RE: There was a plane!

RE: There was a plane! (Full Version)

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

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 5:28:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne 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. ROFL. Not knowing wtf you are talking about re sequenced demolitions elicits a response about the courts. Alex would be proud of what he's spawned.

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 5:33:32 PM)
yep SOP! When you get your asses handed to you on a silver platter scream alex! Thanks for the compliment, but alex gets no credit here, you can thsnk physics education. damint! The American Dream

Politesub53 -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 5:37:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne 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. As expected just more gibberish from you. None of it even touches the contents of my post. In every thread I have seen you post about demolition, and boy there have been more than a few, you continuously show you have neither worked in demolition, or even read up on it. Even here, you are so fixated on proving people wrong over building seven, probably because youre continued claims of fake live TV coverage dont wash with anyone with half a brain.

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 5:38:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 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. If you knew anything about demolition you would know I said that Mr state the obvious. Here it is again: [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. On the other hand its propbably a good thing you state the obvious for people like anax or whatever that nick is.

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 5:41:52 PM)
well if you wanna pick up the baton and put that to the test you can carry on where your other comrades got their asses handed to them. State the alternative methods: 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.

Politesub53 -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 5:42:27 PM)
I read your post but you lost my interest at "sectional global" an oxymoron if ever there was one.

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 5:47:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I read your post but you lost my interest at "sectional global" an oxymoron if ever there was one. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 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. You aint no daisy! Not my fault you do not know how it applies. I will accept your apology now.

Politesub53 -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 5:59:21 PM)
Yet again you fail to address the points raised.

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 6:11:31 PM)
on the contrary, I made the points. State the alternative methods: 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. Do I need to post it 500 times for you too?

Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 8:03:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Wah........ wrong R0 this childish bullshit with the graphics only makes you seem even more stupid than you are (if that is possible). quote: 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. LOL, saying it ain't so doesn't make it so. Of course if there was global failure which would be absolute failure simultaneously throughout the structure, it would collapse throughout at free-fall. That is the whole intention of demolition jobs! They blow out all the structural supports at once so it falls at free-fall. That is the very thing all his conspiracist friends including Chandler contend. I've lost count how many times I have said this to R0. quote: wtc7 perfect nothing short of perfection, ever see a roof stay so flat like that in a demolition before? Perfectly timed. Perfectly timed? lol Your reference to timing makes little sense. The roof either collapses or it doesn't. quote: 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. I edited out the long sequence of R0's pictures as they take up too much space but R0 as per usual has repeated them numerous times above. The utterly absurd thing here is that he contrasts the roof of WTC 7 in some dark photos with the demolition of some extremely broad buildings that we know nothing about. In terms of dimensions they are the opposite of a quite narrow skyscraper like WTC7. Thus if there was much contrast in the roof of WTC7 it wouldn't reveal itself to anything like the same extent as these other buildings he compares them with. These buildings may also comprise multiple units which would make their comparison even more absurd, and may be demolished at differing times with the innermost areas being collapsed first, as Politesub said. This is typical dishonesty of R0 and conspiracists like him to make such comparisons. And no as I said before the roof of WTC7 did not stay perfectly flat in the collapse. The building fell from East to West as video and photos http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm show (see two-thirds down the page). The initial failure of structural support was in the East area http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wtc7_collapse_progression.png which explains why the Eastern penthouse collapsed into the roof first, and how the slope of the fall was to the south-east. It partly feel across the street beside it too damaging other buildings. quote: again until you come up with an alternativc method you look as foolish as that green thing. That green thing is you R0! [:D]

Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 8:11:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I read your post but you lost my interest at "sectional global" an oxymoron if ever there was one. I'm guessing as R0's English isn't exactly coherent most of the time but by "sectional global" he may mean that segments of these very broad buildings were demolished in sections, each at a time. You alluded to that to which R0 did in response in his Post (604). If that is the case, and it certainly seems so, then he undid his own argument which was to illustrate the curvature of the rooves in these buildings in comparison to Tower 7 because the comparison of WTC7's relatively flat roof in a singular collapse would be void! [:D] BTW R0 has admitted to his copy and paste shennagans after having pasted in the paragraph below countless times already to various people he disagrees with! [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne on the contrary, I made the points. State the alternative methods: 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. Do I need to post it 500 times for you too?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 8:24:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras The utterly absurd thing here is that he contrasts the roof of WTC 7 in some dark photos with the demolition of some extremely broad buildings that we know nothing about. One thing we do know about them is that they are obviously not tube within a tube structures which would behave totally differently than the WTC and are largely concrete structures, again totally different from the WTC.

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 8:32:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras Of course if there was global failure which would be absolute failure simultaneously throughout the structure, it would collapse throughout at free-fall. That is the whole intention of demolition jobs! They blow out all the structural supports at once so it falls at free-fall. That is the very thing all his conspiracist friends including Chandler contend. I've lost count how many times I have said this to R0. thats correct but that is not an alternative to demolition. You need to show: 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. I have no doubt that I will need to ask this same question 100,000 times for you however. People who do not know shit about what they are talking about always know it all until you ask them a sunstantive question. then they run like hell just like you.

