Poll

What is the truth about the 911 attack on the World Trade Center?

Hijacked Planes were flown into the two towers.  Resulting fires caused the collapse.
14 (60.9%)
The planes were CGI and it was controlled demolition
2 (8.7%)
Something other than planes were flown into the twin towers,  missiles drones etc.
2 (8.7%)
The planes were holographic projections from a special satellite, and it was a directed energy weapon
1 (4.3%)
Something else.
3 (13%)
Denspressure
1 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 23

Voting closed: March 06, 2017, 10:56:40 PM

911 What is the truth?

  • 6866 Replies
  • 779167 Views
*

Bom Tishop

  • 11197
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #180 on: February 15, 2017, 09:10:55 PM »
Here is what BHS and dispute one say never happened.



BHS claims all these video's are faked doesn't look like it to me.

Don't put words in my mouth rayzor, you are being dishonest.

You are still clutching at straws.

No I'm being honest,  BHS claimed that no planes hit the WTC1 and 2  and purported to prove that the planes entered the building without leaving a mark.   Are you disagreeing with BHS?

Misrepresented and pathetic as always rayzor...Oh what it must be like to be you.

I clearly said I don't know what happened, and only presented a logical theory. I don't think a plane hit building 1, building two I think it was a missle or drone. This comes from 1000s of people's testimonials (one even being someone here, the other being a family member), video issues, and many other items stacked together. It has become painfully obvious your ONLY argument is attempted confusion.

Leaving out the fact these two "plane wrecks" would be the first of their kind in human history (eaten inside the building, complete vaporization..Instead of reality such as the empire state building, which ironically happened EXACTLY how I explained to you a collision would happen) causing THREE buildings to fall being the first of their kind in human history in impossible form....Actually wait, let's leave out all science.

You still have never answered my question form page number one.... How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark?

This isn't "BHS" saying ANYTHING....Just a simple question about the video evidence.

For once....In this entire freaking thread....Answer one damn question with a direct answer rayzor.....

How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark or even a single shred of debris?

Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11197
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #181 on: February 15, 2017, 09:15:09 PM »



The truth will always win out in the end.  Science doesn't lie.

It is my great hope that one day truth will win out in this situation.

They published their detailed findings,  which I suspect few conspiracy theorists ever bother to read or have the background to understand.   

Why not release all the data?   I'm guessing they didn't want conspiracy theorists second guessing their analysis,  but that hasn't stopped the conspiracy theorists from advancing ever more wacky theories.

You just sound deranged here....

By they way....They had zero detail...I have actually provided better detail in this short thread than they did.

Though I am sure their complete withholding of "information" was for our "safety"....Idiots.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #182 on: February 15, 2017, 11:45:15 PM »

You still have never answered my question form page number one.... How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark?

This isn't "BHS" saying ANYTHING....Just a simple question about the video evidence.

For once....In this entire freaking thread....Answer one damn question with a direct answer rayzor.....

How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark or even a single shred of debris?

Actually I did,  the fact that you didn't understand the answer is not my problem.

First,  the question implies something that isn't factual. 
 
Second. by the way you ask the question you are calling for speculation on something which impossible.

Third,  this is your theory not mine,  you want to claim that no planes hit the WTC1 and 2,  and all the video including real time tv was faked,  go ahead and give it your best shot.   

But I have to say the evidence against your theory is overwhelming.

I'm sure you have a reason for chasing this line of thought,  so over to you!


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #183 on: February 15, 2017, 11:57:26 PM »
integrity
ɪnˈtɛɡrɪti/
noun

1.
the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles.
"a gentleman of complete integrity"
synonyms:   honesty, uprightness, probity, rectitude, honour, honourableness, upstandingness, good character, principle(s), ethics, morals, righteousness, morality, nobility, high-mindedness, right-mindedness, noble-mindedness, virtue, decency, fairness, scrupulousness, sincerity, truthfulness, trustworthiness
"I never doubted his integrity"

2.
the state of being whole and undivided.
"upholding territorial integrity and national sovereignty"
synonyms:   unity, unification, wholeness, coherence, cohesion, undividedness, togetherness, solidarity, coalition
"internal racial unrest threatened the integrity of the federation"





Get some.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #184 on: February 16, 2017, 12:02:11 AM »
Actually I did,  the fact that you didn't understand the answer is not my problem.

