RE: There was a plane!

RE: There was a plane! (Full Version)

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

Message

mnottertail -> RE: There was a plane! (8/17/2011 1:35:14 PM)
yes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvJ669fWTRw&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_N3rRUuKDg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN_lXjnojxI&feature=related You have yet to answer any of my questions or provide authoritative and recognized expert rebuttals, and as I said, they are therefore inadmissible from now on. These are the final authoritative field data.

jlf1961 -> RE: There was a plane! (8/17/2011 3:18:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ModTwentyOne quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Enough is enough, and I have previously submerged myself sufficiently long in the 911 case to last me a very long time indeed. And yet, 27 pages later, you are still posting about it. Mod21 And considering how often he insults people who disagree with him, and repeating himself without adequate proof to back up his allegations, 27 pages of nonsense is way too much.

angelikaJ -> RE: There was a plane! (8/17/2011 3:20:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail raging fires all day, debris falling and ruining the superstructure, power plant equipment exploding, grain dust. Many many other things. I will then assume anything I have said to you that you have not offered proofs of to meet my questions, or anything I have said to this point that you have not specifically found a credible citation rebuttal for is to be ignored. Since you hold yourself as expert witness, so do I, and may answer beyond yes or no as I please, not as you please. Do you have any exhibits to support the means that you listed as being the cause of structural failure of wtc7. yes or no if yes provide the exhibits and field data Deja vu http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/17/2011 3:50:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: angelikaJ Deja vu http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm please provide the accreditation and certifications of the people you cite or are they merely shithouse physicists that do not know which end of a calculator is up?

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/17/2011 3:59:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: ModTwentyOne quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Enough is enough, and I have previously submerged myself sufficiently long in the 911 case to last me a very long time indeed. And yet, 27 pages later, you are still posting about it. Mod21 And considering how often he insults people who disagree with him, and repeating himself without adequate proof to back up his allegations, 27 pages of nonsense is way too much. well then everyone who cites the guv's nonsense as proof that the guv has not and cannot back up is also way to much. That is an insult to any intelligent being on this planet. and lets start with the hypocrites first quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I really hate to burst the bubble of the loony conspiracy theorists on this topic, BUT NONE OF THE DAMN BUILDINGS COLLAPSED INTO THEIR OWN FOOT PRINT! If they had, near by buildings would not have been damaged. Conspiracy theory believers are nothing more that neurotic idiots. in demolition context they did. Thanks for playing, you are the weakest link Find another playground if you do not like this one There are plenty of topics on the board for you pontificate your diatribe

mnottertail -> RE: There was a plane! (8/17/2011 4:00:59 PM)
we await your accreditations of these boobs you dig up, and a 'alleged' highschool physics teacher running a tab on pixels on a pretty low resolution screen is not 'field data'.

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/17/2011 4:05:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail yes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvJ669fWTRw&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_N3rRUuKDg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN_lXjnojxI&feature=related You have yet to answer any of my questions or provide authoritative and recognized expert rebuttals, and as I said, they are therefore inadmissible from now on. These are the final authoritative field data. we all know the building faw down. if you are running out of answers and want to stop that is fine. It appears you have since you did not validate your alternative claim so I would need to go with the yes or no you gave last as your answer. Next time I an in court I will remind the jury its their turn to answer questions. LOLOLOL If you wish to continue let me know. If you are done so be it. I understand because we both see where this is going. LOL actually its already gone there just need to tie up a few loose ends [8D]

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/17/2011 4:06:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail we await your accreditations of these boobs you dig up, and a 'alleged' highschool physics teacher running a tab on pixels on a pretty low resolution screen is not 'field data'. field data is certified by someone authorized take the data, signed and certified on the record. the gub needs to prove their story like anyone else. Just because they have the name GUB tattooed on their ass does not mean they can say and do any damn thing they want with impunity though since people are so foolish it is getting to that point in america.

