A Sad Day for Truthers......Another 9-11 Aniversary

[rightwinger]

there is nothing to keep up with..dave is clueless..he does not even understand the official explanation he claims to support

Of course I do. It's easy. It doesn't require ignoring everything I know about science, the military, human nature, geopolitics, physics, energy...nothing. I don't have to put any of that aside to understand.

Now, if I was a Troofer, I'd have to ignore everything I know to believe your retardery.

you no very little about any of these things and you are not very well versed in
in the claims of the official explanation

eots......

What happened?

Where were all the truthers today? You guys finally give up?

 

[elvis]

Of course I do. It's easy. It doesn't require ignoring everything I know about science, the military, human nature, geopolitics, physics, energy...nothing. I don't have to put any of that aside to understand.

Now, if I was a Troofer, I'd have to ignore everything I know to believe your retardery.

you no very little about any of these things and you are not very well versed in
in the claims of the official explanation

eots......

What happened?

Where were all the truthers today? You guys finally give up?

burning copies of the 9/11 commission report?

 

[DiveCon]

Of course I do. It's easy. It doesn't require ignoring everything I know about science, the military, human nature, geopolitics, physics, energy...nothing. I don't have to put any of that aside to understand.

Now, if I was a Troofer, I'd have to ignore everything I know to believe your retardery.

you no very little about any of these things and you are not very well versed in
in the claims of the official explanation

eots......

What happened?

Where were all the truthers today? You guys finally give up?

i think they got enough signatures to put a measure on the NYC ballot
but that standard is kinda low
it will be interesting to see how that turns out

 

[SFC Ollie]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLW0jKKRXMo]YouTube - 911 Call in World Trade Center, while tower collapse[/ame]

Watch the collapse at the end of the video from the spot where the plane hit upwards, the building tilted to the left then fell straight down.Nothing pulled it back gravity pulled it down. There was no explosion, the guy on the phone even had time to call out "Oh God" before his phone was more than likely pulverized with him.

Again, no explosions, nothing but gravity after the planes did their work.

 

[georgephillip]

bright enough to know that buildings aren't solid throughout their volume like trees are.

Dumbass.

trees ? Wtf are rambling about

One of your fellow Troofers made you all look really stupid(er) by comparing the Towers to trees and matches.

Towers, trees, and matches all follow Newton's UNIVERSAL laws of motion:

"Newton's third law. 'Mass always follows the path of least resistance' the famous physicist said more than 300 years ago. It isn't even possible to squash a match from top to bottom. It bends at its weakest point. Like a tree will fall in the direction where the cut is made with an axe. Meaning: the building had to fall to the side where the steel structure was damaged by the impact of the plane.

'Ask yourself a very simple question: Why didn't the structure beneath the impact-area offer any resistance at all to the much smaller structure above it?', architect Richard Gage asks. 'The towers came down without interruption in freefall speed, smoothly and symmetrically, as if the lower 90 floors didn't even exist. The only way to accomplish that is by controlled demolition.'

"The government-agency NIST, who did the inquiry into the collapses, didn't consider the possibility of a controlled demolition.

"The curious justification: controlled demolitions normally start at the basement of a building. However, the janitor William Rodriguez has testified about such explosions on the lower floors at several occasions including in Jesse Ventura's series."

In case Richard Gage isn't sufficiently credible...

"Newton's Third Law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This means that any force exerted onto an object has a counterpart force that is exerted in the opposite direction back onto the first object.

"A common example is of two ice skaters pushing against each other and sliding apart in opposite directions. Another example is the recoil of a firearm, in which the force propelling the bullet is exerted equally back onto the gun and is felt by the shooter.

"Since the objects in question do not necessarily have the same mass, the resulting acceleration of the two objects can be different (as in the case of firearm recoil)."

Isaac Newton - Wiki

 

[daveman]

trees ? Wtf are rambling about

One of your fellow Troofers made you all look really stupid(er) by comparing the Towers to trees and matches.

Towers, trees, and matches all follow Newton's UNIVERSAL laws of motion:

"Newton's third law. 'Mass always follows the path of least resistance' the famous physicist said more than 300 years ago. It isn't even possible to squash a match from top to bottom. It bends at its weakest point. Like a tree will fall in the direction where the cut is made with an axe. Meaning: the building had to fall to the side where the steel structure was damaged by the impact of the plane.

'Ask yourself a very simple question: Why didn't the structure beneath the impact-area offer any resistance at all to the much smaller structure above it?', architect Richard Gage asks. 'The towers came down without interruption in freefall speed, smoothly and symmetrically, as if the lower 90 floors didn't even exist. The only way to accomplish that is by controlled demolition.'

This has been repeatedly debunked. yet you continue to cling to it, in defiance of reality.

You're a fucking lunatic.

"The government-agency NIST, who did the inquiry into the collapses, didn't consider the possibility of a controlled demolition.

"The curious justification: controlled demolitions normally start at the basement of a building. However, the janitor William Rodriguez has testified about such explosions on the lower floors at several occasions including in Jesse Ventura's series."

In case Richard Gage isn't sufficiently credible...

"Newton's Third Law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This means that any force exerted onto an object has a counterpart force that is exerted in the opposite direction back onto the first object.

"A common example is of two ice skaters pushing against each other and sliding apart in opposite directions. Another example is the recoil of a firearm, in which the force propelling the bullet is exerted equally back onto the gun and is felt by the shooter.