Remember when Scepti said the same thing to you and you called him an idiot. Actually I think you said you were going to "spit-roast" him, which considering what me and BHS have done to you, is hilarious, quite frankly.

hypocrisy
hɪˈpɒkrɪsi

noun
the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
"his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"
synonyms:   sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, pietism, piousness, affected piety, affected superiority, false virtue, cant, humbug, pretence, posturing, speciousness, empty talk.

irony
ˈʌɪrəni
noun

1. The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
"‘Don't go overboard with the gratitude,’ he rejoined with heavy irony"
synonyms:   sarcasm, sardonicism, dryness, causticity, sharpness, acerbity, acid, bitterness, trenchancy, mordancy, cynicism.

2. A state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result.
plural noun: ironies
"the irony is that I thought he could help me"
synonyms:   paradox, paradoxical nature, incongruity, incongruousness, peculiarity
"the irony of the situation hit her"

3. A literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions is clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.
noun: dramatic irony; plural noun: tragic irony
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #185 on: February 16, 2017, 12:17:31 AM »
Actually I did,  the fact that you didn't understand the answer is not my problem.

Remember when Scepti said the same thing to you and you called him an idiot. Actually I think you said you were going to "spit-roast" him, which considering what me and BHS have done to you, is hilarious, quite frankly.

hypocrisy
hɪˈpɒkrɪsi

noun
the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
"his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"
synonyms:   sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, pietism, piousness, affected piety, affected superiority, false virtue, cant, humbug, pretence, posturing, speciousness, empty talk.

irony
ˈʌɪrəni
noun

1. The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
"‘Don't go overboard with the gratitude,’ he rejoined with heavy irony"
synonyms:   sarcasm, sardonicism, dryness, causticity, sharpness, acerbity, acid, bitterness, trenchancy, mordancy, cynicism.

2. A state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result.
plural noun: ironies
"the irony is that I thought he could help me"
synonyms:   paradox, paradoxical nature, incongruity, incongruousness, peculiarity
"the irony of the situation hit her"

3. A literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions is clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.
noun: dramatic irony; plural noun: tragic irony

So zero contribution to the discussion yet again from disputeone.   Try making a case for what you believe for a change,  and leave off posting dictionary definitions,  I know you've just got a new dictionary, and are keen to use it, but do it somewhere else.


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #186 on: February 16, 2017, 12:26:20 AM »
Actually I did,  the fact that you didn't understand the answer is not my problem.

Remember when Scepti said the same thing to you and you called him an idiot. Actually I think you said you were going to "spit-roast" him, which considering what me and BHS have done to you, is hilarious, quite frankly.

hypocrisy
hɪˈpɒkrɪsi

noun
the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
"his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"
synonyms:   sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, pietism, piousness, affected piety, affected superiority, false virtue, cant, humbug, pretence, posturing, speciousness, empty talk.

irony
ˈʌɪrəni
noun

1. The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
"‘Don't go overboard with the gratitude,’ he rejoined with heavy irony"
synonyms:   sarcasm, sardonicism, dryness, causticity, sharpness, acerbity, acid, bitterness, trenchancy, mordancy, cynicism.

2. A state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result.
plural noun: ironies
"the irony is that I thought he could help me"
synonyms:   paradox, paradoxical nature, incongruity, incongruousness, peculiarity
"the irony of the situation hit her"

3. A literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions is clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.
noun: dramatic irony; plural noun: tragic irony

So zero contribution to the discussion yet again from disputeone.   Try making a case for what you believe for a change,  and leave off posting dictionary definitions,  I know you've just got a new dictionary, and are keen to use it, but do it somewhere else.

I've contributed a decent amount to be fair. We all do the best with what we have Rayzor... I don't pick on people for it. I do pick on people for trying to lie and cheat their way out of a debate.

The fact remains those planes violated the laws of physics penetrating and then exiting the building, the wings cut through hardened structural steel, you are kidding right?

The fuel then violated the laws of thermodynamics for its burn temperature and duration, you demonstrated this quite well with photos of three day old glowing red steel. You are kidding right?

The building then violated the laws of physics again when it fell at gravitational acceleration on its own footprint, actually, have a one in one billion chance, it happened three times, one building wasn't even hit by a plane. You are kidding right?