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/17/2011 7:18:07 PM)
Now of course the problem begins then the people who are charged with doing this work mischaraterizes the data, like on the nist chart that just says 5.4 seconds a full second and 1/2 before the building even moved. Chandler counted backwards from nists measuring point to discover that nist recorded for their fudged chart the start of the collapse a full second++ before the fucking building started to move! That sort of comes under criminal fraud. The funny thing is even planned well engineered demolitions cant seem to bring a building down as good as random nature and random chance that fire n shit can provide. I think we need to change demolition methods to fire and a few superficial dents in the future because even these precision demolitions failed to bring down any of these buildings as clean and flat and purty as the cave man terrorist can do. If I owned a demo company I would hire them in a new york second! [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/parallelroofline036a1.jpg[/image] thats what happens when you have fraction of a second timing variations in the detonation in the above buildings! 911 was a mystical day. It is the day that nature lovers will forever revere! Nature and random chance came together to precisely time the column failure to within micro seconds! That less then .001 seconds to give us this spectacular drop that the even the best of the best top rated demo crew would be proud of! yeh! [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/parallelroofline037a1.jpg[/image] I alway save the best for last! Want more? Hmm.... Will give you nitemares! Sleep well!

Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/17/2011 9:10:10 PM)
This latest stuff is part of R0's predictable routine. Its worth describing R0's conduct on these threads without going into personal insult to appreciate how he repeatedly obfuscates. R0 blithely ignores question after question. When an answer to a question that he puts doesn't suit him because it debunks some of his arguments he just ignores it, and often puts the question again. R0's strategy is to keep repeating the same lines and links over and over again even when he couldn't back up their use in counter-arguments, sling any mud he can to imply others are liars or even in league with the gubermint, use multi-coloured fonts, meaningless GIFs of video clips, extensive use of photographs that don't show context or relevance, simply to shot down others and try to give the impression he has won the argument. It is primitive propaganda knowingly intended to spread lies. Here are a few examples of R0's games and double standards which should be clear to some that have read the last 28 pages on this thread and his other threads. He often makes unreasonable demands which are never seen on other threads (except sometimes the ones he contributes to), as if the other posters have to conduct their own studies to prove his assertions are wrong: quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail raging fires all day, debris falling and ruining the superstructure, power plant equipment exploding, grain dust. Many many other things. I will then assume anything I have said to you that you have not offered proofs of to meet my questions, or anything I have said to this point that you have not specifically found a credible citation rebuttal for is to be ignored. Since you hold yourself as expert witness, so do I, and may answer beyond yes or no as I please, not as you please. Do you have any exhibits to support the means that you listed as being the cause of structural failure of wtc7. yes or no if yes provide the exhibits and field data He dismisses without justification any source that provides an alternate explanation. Its funny how sudden the requirements for source quality skyrocket when he doesn't like the line they are pushing! quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: angelikaJ Deja vu http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm please provide the accreditation and certifications of the people you cite or are they merely shithouse physicists that do not know which end of a calculator is up? The source of which he knows nothing is a debunker article which cites numerous experts, a lot of photographic and video material along with reports. That site carries well argued content unlike so many conspiracist sites which carry arguments that have so many holes it would make a buyer of swiss cheese feel short changed! However, when anyone challenges the sources he relies on for all his information, he does a complet U-turn and now experts that worked at the incident sites and in the investigatiosn are suddenly not to be trusted: quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail we await your accreditations of these boobs you dig up, and a 'alleged' highschool physics teacher running a tab on pixels on a pretty low resolution screen is not 'field data'. field data is certified by someone authorized take the data, signed and certified on the record. the gub needs to prove their story like anyone else. Just because they have the name GUB tattooed on their ass does not mean they can say and do any damn thing they want with impunity though since people are so foolish it is getting to that point in america. R0 also repeatedly tries to set others up by pushing yes/no questions upon them as if a lawyer, and repeatedly inserts elements into arguments that previously didn't exist quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne 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. R0 inserts the word "natural" without any additional justification whatsoever which makes it a fallacious argument. Very many non-free-fall collapses could of course be a result of un-natural causes. RO strawmans repeatedly. Here he uses a graph I brought up because David Chandler had dismissed it out of hand (the example is modified here by conspiracists), which R0 then uses to legitimise Chandler's own even though he dismisses it as lies quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne *that curved line has zero meaning except* to try and cover for the criminal gross's ass.** [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/nist003A1.jpg[/image] amazing both show freefall The chart shows free-fall for two seconds out of a 16 second descent, when a true global free-fall descent would be 6.5 seconds. This was pointed out time and time again to R0. It is a strawman because R0 pretends NIST was somehow caught out. R0 pretends it is somehow an amazing admission which proves NIST lied when their figures in this respect were not altered one jot from the preliminary WTC7 report to the final one of November 2008. It is actually Chandler who lied by misrepresenting the onset of collapse (ignoring the east penthouse collapse) to make the time periods of collapse seem closer to a true free-fall. BTW I pointed out Chandler in a video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh75fxzxGfs (three mins in) misleadingly states that the curved line is a meaningless wet noodle when in actual fact it plots the change in velocity from before the point of free-fall to after it. This plots the reality of the fall speeding up and slowing down again calculated from the video.