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 8:38:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras The utterly absurd thing here is that he contrasts the roof of WTC 7 in some dark photos with the demolition of some extremely broad buildings that we know nothing about. One thing we do know about them is that they are obviously not tube within a tube structures which would behave totally differently than the WTC and are largely concrete structures, again totally different from the WTC. wach have their problems. concrete tends to shatter when impacted. They had to drop 2 because there was virtually no fire anymore and the firemen that reached it stated it over the radio. That and the water sprinklers were working in 2. But I am sticking to very simple shit for the phlunker tards for now, 2 is a bit more compicated and requires a tad more knowledge than 101 building 7 LOL

willbeurdaddy -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 8:41:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras The utterly absurd thing here is that he contrasts the roof of WTC 7 in some dark photos with the demolition of some extremely broad buildings that we know nothing about. One thing we do know about them is that they are obviously not tube within a tube structures which would behave totally differently than the WTC and are largely concrete structures, again totally different from the WTC. wach have their problems. concrete tends to shatter when impacted. They had to drop 2 because there was virtually no fire anymore and the firemen that reached it stated it over the radio. That and the water sprinklers were working in 2. But I am sticking to very simple shit for the phlunker tards for now, 2 is a bit more compicated and requires a tad more knowledge than 101 building 7 LOL Too bad you dont have any knowledge other than what you cut and paste from thoroughly debunked sites.

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 8:42:36 PM)
here is a neet teaching tool for freefall and demoition. since highschool level is to well high, here is grade school level. http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm you can play blow up the building! wow! quote: Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it. I have to ponder how one would go about teaching an idiot... Hmmm...

Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 8:52:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras Of course if there was global failure which would be absolute failure simultaneously throughout the structure, it would collapse throughout at free-fall. That is the whole intention of demolition jobs! They blow out all the structural supports at once so it falls at free-fall. That is the very thing all his conspiracist friends including Chandler contend. I've lost count how many times I have said this to R0. thats correct but that is not an alternative to demolition. LOL I never said it was an alternative to demolition. You need to follow the thread of the argument. I had said "If it was a global failure, it would go into free-fall throughout the collapse." to which you replied "false that patently fucking bullshit.". Now you are agreeing with me but strawmanning yet again! [sm=biggrin.gif] quote: You need to show: 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 This is R0 pasting yet again part of his old posts. A point I have already answered perhaps ten times in detail (e.g. post 594)! [:D] Again I have to remind R0 that we acknowledged Tower 7 only reached free-fall for 1/8th of the decent. The most important point is that it did not do it throughout the collapse so it could not be a demolition job. For a self-proclaimed physics expert to dismiss the time of the descent shows your lack of knowledge, which notably your buddy David "shits" Chandler tried to alter by reading the collapse from the West of the building, not the East side where the collapse initiated. 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 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. Once again, demolition is not the only context in which free-fall can occir, and for only 1/8th of the period of descent when it had no structural support WTC7 did free-fall but not for the rest which means it was not characteristic of a demolition job. quote: I have no doubt that I will need to ask this same question 100,000 times for you however. People who do not know shit about what they are talking about always know it all until you ask them a sunstantive question. then they run like hell just like you. LOL R0 you are fucking nuts. I have not run from anything, in fact I have kept on at you when you were ignoring me. You already have asked these questions repeatedly R0 and completely ignored the answers, also repeatedly. You're very weird. [sm=mrpuffy.gif]

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 8:54:52 PM)
Oh come on! You mean your phlunky debunker site cant answer this for you? 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. see debunker debate results here [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/qdraw.gif[/image] Isnt that a fucking bitch? Join your pals! here -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKaQzQAlNn4

Anaxagoras -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 9:01:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne here is a neet teaching tool for freefall and demoition. since highschool level is to well high, here is grade school level. http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm you can play blow up the building! wow! quote: Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it. I have to ponder how one would go about teaching an idiot... Hmmm... More of your moronic shit, where you even claim WTC7 imploded! [sm=biggrin.gif] None of the fucking Towers imploded into their own footprints. Imposion is done to avoid damage to surrounding structures. Tower 7 caused huge damage to the Deutsche Bank Building, the Verizon Building, World Financial Center and others. The cost of repair was immense, going well into the billions. The substantial damage to the Verizon building alone cost 1.4 billion alone to repair.

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 9:02:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras Again I have to remind R0 that we acknowledged Tower 7 only reached free-fall for 1/8th of the decent. yep just like a demolition. fuck you people are asshelmets. there are shit loads of videos out there that show side by side comparisons of 7 and a building brought down by demolition and they fall identical. what a bunch of fucktards. I posted a video about 100 pages of your phlunktard propaganda ago that shows it.

Page: << < prev 29 30 [31] 32 33 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625