If anything I am giving you an option of engaging a "weaker target", ironically, I have been destroying your "arguments" from page one.

Please explain, using your own words and math, how did building 7 fall at gravitational acceleration. Given the OS.

Shillary Clinton.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11197
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #187 on: February 16, 2017, 12:27:21 AM »

You still have never answered my question form page number one.... How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark?

This isn't "BHS" saying ANYTHING....Just a simple question about the video evidence.

For once....In this entire freaking thread....Answer one damn question with a direct answer rayzor.....

How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark or even a single shred of debris?

Actually I did,  the fact that you didn't understand the answer is not my problem.

First,  the question implies something that isn't factual. 
 
Second. by the way you ask the question you are calling for speculation on something which impossible.

Third,  this is your theory not mine,  you want to claim that no planes hit the WTC1 and 2,  and all the video including real time tv was faked,  go ahead and give it your best shot.   

But I have to say the evidence against your theory is overwhelming.

I'm sure you have a reason for chasing this line of thought,  so over to you!

No no no rayzor...No twista word here...I am gonna get an answer from you before the end of this thread...Just one..

You didn't answer my question before fyi...You just said "looks real to me" then showed a video of the "first plane" (by the way, if you want to believe some guy was recording city employees doing remedial tasks first thing in the morning, then suddenly, perfectly aligned with the WTC he focuses right on the towers...Waits...Then Boom the plane hits...I have some beach property in Oklahoma for you...Prime view) Also, fyi, that was not the sound of fan jet engines (experience, not google)...Not to mention, the mystery engines were decelerating...And that alone is impossible from the pitch and trim of the visual we saw. Just to begin with, the engines would almost need to be 100 percent to just have a chance of keeping that boat stable in the air at that altitude and supposed speed (which isn't possible anyways).. Actually..I am digressing, just this video alone I could run on for pages about.

Back to the point

Describe how this is possible.



Or this



Or this



I will stop there for a second.

Matter doesn't pass through matter without disturbing itself. If you can tell me how this happens you could be a very rich man.

So...Again...Rayzor...How does 175,000 kg pass through the WTC without a trace?
« Last Edit: February 16, 2017, 12:29:09 AM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #188 on: February 16, 2017, 12:31:32 AM »


I will stop there for a second.

Matter doesn't pass through matter without disturbing itself. If you can tell me how this happens you could be a very rich man.

So...Again...Rayzor...How does 175,000 kg pass through the WTC without a trace?

My answer is that it didn't and your video shows that quite clearly.   In fact it looks exactly like the early part of the Purdue University simulation.  That I posted when you first asked the question.


« Last Edit: February 16, 2017, 12:33:30 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #189 on: February 16, 2017, 12:33:09 AM »
How do you explain the official pictures and video?
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #190 on: February 16, 2017, 12:39:05 AM »
How do you explain the official pictures and video?

I assume that question is directed to BHS,  but here is that Perdue university analysis for comparison.



Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11197
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #191 on: February 16, 2017, 12:53:38 AM »


I will stop there for a second.

Matter doesn't pass through matter without disturbing itself. If you can tell me how this happens you could be a very rich man.

So...Again...Rayzor...How does 175,000 kg pass through the WTC without a trace?

My answer is that it didn't and your video shows that quite clearly.   In fact it looks exactly like the early part of the Purdue University simulation.  That I posted when you first asked the question.



So this is reality to you? (Mind you this is of no consequence to me, I have zero problem with two 767s hitting these towers, they would have never fell, and if they did, not like this. I don't care if two planes hit each one....Ask the designer of the buildings...He would agree with me "poking a hole in a screen" "lots of death and fire, but they wouldn't fall")

This isn't reality to me...Do you know how many plane wrecks through history we have on video? Between war and all other avenues, commercial etc. How many we have studied the after math on even if we didn't witness it? 100s of thousands....This doesn't even include test footage of controlled tests..

So you are telling me that the planes can break the laws of physics and our reality twice that day....3 towers can defy our reality and physics that day?? Must be a magic day...

I suggest the more logical call...The towers were brought down by something other than stated...The video evidence has been altered in attempt to tell a story.