Termyn8or -> RE: There was a plane! (8/17/2011 9:45:51 PM)
FR Dammit. First of all I never said that there were charges built into the WTC buildings fo rthe purpose of demolition, but I DID say that it is POSSIBLE. Has anyfuckingone around here ever dealt with explosives ? They have come a long way since the days of Little House On The Prarie where they guy was in great danger transporting nitroglycerin. Even simple gunpowder is not all that easy to set off. That's why bullets have those primers in them. IF explosives are built into buildings, so the fuck what ? Gas pipes can make a big problem too, as well as a few other things. You just don't understand that it doesn't matter if there was or wasn't. But the fact is that nobody is stooopid enough to tell the public at large because they will think they are sitting on a powder keg, which is not true in either case. However it is true that hi-rise buildings are built with weak points, even though they may be semi-earthquake proof, or at least resistant, they must be demolishable. This is why architects make so much money. They have to figure all this shit out. I don't care if the TNT is in the walls or if they have to knock through a few walls to put it in, IT SIMPLY DOES NOT MATTER. Was it a failure of security like "they" claim" ? or was it a plan ? We have seen other buildings demolished and had no fucking problem with it, in fact we cheered, remember, they put this shit on TV ! But not this time, oh wait they DID. But they didn't PLAN TO, or at least that's what they told you. That's the real issue, not the fucking gravitational constant, which is not 9.8 whatever they use, it is 32 feet per second per second. Fuck Europe. Keep your metric system. But that proves nothing except that I don't care how big your feet are. It doesn't matter, you see proving that the demolition of thse buildings went completely according to the plan set forth when it was built, or some stroke of luck by some Arabs does not mean a fucking thing. The fact is that WE WERE LIED TO. What the truth is does not matter. The fact is that we cannot trust liars. Not when they are in a position of power like that. You dispute laws of physics until the cows come home, even if the cows are dead. I am done with that. I want to know WHY we were lied to. And we were. Not exactly what the lie was, but WHY the lie was. The only thing I can go by right now is the aftermath. And you people seem to be completely obfuckingblivious to that, which IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT. Fuck this. I'm about to turn this thing off. It's a fucking waste of bandwidth and server space. Why should I waste my resources on it when there is no progress to be made ? Tell me what we gain by completely resolving this issue to the nth degree, with the wheels of "justice" having ground so slowly, but down to individual molecules. What are we to gain ? T^T