"Since the objects in question do not necessarily have the same mass, the resulting acceleration of the two objects can be different (as in the case of firearm recoil)."

Isaac Newton - Wiki

You point to these things as proof, and you don't even understand them. You're nothing more than a parrot, dutifully repeating what you've been told.

That's why you're such a useful idiot for terrorists, George. You're a gullible fool.

 

[georgephillip]

Explain Newton's third law to me.

 

[eots]

Explain Newton's third law to me.

Newton is a toofer moron that never Heard the popular mechanics narrative
dave does not need to explain anything a toofer said.. it is not that he cant he just doesn't need to...so you have just been debwunked

 

[DiveCon]

Explain Newton's third law to me.

first explain how that has anything to do with the subject at hand?

 

[georgephillip]

Looking around my 400 square foot apartment I notice it is mostly air. Possibly the core area of each tower was also mostly air,but that doesn't explain what moved thousands of tons of structural steel and pulverized concrete out of the way as the towers collapsed.

It was the thousands of tons of falling structural steel and concrete. Dumbass.

In the cases of WTC 1 & 2 "mostly air" doesn't begin to explain why the towers didn't fall to the sides damaged by aircraft as Newton's Third Law demands.

How does Newton's Third Law "demand" that?

So...thousands of tons of steel and concrete moved itself out of the way?

Explain how that's possible if a freely falling object cannot exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall?

 

[georgephillip]

Explain Newton's third law to me.

first explain how that has anything to do with the subject at hand?

Why didn't WTC 1 & 2 fall to the sides damaged by the impacts of the planes?

 

[DiveCon]

Explain Newton's third law to me.

first explain how that has anything to do with the subject at hand?

Why didn't WTC 1 & 2 fall to the sides damaged by the impacts of the planes?

because they didnt
the damage was more extensive all the way through

 

[eots]

first explain how that has anything to do with the subject at hand?

Why didn't WTC 1 & 2 fall to the sides damaged by the impacts of the planes?

because they didnt
the damage was more extensive all the way through

how was the damage extensive all the way through if it was not hit by anything.. damged from what ? are you trying to claim there was little or no resistance ..because the steel beams and concrete blow the impact was so weak and extensively damaged ? is that your claim?

 

[DiveCon]

Why didn't WTC 1 & 2 fall to the sides damaged by the impacts of the planes?

because they didnt
the damage was more extensive all the way through

how was the damage extensive all the way through if it was not hit by anything.. damged from what ? are you trying to claim there was little or no resistance ..because the steel beams and concrete blow the impact was so weak and extensively damaged ? is that your claim?

the planes went ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE BUILDINGS

moron

 

[eots]

because they didnt
the damage was more extensive all the way through

how was the damage extensive all the way through if it was not hit by anything.. damged from what ? are you trying to claim there was little or no resistance ..because the steel beams and concrete blow the impact was so weak and extensively damaged ? is that your claim?

the planes went ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE BUILDINGS

moron

the planes went all the way through the buildings ? what and cam out the other side ? is that your claim now and even if they did (which they did not} it was on the horizontal not vertically so how would that damage the structure below ?

 

[daveman]

Explain Newton's third law to me.

I asked you before to explain it to me. You refused.

 

[daveman]

Explain Newton's third law to me.

Newton is a toofer moron that never Heard the popular mechanics narrative
dave does not need to explain anything a toofer said.. it is not that he cant he just doesn't need to...so you have just been debwunked

You morons really don't get it. YOU'VE made a claim. YOU back it up.

 

[daveman]

Looking around my 400 square foot apartment I notice it is mostly air. Possibly the core area of each tower was also mostly air,but that doesn't explain what moved thousands of tons of structural steel and pulverized concrete out of the way as the towers collapsed.

It was the thousands of tons of falling structural steel and concrete. Dumbass.

In the cases of WTC 1 & 2 "mostly air" doesn't begin to explain why the towers didn't fall to the sides damaged by aircraft as Newton's Third Law demands.

How does Newton's Third Law "demand" that?

So...thousands of tons of steel and concrete moved itself out of the way?

Explain how that's possible if a freely falling object cannot exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall?

There's no explaining anything to you. You don't want to know. All you want is mindless and unquestioning acceptance of your warped fantasy.

Enjoy your decent into bitter, hateful irrelevancy. But do it somewhere else. You're stinking up my country...the country you hate.

 

[eots]

Explain Newton's third law to me.

Newton is a toofer moron that never Heard the popular mechanics narrative
dave does not need to explain anything a toofer said.. it is not that he cant he just doesn't need to...so you have just been debwunked

You morons really don't get it. YOU'VE made a claim. YOU back it up.

translation - I do not have the intellect to debate the issue with facts.. EOTS is correct

 

[DiveCon]

how was the damage extensive all the way through if it was not hit by anything.. damged from what ? are you trying to claim there was little or no resistance ..because the steel beams and concrete blow the impact was so weak and extensively damaged ? is that your claim?

the planes went ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE BUILDINGS

moron

the planes went all the way through the buildings ? what and cam out the other side ? is that your claim now and even if they did (which they did not} it was on the horizontal not vertically so how would that damage the structure below ?

LOL yeah, sure
you know full well they went all the way through and parts flew great distances from the towers