Which option makes more sense to you?
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #192 on: February 16, 2017, 01:02:58 AM »

So this is reality to you? (Mind you this is of no consequence to me, I have zero problem with two 767s hitting these towers, they would have never fell, and if they did, not like this. I don't care if two planes hit each one....Ask the designer of the buildings...He would agree with me "poking a hole in a screen" "lots of death and fire, but they wouldn't fall")

This isn't reality to me...Do you know how many plane wrecks through history we have on video? Between war and all other avenues, commercial etc. How many we have studied the after math on even if we didn't witness it? 100s of thousands....This doesn't even include test footage of controlled tests..

So you are telling me that the planes can break the laws of physics and our reality twice that day....3 towers can defy our reality and physics that day?? Must be a magic day...

I suggest the more logical call...The towers were brought down by something other than stated...The video evidence has been altered in attempt to tell a story.

Which option makes more sense to you?

You offer only invalid choices,  either the laws of physics were broken or the towers were brought down by something else,   so again a choice between two incorrect answers. 

There's a name for that debating tactic, and I thought you were smarter than that.

So,  let's go back a step.
What laws of physics do you consider were broken,  you need  evidence and proof if you want to support that conjecture.
If you can prove the the laws of physics were broken, then you can ask the second question,  but not before, and not as an alternative.




Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #193 on: February 16, 2017, 01:17:30 AM »
What laws of physics do you consider were broken.

The fact remains those planes violated the laws of physics penetrating and then exiting the building, the wings cut through hardened structural steel, you are kidding right?

The fuel then violated the laws of thermodynamics for its burn temperature and duration, you demonstrated this quite well with photos of three day old glowing red steel. You are kidding right?

The building then violated the laws of physics again when it fell at gravitational acceleration on its own footprint, actually, have a one in one billion chance, it happened three times, one building wasn't even hit by a plane. You are kidding right?

If anything I am giving you an option of engaging a "weaker target", ironically, I have been destroying your "arguments" from page one.

Please explain, using your own words and math, how did building 7 fall at gravitational acceleration. Given the OS.

Shillary Clinton.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #194 on: February 16, 2017, 01:33:41 AM »
So zero contribution to the discussion yet again from disputeone.   Try making a case for what you believe for a change,  and leave off posting dictionary definitions,  I know you've just got a new dictionary, and are keen to use it, but do it somewhere else.

Sigh, how does weakened steel lead to a collapse at gravitational acceleration?

Was the steel weakened by a factor of 100% to make it fall at gravitational acceleration? Or was it say X% weakend with the structure underneath it providing mechanical resistance during the collapse?

If the fires weakened the structure by a factor of 100% then fine, freefall is not only acceptable but logical.

If, however, the fires didn't take 100% of the structural strength of the tower, why didn't some of the towers potential energy get used to crush the structure as it was falling?

You haven't debunked this point, you get hysterical every time it's brought up.

And then have the gall to say that we are the ones being intellectually dishonest.

If you want to try to refute this point I will consider giving you the time of day again.

For example, put a bowling ball on any structure you like. Weaken the structure until it collapses, does it collapse at g? Or does the structural resistance of the structure slow the fall speed as the balls potential energy is taken crushing the structure underneath it.

I dare you to answer that truthfully.


For example, put a bowling ball on any structure you like. Weaken the structure until it collapses, does it collapse at g? Or does the structural resistance of the structure slow the fall speed as the balls potential energy is taken crushing the structure underneath it.

I dare you to answer that truthfully.

It falls at 1G  I was sure you already knew that any unsupported mass will fall at 1G

You are exactly right in saying, any unsupported mass will fall at exactly 1G, however, there's this thing called Terminal velocity which means anything moving through a medium will eventually be slowed down by the medium.

So things don't fall at exactly 1G in our reality, air resistance, amongst other things (hardened structural steel and reinforced concrete under compression), will slow down the fall speed of any object.

Another experiment you could do is to try and shoot a cannon ball through a piece of say 10mm thick aluminum.

Would the cannon ball, given as much velocity as you like, eventually have enough energy to pass through the 10mm thick ally without expending any of its potential energy?

The answer is no because every action has an equal and opposite reaction, but I would like you to do your own tests.

You are digging a massive hole with me and BHS is the one with the PhD  ;D ;D

I see why you were scared to debate him.

For example, put a bowling ball on any structure you like. Weaken the structure until it collapses, does it collapse at g? Or does the structural resistance of the structure slow the fall speed as the balls potential energy is taken crushing the structure underneath it.