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/17/2011 11:16:01 PM)
I love the way these guys smell their own shit then project accusing everyone else of using THEIR posting methods. See on other sites I have a reputation, and though 911 is a topic I do not get into that much any more, they remember all the bloody noses I gave them in the past and usually scatter when I comment on their idiocy. I told you that you already lost the war, yet you seem to think winning a battle will accomplish something. Anyone with working physics background understands what sundar is "really" saying. You dont. You and your shithouse phlunkers do not know which end of the calculator is up. You have proven that time and time again and everyone reading that has a working knowledge of physics is laughing their asses off at you. I know I do every time I read one of your rants. All your posts are fucking rants and have no real value no real meaning because you have been challenged relentlessly to explain yourself and you simply post more erroneous phlunker shit. There is no debate when you fail to see your errors, you can be told what your errors are and you still fail to see them. Its because you do not know what you are doing. (bluntly) I do sort of enjoy your "trust" the gubafia rants, everyone around here is surely standing by you now! Hell everyone out ehre trusts the gub! Just like you! LMAO That is really all your posts are worth is one huge fucking rant after another with very little factual or even legitimately usable information. (nist excepted) That is why I have no reason to respond to you. I have better things to do than write books to correct your illformed incorrectly framed questions. Its a complete waste of time with cut and pasters. It is after all why you cut and paste and duck when challenged. LOL Ok now enjoy parsing every sentence out and fuck physics just pour on the rants! Invite all your pals to call me a conspiracy kook LOL Lets have no less than 30,000 words of filler this time! Dance to the music!

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/17/2011 11:49:29 PM)
Well for me its no different than trying to explain why a 1million watt TEMW transmitter wont even get across the US and a tesla 10 watt LEMW will hammer right on through to Russia. You can stomp all over a million watt tv transmitter 100 yards from the station with only a couple watts LOL It would make corp and gubafia satelites obsolete and we cant have that! They simply do not have the fucking background, yet they think they are going to save the world from hearing what? The truth... A naturally collapsing building cannot go into freefall. NIST's modeling software wont even let them analyse a freefall! It assumes natural collapses by too much weight, stress, hurricanes, fires, pretty much anything that does not cause "global" failure of all the load bearing columns at the same instant like bombs and demolition would. Most all else falls under natural collapse. I suppose that is why NISTs sofware cannot model a freefall LOL Its impossible in a "naturally" collapsing building. Unfortunately this country is turning into a bana republic and its people like that that want to keep a lid on it. first weavers, then 100 at waco, now 3000 at wtc I cant wait to see the next one, maybe they will nuke LA next. They are already blocking off cancer cures. Anyway freefall = demolition by NISTs definition. Watch the ankle biter is going to come on here and nip at my shoe strings with: but the columns buckled! Yep thats exactly what demolition does. Causes the columns to buckle! DUH! Who can be bothered arguing with abject brainless no thought foolishness like that.... not me.. Oh and do you think the demolition companies are trying to make fun of the gubtards? [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/parallelroofline031a1.jpg[/image] but but but I saw a plane I swear there was a plane! I saw it on tv! You have no idea how many retards actually came on the boards and said that! If that isnt scary enough they fucking vote! America is fucking sick.

DeviantlyD -> RE: There was a plane, a train & an automobile! (8/18/2011 3:47:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I am glad not to suffer from a lack of paranoia, thank you. giggles Edited for topic title. :D Come on! I can't be the ONLY one who noticed this...can I? :D

rulemylife -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 3:49:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: ModTwentyOne quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Enough is enough, and I have previously submerged myself sufficiently long in the 911 case to last me a very long time indeed. And yet, 27 pages later, you are still posting about it. Mod21 And considering how often he insults people who disagree with him, and repeating himself without adequate proof to back up his allegations, 27 pages of nonsense is way too much. Then stop indulging him.

