the head with a fuckin baseball bat, you go flying off the roof, are you in free fall at some point? is it natural? I blow your ass up off a fucking launching pad made of foam and rubbers and you go sailing off the building, is it natural and are you in free fall?





You arent going to start playing semantics and word games now are you?


No I do not know that, I only know that I know what freefall means.

You agreed with Dr Shuntar of NIST that:

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

Then it goes without saying that you also agree that:

Non-Freefall; "WOULD BE A FALLING OBJECT THAT HAS  ah... STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"



Therefore:

Non-Freefall is a natural collapse because it has structural components.

while

Freefall is an unnatural collapse, or freefal because is has no structural components below it.

as Dr Shuntar explained.







mnottertail -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 2:41:36 PM)

No, it does not follow. And there you admit he didnt say what you are saying he said, you are adversarially inferring it.

So, we come down to whether or not there was at some point a structural deficiency in the underlying support for the building, and if so, will megatons of debris raining down on it and fires throughout the building all day cause this building to collapse and was the structural deficiency deterioration of the components enough that we could have a period of near or at free fall.

Balloon framing (pretty much what these crackerboxes like building 7 are. Tear off (or otherwise compromise) the sheathing, the building is built 'sprung', Just like my barn...have a haymow above it, most of the hay is removed essentially, all the weight, what remains absorbs water and at the flooring level sits and rots, the barn sllllllllloooooooooooooooollllllyyyyyyyyyy settles, and at some point, the supporting structure is insufficient to hold the mow up in the air and it pancakes....anyone living in the country has seen it happen, this 'pancake' in physics we would call it a free fall. So, it went to its knees gradually, but when the game was over it was all in.







Anaxagoras -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 2:46:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
No I do not know that, I only know that I know what freefall means.

You agreed with Dr Shuntar of NIST that:

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

Then it goes without saying that you also agree that:

Non-Freefall; "WOULD BE A FALLING OBJECT THAT HAS  ah... STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"

Therefore:

Non-Freefall is a natural collapse because it has structural components.

Wrong, you insert the word "natural" without additional justification which makes it a fallacious argument. Plenty of non-free-fall collapses could be a result of un-natural causes.

This agrument was efficiently dealt with previously. Shuntar was referring to structural components of the building.

It was acknowledged by NIST that free-fall occurred for two seconds when several floors were unsupported by the buckled structural supports below but the fact remains, which R0 blithely ignores, that the building did not collapse in free-fall except for a brief interval. It would only be evidence of demolition if it went into free-fall throughout its collapse because a planned demolition takes out all the structural components simultaneously with explosives. This point was made time and time again but R0 keeps repeating the same lie.

quote:


while

Freefall is an unnatural collapse, or freefal because is has no structural components below it.

as Dr Shuntar explained.

Wrong again. There may be very rare instances where a building has experienced global failure with would result in free-fall. That point however is not applicable to Tower 7.

I watched a few mins of the clip. At three minutes in the bullshit artist David Chandler claims the curved line in the NIST graph had no significance whatsoever, whilst the straight line has basis in fact. It actually illustrated the variation in the collapse based on video evidence so it had greater basis than a theoretical hypothetical line of free-fall.



Real0ne -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 3:04:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

No, it does not follow. And there you admit he didnt say what you are saying he said, you are adversarially inferring it.



do you know what adversarial means LOL

Do not obfuscate what I said or it will be you who is on ignore until you get your shit straight.

I said that he said:

quote:

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


Nothing more.

and you agreed with Dr Shuntar.  So that we established. 

If you are too drunk to post wait till tomorrow.

So if freefall has no structual components that simultaneously  means non-freefall HAS structural components below it.

Non-Freefall; "WOULD BE A FALLING OBJECT THAT HAS  ah... STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"

Now he did not say what is in maroon....hope that helps

If you see where this is going and you want to bail your ass out just say so, because frankly you are gonna go down with the titanic on this, otherwise follow through or you too will be disqualified as not knowledgeable on the matter.

Facts talk bullshit walks.

we can go back to yes and no if you like.



Real0ne -> Loonars: "Physics oh yeh thats purple soda" (8/16/2011 3:15:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
It actually illustrated the variation in the collapse based on video evidence so it had greater basis than a theoretical hypothetical line of free-fall.



[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/pinochio2.gif[/image]


look you have been dismissed please go find a corner and masterbate on some other thread.


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


the data points are from measurements.





mnottertail -> RE: The Tin Foil Termy Terminates (8/16/2011 3:34:09 PM)

NO, it doesnt. If you are too far beyond medication today, go back to playing in your shit.

You know that the intent of structural components below it, means in the context things that support it in a way that will not let gravity take its course. There is no other alternative conclusion, gravity exists in the presence of structural components and exists in the presence of the opposite situation.

One situation prevents you from fawwing down go boom, the other situation 'and there is no third....' you faww down go boom unimpeded. There may be a mix of those situations, and that is commonly how it happens and I quote:

It is "impossible" for a natural collapse to freefall. There are no exceptions, however there are variants where one could set up another. Such as a natural collapse tips over the edge and then freefalls to the ground. That would still be a natural collapse but would have both variants.

The bolded part is essentially correct, that prior is untutored asswipe, but there is no causation in physical law that says it cannot come straight down and must displace catastrophically sideways, and I have dismissed that out of hand with my example of a barn and you falling off a building.

This is going nowhere, is where it is going.

You see, this is not a digital world it is absolutely analog, gravity is continuous. We measure digitally. So, The causation and intensity of different variables will at digital times cause one event (of if you will, law) to take the precedence over another, but in actuality is it continuously fading in and out as water flowing not as digital drips.

Go ahead. Natural, unnatural (I dont give a fuck, it really neither adds or detracts from the argument) the supporting components that defeat the will of gravity (this includes physics laws as well, inertia, air resistance, friction, the fact that the voids in the collapsing building are filling with debris, the fact that more weight is disconnected from the underlying supporting components 'below'....change the equation continuously, and thats why there is calculus as a separate branch of mathematics from good old arithmetic.

But go ahead, make a supportable argument based on physical laws, that are known since newton, and not some inferred and poorly done (and very inaccurate strangleberry physics software from a poorly digitized picture off of youtube by some clown). Or by interpreting convienience into something someone said off the top of their head under pressure ad hoc.

Just keep it in something that is prima facie discernable from natural law (physics).




hardcybermaster -> RE: There was a plane! (8/16/2011 3:41:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

Hey hardcybermaster! Is that you, jlf1961? If so, you ought to have a signature telling people that it is one of your sock-puppets. It is sometimes hard to tell otherwise.

now I know I have made it into the big time. I am fairly sure that jlf1961 and I are seperate entities otherwise I have got a lot older and put on a lot of weight( sorry jlf!)
Do you not see that your attempt to group 2 people together as 1 person is a clear manifestation of your paranoia?



Page: <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625