I dare you to answer that truthfully.

I am being condescending now, I admit it, you lost your chance on page two tbh.

It's just not critical to the demolition hypothesis when we can measure free fall.

It's been, I think thoroughly proven, that a building will not fall at free fall under it's own weight, plus a plane impact and full fuel load. At the very least there have been some very good arguments put forward without the aid of youtube videos.

The fact that you just keep dodging this is concerning.

My response was to post a simulation done by Perdue that refuted your assertion that the aircraft couldn't penetrate the structure.   Now you say I never answered?

Was not an answer, you just said, this is the official story. That video was not peer reviewed it doesn't give us access to their numbers.

I did actually send an email asking for the numbers they used, I don't think they will reply, you said I should earlier in the thread.

Rayzor, you really suck dude. Bhs and d1 are beating the fuck out you. I don't even know why they keep responding to you. They have offered plenty if evidence and you keep offering strawmen. You believe the governments stupid report, either for pay or due to brainwashing. You really suck.

*In honor of one of the greatest shitposters of our time, even if we hate each other ;D.

Edit.

« Last Edit: February 16, 2017, 01:44:52 AM by disputeone »
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #195 on: February 16, 2017, 01:34:32 AM »
What laws of physics do you consider were broken.

The fact remains those planes violated the laws of physics penetrating and then exiting the building, the wings cut through hardened structural steel, you are kidding right?

The fuel then violated the laws of thermodynamics for its burn temperature and duration, you demonstrated this quite well with photos of three day old glowing red steel. You are kidding right?

The building then violated the laws of physics again when it fell at gravitational acceleration on its own footprint, actually, have a one in one billion chance, it happened three times, one building wasn't even hit by a plane. You are kidding right?

If anything I am giving you an option of engaging a "weaker target", ironically, I have been destroying your "arguments" from page one.

Please explain, using your own words and math, how did building 7 fall at gravitational acceleration. Given the OS.

Shillary Clinton.

1. No the planes didn't violate the laws of physics penetrating the building.   You need to study impact physics a bit more.
2. The temperatures got to well over the point where steel is weakened and aluminium melts.  Plenty of evidence to support that fact.
3. Actually WTC 1 and 2 fell at slower than free fall rate.  You can clearly see debris falling faster than the building itself. 
4. WTC7 is the subject of a longer discussion,  but all the evidence points to fire being the primary cause.   There's contradictory evidence of the collapse time,  look for one that shows the penthouse collapsing 6 seconds before the main collapse,  suggesting the collapse was well under way much earlier than some video footage shows.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11197
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #196 on: February 16, 2017, 01:38:27 AM »

So this is reality to you? (Mind you this is of no consequence to me, I have zero problem with two 767s hitting these towers, they would have never fell, and if they did, not like this. I don't care if two planes hit each one....Ask the designer of the buildings...He would agree with me "poking a hole in a screen" "lots of death and fire, but they wouldn't fall")

This isn't reality to me...Do you know how many plane wrecks through history we have on video? Between war and all other avenues, commercial etc. How many we have studied the after math on even if we didn't witness it? 100s of thousands....This doesn't even include test footage of controlled tests..

So you are telling me that the planes can break the laws of physics and our reality twice that day....3 towers can defy our reality and physics that day?? Must be a magic day...

I suggest the more logical call...The towers were brought down by something other than stated...The video evidence has been altered in attempt to tell a story.

Which option makes more sense to you?

You offer only invalid choices,  either the laws of physics were broken or the towers were brought down by something else,   so again a choice between two incorrect answers. 

There's a name for that debating tactic, and I thought you were smarter than that.

So,  let's go back a step.
What laws of physics do you consider were broken,  you need  evidence and proof if you want to support that conjecture.
If you can prove the the laws of physics were broken, then you can ask the second question,  but not before, and not as an alternative.

That is the only two options.....There are no others..Either reality was violated and we accept the story (this doesn't even include 1000s of other issues) or it was a lie.

As much as you would like to fight it...There is no other available options...So you choose to side with an impossibility?


But just to play your uneducated game...

Let's assume I entertain the model your video shows (which I don't)...

So the plane is allowed to enter without restriction...Pass through the outside vertical exoskeleton and horizontal exoskeleton to the core.

