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! (8/18/2011 3:54:50 PM)
So, since he avoids answering the question we will take his silence to mean that he cannot explain a chair collapsing, therefore all (let me repeat that, because it bears repeating) All questions regarding collapses are beyond his area of expertise or even casual knowledge, the defendant has been voir dired and found without foundation or relevance. He is dismissed to return to his asylum, as a fuckin idiot as defined in blacks law dictionary.

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 3:56:43 PM)
you know what.... If it was not such a fucking tragedy I would charge them an extra 1/2 million for the job if it were me! [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/parallelroofline029a1.jpg[/image] look at that damn near picture perfect fall eh! I can just imagine the fucking party afterward!

mnottertail -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 3:58:57 PM)
answer the chair question. that is not a picture of anything relating to the chair. In fact, that is not a picture of anything that has been accepted. In any case, we await the extremely causal physics of the chair explanation.

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 4:08:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail you agreed that shuntar did not lie in his definition I agree that he did not. You are a perjoror. Not me. original: real0ne Anyway freefall = demolition by NISTs definition. There is your perjory. You have to explain the magic of the chair, asked repeatedly, never answered. Your case can not go forward. Answer the question or admit your fraud and lies. Sundar said; freefall is when there is no structural support demolition creates a condition of no structual support. you already admitted it freefell, you pal admitted it freefell you have no alternative explation for how that can heppen but demolition. Therefore without an alternative method for creating a freefall condition I am force to conclude demolition. Do you want another chance? 50 more chances? 10000 maybe? How many? LOL [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/emot7.gif[/image] quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail So, since he avoids answering the question we will take his silence to mean that he cannot explain a chair collapsing, therefore all (let me repeat that, because it bears repeating) All questions regarding collapses are beyond his area of expertise or even casual knowledge, the defendant has been voir dired and found without foundation or relevance. He is dismissed to return to his asylum, as a fuckin idiot as defined in blacks law dictionary. Sundar said; freefall is when there is no structural support demolition creates a condition of no structual support. you already admitted it freefell, you pal admitted it freefell you have no alternative explation for how that can heppen but demolition. Therefore without an alternative method for creating a freefall condition I am force to conclude demolition. Do you want another chance? 50 more chances? 10000 maybe? How many? LOL [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/emot7.gif[/image] quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail original: real0ne Anyway freefall = demolition by NISTs definition. My statements and position have not changed, no perjure nice try. Answer the chair question. Sundar said; freefall is when there is no structural support demolition creates a condition of no structual support. you already admitted it freefell, you pal admitted it freefell you have no alternative explation for how that can heppen but demolition. Therefore without an alternative method for creating a freefall condition I am force to conclude demolition. Do you want another chance? 50 more chances? 10000 maybe? How many? LOL [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/emot7.gif[/image] quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne both which ways. multiple ways? well you have not listed a damn one! So I disagree. My statements and position have not changed, no perjure nice try. I have listed a multitude of ways. Further perjory and shithouse asswipe. Answer the chair question. Sundar said; freefall is when there is no structural support demolition creates a condition of no structual support. you already admitted it freefell, you pal admitted it freefell you have no alternative explation for how that can heppen but demolition. Therefore without an alternative method for creating a freefall condition I am force to conclude demolition. Do you want another chance? 50 more chances? 10000 maybe? How many? LOL [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/emot7.gif[/image] quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail answer the chair question. that is not a picture of anything relating to the chair. In fact, that is not a picture of anything that has been accepted. In any case, we await the extremely causal physics of the chair explanation. Sundar said; freefall is when there is no structural support demolition creates a condition of no structual support. you already admitted it freefell, you pal admitted it freefell you have no alternative explation for how that can heppen but demolition. Therefore without an alternative method for creating a freefall condition I am force to conclude demolition. Do you want another chance? 50 more chances? 10000 maybe? How many? LOL [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/emot7.gif[/image] There would you like me to answer it again?

Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 4:12:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras 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! See everyone they know. Want to burn that candle from both ends at the same time. cant have it both ways LOL More fucking strawmanning. R0 first claimed on the previous page: "but the columns buckled! Yep thats exactly what demolition does. Causes the columns to buckle! DUH!" to which I replied that the columns are blown out with explosives in demolitions simultaneously to allow the building to slide unsupported into free-fall. Buckled columns would still give some support (or resistance) for a very brief period which is why WTC7 took more than twice as long to collapse as a free-fall structure in a proper demolition. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail you agreed that shuntar did not lie in his definition I agree that he did not. You are a perjoror. Not me. original: real0ne Anyway freefall = demolition by NISTs definition. There is your perjory. You have to explain the magic of the chair, asked repeatedly, never answered. Your case can not go forward. Answer the question or admit your fraud and lies. nope there is no evidence to the contrary, hence no other possible explanation as you are ALL FAILING to give ANY other method that can cause completely loss of structural support which is required to obtain "freefall". Wrong again, R0 just keeps repeating the same old lies time and time again. There was no support for about six of 47 floors due to the supports buckling beneath. That is in no way evidence of a global failure leading to complete structural loss. If it was global the whole thing would go down in free-fall, not just for two of about 16 seconds. Demolitions ensure simultaneous global failure so the building free-falls in its entirety. We must count how many times its said to R0, I reckon it is close to three figures in this thread alone! lol As Mnottertail said, Shunter was asked at a press conference what free-fall was and gave a brief one-sentence description for the simple minded. It was not a quoted definition by NIST. R0 has once again lied and added the demolition part, as he did when he inserted the "natural" element to his argument about free-fall without justification.

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 4:14:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne both which ways. multiple ways? well you have not listed a damn one! So I disagree. My statements and position have not changed, no perjure nice try. I have listed a multitude of ways. ok then I will go with your grain, (the rest would caiuse a natural collapse) since that explodes and can cause global failure. However grain cant get the velocities high enough to take out suport structures for one of those hirises.

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 4:20:32 PM)
the only way you can get around freefall being a demolition is by constructive fraud. In other wards lying. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/emot135.gif[/image] I await to hear any method that can cause freefall. Face it you aint got shit to support your argument! You have been demolished! Oh no pun intended! LMAO what a dynamite job heh! [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/parallelroofline029a1.jpg[/image] Everyone in the biz is jealous at that one!

Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 4:23:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Sundar said; freefall is when there is no structural support demolition creates a condition of no structual support. you already admitted it freefell, you pal admitted it freefell you have no alternative explation for how that can heppen but demolition. Therefore without an alternative method for creating a freefall condition I am force to conclude demolition. Seriously when will R0 stop the most bare-faced strawmanning? Probably never, it is like an addiction! He twists everything inside out that anyone says who disagrees with him. All we stated was that there was only free-fall for one event of a sequence. This is backed up by the evidence, such as video which proves it took about 16 seconds for the descent, not 6.5 seconds. The rest which made up the majority was not free-fall. Neither did Sunder say free-fall only occurs with demolitions. This strawmanning cannot still be a coincidence as we have all pointed out R0's misapprehensions time and time again to him so at this stage it can only be barefaced lying on his part. BTW, R0 others might take your profound statements a bit more seriously when you learn how to spell.

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 4:30:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Sundar said; freefall is when there is no structural support demolition creates a condition of no structual support. you already admitted it freefell, you pal admitted it freefell you have no alternative explation for how that can heppen but demolition. Therefore without an alternative method for creating a freefall condition I am force to conclude demolition. See that is where you shit house physicists get all fucked up. The paramount matter is not how long it took for the building to come down. It is the fact (and you both agreed) that it reached a condition freefall. PERIOD That said Sundar said; freefall is when there is no structural support demolition creates a condition of no structual support. you already admitted it freefell, you pal admitted it freefell you have no alternative explation for how that can heppen but demolition. Therefore without an alternative method for creating a freefall condition I am force to conclude demolition. There is only one other POSSIBLE answer to save your asses and that is ONLY if you can show there is some OTHER way to globally remove the structural supports through out the building resulting freefall condition. fire, cannot create a freefall condition nor global failure That IS and ALWAYS has been the issue, not all the shit you all want to obscure to. I am pretty imaginative and I cannot think of any. But who knows I am open minded and maybe you and your ilk can

Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 4:31:03 PM)
More of R0's stupid graphics and extensive use of pictures to cover up empty replies. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne the only way you can get around freefall being a demolition is by constructive fraud. In other wards lying. Point out one thing I have said which you can prove to be a lie. quote: I await to hear any method that can cause freefall. Face it you aint got shit to support your argument! You have been demolished! Oh no pun intended! LMAO what a dynamite job heh! This is so fucking funny. All free-fall in a collapse means is that a structure is unsupported. WTC7 went into free-fall only for a short time as several floors were unsupported because the support frame beneath buckled. That results in free-fall. There were only three trusses holding the structure up from floor 7 to 47. One had failed and the other two couldn't re-distribute the load so they failed dramatically. Thus there is an explanation for a temporary period of free-fall (not global free-fall) without planned demolition. quote: Everyone in the biz is jealous at that one! What is this biz you speak of? Is it the 9/11 denier biz?

mnottertail -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 4:33:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne both which ways. multiple ways? well you have not listed a damn one! So I disagree. My statements and position have not changed, no perjure nice try. I have listed a multitude of ways. ok then I will go with your grain, (the rest would caiuse a natural collapse) since that explodes and can cause global failure. However grain cant get the velocities high enough to take out suport structures for one of those hirises. They can blow apart a grain elevator that is made out of flat stacked 2 x 6 or 2x 8 or 2x 10. In Minnesota, full of grain or not, and with heavier snow load building than in NY. You lose again, take off your pants perjuror. They sure fucking can take it to those velocities. Again, we need the simple physics of the chair collapsing from you. Without that all you have to stand on is perjury, and absolutely indefensible, undemonstrable fantasy about some physics not related to earth, or even this universe.

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 4:38:14 PM)
yeh special forces day 1 class1 blasting cap in a bag of flour LOL again I talked about hirises, it would only blow out the windows and knock plaster off all the walls.

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 4:41:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras This is so fucking funny. All free-fall in a collapse means is that a structure is unsupported. You dont say! I never would have guessed!! quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne See that is where you shit house physicists get all fucked up. The paramount matter is not how long it took for the building to come down. It is the fact (and you both agreed) that it reached a condition freefall. PERIOD That said Sundar said; freefall is when there is no structural support demolition creates a condition of no structual support. you already admitted it freefell, you pal admitted it freefell you have no alternative explation for how that can heppen but demolition. Therefore without an alternative method for creating a freefall condition I am force to conclude demolition. Thanks for clarifying that

Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 4:42:00 PM)
Ro just repeats the same fucking lies agai and again and again. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Sundar said; freefall is when there is no structural support demolition creates a condition of no structual support. Yes but not exclusively. quote: you already admitted it freefell, you pal admitted it freefell Not global free-fall indicative of a demolition but a temporary situation of free-fall. You won't win by repeating yourself again and again! lol quote: quote: you have no alternative explation for how that can heppen but demolition. Therefore without an alternative method for creating a freefall condition I am force to conclude demolition. See that is where you shit house physicists get all fucked up. No that is where you fucked up by trying to make 1+1=3. There is an alternative explanation, the very one we have advanced again and again which you haven't proved wrong. quote: The paramount matter is not how long it took for the building to come down. It is the fact (and you both agreed) that it reached a condition freefall. PERIOD Fucking lies, it only reached free-fall for 1/8th of the decent. The paramount feature is that it did not do it throughout the collapse so it could not be a demolition job. For a self-proclaimed physics expert you don't have a clue. The time of the descent is everything. That is why your pal Chandler tried to redraw it. Once again 1+1 doesn't equal 3. quote: That said Sundar said; freefall is when there is no structural support demolition creates a condition of no structual support. you already admitted it freefell, you pal admitted it freefell Once again for 1/8th the period of descent when it had no structural support but it did for the rest which means it was not characteristic of a demolition job. quote: you have no alternative explation for how that can heppen but demolition. Therefore without an alternative method for creating a freefall condition I am force to conclude demolition. Wrong, you fail. quote: There is only one other POSSIBLE answer to save your asses and that is ONLY if you can prove there is some OTHER way to globally remove the structural support through out the building. I am pretty imaginative and I cannot think of any. But who knows I am open minded and maybe you and your ilk can Once again R0 lies by pretending firstly that it doesn't matter how long it took but that it did free-fall for a period of the descent, then he transposes that to make it look like a global event. If it was a global failure, it would go into free-fall throughout the collapse.

Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 4:47:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras This is so fucking funny. All free-fall in a collapse means is that a structure is unsupported. You dont say! I never would have guessed!! Yes and you are trying repeatedly to say it must always be where a demolition job has taken place. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne See that is where you shit house physicists get all fucked up. The paramount matter is not how long it took for the building to come down. It is the fact (and you both agreed) that it reached a condition freefall. PERIOD That said Sundar said; freefall is when there is no structural support demolition creates a condition of no structual support. you already admitted it freefell, you pal admitted it freefell you have no alternative explation for how that can heppen but demolition. Therefore without an alternative method for creating a freefall condition I am force to conclude demolition. Thanks for clarifying that You fucking misquoted me here by pretending your writing just above was mine. That is against TOS.

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 4:53:51 PM)
I included your period in the quote of you stop crying! Have you saved the world with bullshit yet? LOL you have no alternative explanation for how a global failure can occur but demolition. Therefore without an alternative method for creating a freefall condition I am force to conclude demolition. Game over you lose.

Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 5:00:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I included your period in the quote of you stop crying! Have you saved the world with bullshit yet? LOL Bullshit, you quoted a big text box that contained no writing from me and then said "Thanks for clarifying that" which falsely attributes the comment to myself. Stop lying R0. quote: you have no alternative explanation for how a global failure can occur but demolition. Therefore without an alternative method for creating a freefall condition I am force to conclude demolition. No I just said otherwise and said it before again and again and again but typical to form you just ignore it all. lol quote: Game over you lose. Yeah I'm sure you are right according to the voices in your head! [sm=alien.gif]

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 5:07:47 PM)
Wah........ [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/emot113.gif[/image] wrong quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras If it was a global failure, it would go into free-fall throughout the collapse. false that patently fucking bullshit. I told you to post in a thread you know something about. For fuck sake. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/parallelroofline036a1.jpg[/image] [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/parallelroofline029a1.jpg[/image] wtc7 perfect nothing short of perfection, ever see a roof stay so flat like that in a demolition before? Perfectly timed. There are the pictures some are progressive demolitions causing sectional global failure. I posted the videos a few of your propaganda pages back. So stop all the fucking fabrications any time now. The pictures above show this but its doubtful you will understand what that means as I am sure you will demonstrate in your next post. again until you come up with an alternativc method you look as foolish as that green thing.

Politesub53 -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 5:20:36 PM)
Still using paint shop pro eh RealOne ? As per usual you spout much and prove nothing. If you knew anything about demolition, which i doubt, you would be able to tell the buildings on the left were demolished in sequence. This is to get the outside parts falling towards the middle.

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 5:24:35 PM)
well if its certifed prrof you want file a suit we can get it in discovery if they 1) even allow the case..(they wont), and 2) if you could figure out how to get a hearing that we would live long enough to get the discovery on the record. Proof right? The courts here are more corrupt than yours are.

Page: << < prev 28 29 [30] 31 32 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875