mnottertail -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 6:10:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail yes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvJ669fWTRw&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_N3rRUuKDg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN_lXjnojxI&feature=related You have yet to answer any of my questions or provide authoritative and recognized expert rebuttals, and as I said, they are therefore inadmissible from now on. These are the final authoritative field data. we all know the building faw down. if you are running out of answers and want to stop that is fine. It appears you have since you did not validate your alternative claim so I would need to go with the yes or no you gave last as your answer. Next time I an in court I will remind the jury its their turn to answer questions. LOLOLOL If you wish to continue let me know. If you are done so be it. I understand because we both see where this is going. LOL actually its already gone there just need to tie up a few loose ends [8D] I am not running out of answers, I can answer in any way I see fit. Everyone knows where this is going, you have wholly failed at this bit of buncombe based on asserting as physics things which are decidedly untrue and in violation of the laws of physics and provably so (and they were). You were essentially undone completely by a man sitting in a lawn chair and subsequently on his fat ass on the ground on any given sunday in America. While you tell the courts that juries testify in your world, tell them that the prosecutor testifies as well, and holds himself as an expert in physics where he clearly is not, and says the only fair and truthful explanation is to believe in the aether, and ignore the fact that it is a device that is disproven in whole and in part. You have not introduced a reasonable doubt, in fact to date...to date...you have not introduced a fact. You have stated things to be true, which are not realistic, but the only way your idiotic mishmash of fantasy can work. You have stated that a stutter means such and such and so and so and an inept off the cuff explanation as dark and foreboding. The obvious explanation for the stutter and inept explanation is quite simple really.... When dentists convene and talk about drills, they are in camera and in context. When farmers talk about drills to farmers, everybody knows it is a machine to plant seeds (grain drill), and not something to create a void in a tooth. When construction people talk about drills they mean drill motors, and even in context of the converstation one can determine specialties 'Oh, I anchored a molly in the concrete' (aha, you think, he used a 'hammer' drill (motor). So, to the stutter and inept explanation: What do you mean free-fall? uhhhh....(he thinks to himself) Who is this fucking dimwit? I thought this was a gathering of accredited physics professionals, he doesnt know a basic fucking term about the fundamental property of nature known and discussed and written and proven since galileo and newtons time? Jesus H fuckin Christ, is this a fuckin hotel waiter? (that covers the stuttering uhhhhhhh)...... Nonplussed, he blurts out........ You know with nothing underneath it capable of impeding or obstructing its descent to the ground? And that is the end of it.

Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 7:20:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I love the way these guys smell their own shit then project accusing everyone else of using THEIR posting methods. LOL, itsd easy to turn it around and accuse others of the same thing, I provided extensive and robust examples of your extreme dishonesty which you cannot turn back on me. quote: See on other sites I have a reputation, and though 911 is a topic I do not get into that much any more, they remember all the bloody noses I gave them in the past and usually scatter when I comment on their idiocy. I guess we will have to take your word on that! lol [sm=mrpuffy.gif] quote: I told you that you already lost the war, yet you seem to think winning a battle will accomplish something. LOL, like anyone on here except Termy and Rule would take your word on anything. Sorry but you lost every single battle in the war, except that you bluster on my repeating yourself. Its a stupid tactic but in your googley eyed head you think it gives you the impression you won. You say I lost the war so I challenge you to give me a few examples that I'll be happy to debate again for 20 more pages! If you don't take up the challenge you're a phony. quote: Anyone with working physics background understands what sundar is "really" saying. You dont. You and your shithouse phlunkers do not know which end of the calculator is up. You have proven that time and time again and everyone reading that has a working knowledge of physics is laughing their asses off at you. I know exactly what Sunder is saying, it is your shithouse conspiracists who can do nothing other than twist the words of this man that lie. You and a fucking physics teacher lol. BTW its Sunder not Sundar, learn how to spell. It is a good time to revise what is going on with understanding Sunder's quote. This is what R0 claims he said: quote: "WOULD BE A FALLING OBJECT THAT HAS NO ah... STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT" which is just more of R0's de-contextualised batshit. He said: 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. 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 did not occur. Therefore he was not saying that basic bricks and mortar prevented free-fall because that scenario also takes place in planned demolitions where the support structures are destroyed and the unsupported structures still falls at free-fall throughout their descent. Clearly when he talked about "structural components below it", he is referring to the structural supports. This point is illustrated in the report itself (part 3.6 - page 44.) and the FAQ: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm where it is pointed out that for about six stories the building had no structural support from below due to buckling. It was just one part of the sequence. This is an entirely reasonable point. quote: I know I do every time I read one of your rants. All your posts are fucking rants and have no real value no real meaning because you have been challenged relentlessly to explain yourself and you simply post more erroneous phlunker shit. There is no debate when you fail to see your errors, you can be told what your errors are and you still fail to see them. Its because you do not know what you are doing. (bluntly) LOL as I said in my previous post you blithely ignore question after question. I have repeatedly explained my position time and time again when you have ignored it. It is you who ignores the answers that don't suit as it weakens your arguments, and have been seen on here often firing the questions right back. Yours is a basic propagandistic strategy to keep repeating the same lines and links over and over again regardless of whether you could back them up after the counter-arguments, which you also failed to do. quote: I do sort of enjoy your "trust" the gubafia rants, everyone around here is surely standing by you now! Hell everyone out ehre trusts the gub! Just like you! LMAO That is really all your posts are worth is one huge fucking rant after another with very little factual or even legitimately usable information. (nist excepted) LOL "very little factual information" from the guy who unquestioningly accepts the word of Asswipe Chaldler! [:D] I expect you don't enjoy my posts which is why you ignore them by repeatedly pretending I have lost. If a lot of people are standing by me it is because I won the argument against you consistently but tell yourself nice little stories as your opinions are ripped to shreds. [sm=cool.gif] quote: That is why I have no reason to respond to you. I have better things to do than write books to correct your illformed incorrectly framed questions. What the fuck was this post about if it wasn't a response? Really your grip on reality has completely dissolved which must explains why you think the way you do. [sm=biggrin.gif] quote: Its a complete waste of time with cut and pasters. It is after all why you cut and paste and duck when challenged. LOL Duck!It is you who keeps avoiding my posts lol. I have answered every one of yours and a lot of others where you weren't responding to me! [:D] LOL The above post was only cut and paste to quote your posts to prove how dishonest you are. The rest was original text written for the post. quote: Ok now enjoy parsing every sentence out and fuck physics just pour on the rants! Invite all your pals to call me a conspiracy kook LOL Lets have no less than 30,000 words of filler this time! You are a "conspiracist kook". Nothing more and I don't have to invite anyone else to call you it. They think it even when they don't say it. When they do say it, it is at their behest. BTW my last post was not exceptionally long except for the quotes from your batshit posts. It is comical to accuse others when your posts time and time again are excessively long.

Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 7:38:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Dammit. First of all I never said that there were charges built into the WTC buildings fo rthe purpose of demolition, but I DID say that it is POSSIBLE. You said if anyone else said charges were built in that you wouldn't disagree. That makes it sound more than "possible". Its a crazy thing to say. Buildings are not built ot be dedmolished as you have said before. They are built to be used for a long time, and only when they reach the end of their life-cycle to be demolished so it makes no fucking sense to say they would build in explosives for a structure designed to be used for very many decades. quote: Has anyfuckingone around here ever dealt with explosives ? They have come a long way since the days of Little House On The Prarie where they guy was in great danger transporting nitroglycerin. Even simple gunpowder is not all that easy to set off. That's why bullets have those primers in them. IF explosives are built into buildings, so the fuck what ? Gas pipes can make a big problem too, as well as a few other things. You just don't understand that it doesn't matter if there was or wasn't. But the fact is that nobody is stooopid enough to tell the public at large because they will think they are sitting on a powder keg, which is not true in either case. Again it makes no fucking sense to build-in explosives, even very stable ones. When a building's use is no longer required it is a pretty standard exercise that takes a five or so days to rip part of the walls out where the load bearing structures are located to place the explosives. The idea of loading walls with very high-powered explosives that could sit in the structures for over a hundred years, in which all manner of eventualities could occur would be tantamount to insanity. [8\|] quote: Was it a failure of security like "they" claim" ? or was it a plan ? We have seen other buildings demolished and had no fucking problem with it, in fact we cheered, remember, they put this shit on TV ! But not this time, oh wait they DID. But they didn't PLAN TO, or at least that's what they told you. The fact is that WE WERE LIED TO. What the truth is does not matter. The fact is that we cannot trust liars. Not when they are in a position of power like that. Termy it is time to stop trying to sit on the fence. You are a 911 truther and I don't think others on here are pulled in by this. You are entitled to your opinion so its alright to say so. quote: That's the real issue, not the fucking gravitational constant, which is not 9.8 whatever they use, it is 32 feet per second per second. Fuck Europe. Keep your metric system. But that proves nothing except that I don't care how big your feet are. It doesn't matter, you see proving that the demolition of thse buildings went completely according to the plan set forth when it was built, or some stroke of luck by some Arabs does not mean a fucking thing. You dispute laws of physics until the cows come home, even if the cows are dead. I am done with that. I want to know WHY we were lied to. And we were. Not exactly what the lie was, but WHY the lie was. The only thing I can go by right now is the aftermath. And you people seem to be completely obfuckingblivious to that, which IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT. It does matter a great deal as you well know but as usual Termy has to pull his "I don't fucking care routine". [8\|]

Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 8:16:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne A naturally collapsing building cannot go into freefall. NIST's modeling software wont even let them analyse a freefall! It assumes natural collapses by too much weight, stress, hurricanes, fires, pretty much anything that does not cause "global" failure of all the load bearing columns at the same instant like bombs and demolition would. Most all else falls under natural collapse. I suppose that is why NISTs sofware cannot model a freefall LOL Its impossible in a "naturally" collapsing building. The building didn't collapse naturally according to either perspective. Natural phenomena or acts of God would not be man-made. Fires are not inherently a natural phenomenon, neither are collapsing buildings falling on others (WTC7) as a result of either demolition or planes. Thus you rae strawmanning yet again! It is probably more bullshit from fantasists to suggest NIST software couldn't plot a free-fall. As I said NIST plotted free-fall for the 2 seconds indicated in their computer simulations, which are explained in their November 2008 final edition of their report: http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610 Furthermore no global failure occurred or the fall woul dhave occurred in 6.5 seconds, not 15.16 seconds is is evidenced by the video. An important point to mention is that failure first occurred in one truss out of three that held the building up. After the first truss failed leading to the collapse of the Eastern Penthouse the other two trusses failed as the weight couldn’t be re-distributed and the building fell east to west. Thus global simultaneous failure did not occur. This is evident by the video footage conspiracists themselves use. quote: Anyway freefall = demolition by NISTs definition. Watch the ankle biter is going to come on here and nip at my shoe strings with: but the columns buckled! Yep thats exactly what demolition does. Causes the columns to buckle! DUH! Explosives essentially blow the columns out in demolitions. DUH! quote: Who can be bothered arguing with abject brainless no thought foolishness like that.... not me.. Reality check buddy, thats exactly how others see you on here! [sm=biggrin.gif] quote: Oh and do you think the demolition companies are trying to make fun of the gubtards? but but but I saw a plane I swear there was a plane! I saw it on tv! You have no idea how many retards actually came on the boards and said that! If that isnt scary enough they fucking vote! LOL this completely ignores the large number of people who saw a plane hitting Tower 2 in real life, such as the oral histories issued publicly http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html and then the is the huge number of independent media institutions situated in New York (pretty much the news media capital of the world) that recorded the plane hitting Tower 2: http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html quote: America is fucking sick. Stop projecting onto others asshole. [:D]

mnottertail -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 9:00:22 AM)
quote: original: real0ne Anyway freefall = demolition by NISTs definition. Anyway, not. This is a blatant and willfully fashioned lie. NISTs definition of free-fall is exactly and only the definition originated about 1919 and releted to parachuting, and handy shorthand for describing acceleration to terminal velocity under the phenomenon of gravitation.

Page: << < prev 26 27 [28] 29 30 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125