Ok, those few floors are compromised on the 91-93 floors...That would not cause a collapse.

But let's say it did in that area.

It would collapse on itself at the path of least resistance...However, there is not enough damaged and removed material.

So you would have a situation such as this..



However, even if by magic it started a free fall collapse at that 90th floor, it would not make it past the 44th floor because of the doubled core stacking (this building did not have CG sway compensation like newer buildings so CG directional load was set up like older scrappers, more like a sea bowie), the lower 40 was built like a tank compared to the upper sections...Multiples of the mass of the upper decks.

However, if we keep using magic....Let's say it collapsed this area too....We would have this...



Just multiped by a factor 3.8

And not at a free fall...

Would have taken anywhere from minutes to hours..

Stress junctions, their cert load in the 60s was anywhere from 5 times to 100times less than what it could take before complete failure...Not to mention, since the CG was controlled in a more simple "old school" design (as stated, like a sea bowie), the more mass you keep removing from the upper area, the more robust the bottom becomes as well as the CG continues to get lower.

If you had a 40 story WTC center with the same structural design, you would never knock that damn building over, you would have to dismantle that thing  piece by piece.

Unless we are using magic again.


If you just tell me you are a huge Harry Potter fan...I will leave you alone rayzor.... Seriously
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #197 on: February 16, 2017, 01:39:45 AM »
Rayzor, you really suck dude. Bhs and d1 are beating the fuck out you. I don't even know why they keep responding to you. They have offered plenty if evidence and you keep offering strawmen. You believe the governments stupid report, either for pay or due to brainwashing. You really suck.

I love Hoppy,  he's one of the few flat earthers that always has something important to add to any discussion.   

Leave my mate Hoppy alone.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #198 on: February 16, 2017, 01:48:29 AM »
That's the best he's got Bhs.

Maybe we should leave him alone.

I love Rayzor he's one of the few guys that always has something important to add to any discussion.

Leave my mate Rayzor alone.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #199 on: February 16, 2017, 01:51:26 AM »

So this is reality to you? (Mind you this is of no consequence to me, I have zero problem with two 767s hitting these towers, they would have never fell, and if they did, not like this. I don't care if two planes hit each one....Ask the designer of the buildings...He would agree with me "poking a hole in a screen" "lots of death and fire, but they wouldn't fall")

This isn't reality to me...Do you know how many plane wrecks through history we have on video? Between war and all other avenues, commercial etc. How many we have studied the after math on even if we didn't witness it? 100s of thousands....This doesn't even include test footage of controlled tests..

So you are telling me that the planes can break the laws of physics and our reality twice that day....3 towers can defy our reality and physics that day?? Must be a magic day...

I suggest the more logical call...The towers were brought down by something other than stated...The video evidence has been altered in attempt to tell a story.

Which option makes more sense to you?

You offer only invalid choices,  either the laws of physics were broken or the towers were brought down by something else,   so again a choice between two incorrect answers. 

There's a name for that debating tactic, and I thought you were smarter than that.

So,  let's go back a step.
What laws of physics do you consider were broken,  you need  evidence and proof if you want to support that conjecture.
If you can prove the the laws of physics were broken, then you can ask the second question,  but not before, and not as an alternative.

That is the only two options.....There are no others..Either reality was violated and we accept the story (this doesn't even include 1000s of other issues) or it was a lie.

As much as you would like to fight it...There is no other available options...So you choose to side with an impossibility?


But just to play your uneducated game...

Let's assume I entertain the model your video shows (which I don't)...

So the plane is allowed to enter without restriction...Pass through the outside vertical exoskeleton and horizontal exoskeleton to the core.

Ok, those few floors are compromised on the 91-93 floors...That would not cause a collapse.

But let's say it did in that area.

It would collapse on itself at the path of least resistance...However, there is not enough damaged and removed material.

So you would have a situation such as this..



However, even if by magic it started a free fall collapse at that 90th floor, it would not make it past the 44th floor because of the doubled core stacking (this building did not have CG sway compensation like newer buildings so CG directional load was set up like older scrappers, more like a sea bowie), the lower 40 was built like a tank compared to the upper sections...Multiples of the mass of the upper decks.

However, if we keep using magic....Let's say it collapsed this area too....We would have this...



Just multiped by a factor 3.8

And not at a free fall...

Would have taken anywhere from minutes to hours..

Stress junctions, their cert load in the 60s was anywhere from 5 times to 100times less than what it could take before complete failure...Not to mention, since the CG was controlled in a more simple "old school" design (as stated, like a sea bowie), the more mass you keep removing from the upper area, the more robust the bottom becomes as well as the CG continues to get lower.

If you had a 40 story WTC center with the same structural design, you would never knock that damn building over, you would have to dismantle that thing  piece by piece.

Unless we are using magic again.


If you just tell me you are a huge Harry Potter fan...I will leave you alone rayzor.... Seriously

Actually you made several glaring errors in your analysis of the collapse.   Firstly  WTC 1 and 2 did not fall at free fall rates.  If you assume that then your analysis is going to be flawed.

As the floors collapsed the mass increases and thus momentum increases as it falls not decreases as you seem to be implying, 
 
The initial collapse started on the floors the planes hit, and when those floors collapsed the entire mass of the floors above that is collapsing onto the lower floors.



Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #200 on: February 16, 2017, 01:52:01 AM »
That's the best he's got Bhs.

Maybe we should leave him alone.

I love Rayzor he's one of the few guys that always has something important to add to any discussion.

Leave my mate Rayzor alone.

Thanks
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #201 on: February 16, 2017, 01:54:40 AM »
No worries man I'm honestly starting to feel a little bad.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #202 on: February 16, 2017, 02:11:52 AM »
No worries man I'm honestly starting to feel a little bad.

And so you should,  shame on you for supporting such a corrosive conspiracy.   Blatant lies like this can't be allowed to go unchallenged.

I feel sorry for BHS,  he seems to be well into the grip of the conspiracy mind set, to the extent that there may be no hope for him. 



Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11197
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #203 on: February 16, 2017, 02:15:13 AM »
Actually you made several glaring errors in your analysis of the collapse.   Firstly  WTC 1 and 2 did not fall at free fall rates.  If you assume that then your analysis is going to be flawed.

As the floors collapsed the mass increases and thus momentum increases as it falls not decreases as you seem to be implying, 
 
The initial collapse started on the floors the planes hit, and when those floors collapsed the entire mass of the floors above that is collapsing onto the lower floors.

The only "error" stated was an oversight...Which I will address now. Falling at speed of 8℅ +- of free fall speed is close enough for me to say "free fall"...I stated the time it should take for this to happen, even using magic to make it happen in the first place.

The rest I addressed in the post that obviously went over your head so please attempt to reread.


I am truly almost to the point of calling it, stating you simply are not qualified to discuss this on a serious level with me. It's not really an insult...As i wouldn't expect a teacher who works in liberal arts to hold a conversation about this with me in any form. We all have our areas of expertise, I am just very very very bored.

I want to debate with you, but I don't have the time and patience to teach you all the prerequisites required. We can discuss the wheel, but I don't have time to tell you how it's built.

No worries man I'm honestly starting to feel a little bad.

I am almost done myself...

Not for feeling bad, because I don't...People like him are a problem to others around him (on all issues and world view, not just this)

Just out of boredom....The only thing I give him is he hasn't ran off which most would have by now...Though just repeating nonsensical gibberish, mixed with word twisting and blatant lies is also not very impressive either...

Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #204 on: February 16, 2017, 02:16:54 AM »
No worries man I'm honestly starting to feel a little bad.

And so you should,  shame on you for supporting such a corrosive conspiracy.   Blatant lies like this can't be allowed to go unchallenged.

I feel sorry for BHS,  he seems to be well into the grip of the conspiracy mind set, to the extent that there may be no hope for him. 

Fine, I'll say it, go on, call me crazy too.
It might distract the debate for a few posts.

You have some other motive than your personal desires for holding your ground on this issue.

All you have to say is the official story has a few holes in it, especially building 7, the fact it took seven years to release the model and sixteen years later have still not released the numbers for the collapse, is suspicious.

Then the bad men will stop I promise.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2017, 02:36:41 AM by disputeone »
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #205 on: February 16, 2017, 02:21:49 AM »
Actually you made several glaring errors in your analysis of the collapse.   Firstly  WTC 1 and 2 did not fall at free fall rates.  If you assume that then your analysis is going to be flawed.

As the floors collapsed the mass increases and thus momentum increases as it falls not decreases as you seem to be implying, 
 
The initial collapse started on the floors the planes hit, and when those floors collapsed the entire mass of the floors above that is collapsing onto the lower floors.

The only "error" stated was an oversight...Which I will address now. Falling at speed of 8℅ +- of free fall speed is close enough for me to say "free fall"...I stated the time it should take for this to happen, even using magic to make it happen in the first place.

Schooled.

Quote
The rest I addressed in the post that obviously went over your head so please attempt to reread.

He has demonstrated multiple times on this thread that reading comprehension is not his strong suit...

I said it before...we all do the best with what we have.

Quote
I am truly almost to the point of calling it, stating you simply are not qualified to discuss this on a serious level with me. It's not really an insult...As i wouldn't expect a teacher who works in liberal arts to hold a conversation about this with me in any form. We all have our areas of expertise, I am just very very very bored.

I don't understand why he keeps getting up.

Quote
I want to debate with you, but I don't have the time and patience to teach you all the prerequisites required. We can discuss the wheel, but I don't have time to tell you how it's built.

Schooled.

Edit. I don't really feel bad.

I took Rayzors drink and laced it with known sedatives to give this motherf**ker a taste of his own medicine.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2017, 02:29:50 AM by disputeone »
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #206 on: February 16, 2017, 02:29:10 AM »
Actually you made several glaring errors in your analysis of the collapse.   Firstly  WTC 1 and 2 did not fall at free fall rates.  If you assume that then your analysis is going to be flawed.

As the floors collapsed the mass increases and thus momentum increases as it falls not decreases as you seem to be implying, 
 
The initial collapse started on the floors the planes hit, and when those floors collapsed the entire mass of the floors above that is collapsing onto the lower floors.

The only "error" stated was an oversight...Which I will address now. Falling at speed of 8℅ +- of free fall speed is close enough for me to say "free fall"...I stated the time it should take for this to happen, even using magic to make it happen in the first place.

The rest I addressed in the post that obviously went over your head so please attempt to reread.


I am truly almost to the point of calling it, stating you simply are not qualified to discuss this on a serious level with me. It's not really an insult...As i wouldn't expect a teacher who works in liberal arts to hold a conversation about this with me in any form. We all have our areas of expertise, I am just very very very bored.

I want to debate with you, but I don't have the time and patience to teach you all the prerequisites required. We can discuss the wheel, but I don't have time to tell you how it's built.

No worries man I'm honestly starting to feel a little bad.

I am almost done myself...

Not for feeling bad, because I don't...People like him are a problem to others around him (on all issues and world view, not just this)

Just out of boredom....The only thing I give him is he hasn't ran off which most would have by now...Though just repeating nonsensical gibberish, mixed with word twisting and blatant lies is also not very impressive either...

There you go again making assumptions about what I do or don't know.  In the area of impact physics I can tell from your comments that your knowledge is somewhat deficient.

You lack of basic knowledge about the physics of building collapse is also apparent.  You got the collapse mechanism fully backwards.

Back to free fall,  when you look at the debris falling faster than the building what does that tell you?    BTW what is "8℅ +-"  are you trying to say free fall pus or minus,  that statement alone would get you a fail in my class.  You can't fall unassisted faster than free fall.  So let's give you a pass,  and assume that's not what you meant, so please clarify your statement.

Both WTC1 and WTC2 took approximately 16 seconds to collapse. 



« Last Edit: February 16, 2017, 02:31:04 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #207 on: February 16, 2017, 02:32:43 AM »


Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11197
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #208 on: February 16, 2017, 02:44:09 AM »
My +- was being sarcastic Actually...

Using rounded numbers....It would take me about 8 seconds to hit the ground if I had already achieved terminal velocity passing the tip of 1 or 2.

Using your number of 16 seconds (which it actually took a few seconds less)...Then we take that number, use it with terminal velocity, then extrapolate the acceleration time it takes to reach terminal velocity from a stand still and we come to an average amount of what....

Free fall...(possibly 8 percent slower)...



It's like shooting the dumbest, biggest fish in the smallest barrel.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11197
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #209 on: February 16, 2017, 02:47:01 AM »

You have some other motive than your personal desires for holding your ground on this issue.


This is becoming the only option remaining.... Sadly....

I bet hoppy will come in later and explain the motive  :D
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir