What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

I'd enjoy an intellectual discussion-

OP
Gdjjr

Gdjjr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
10,500
Reaction score
5,699
Points
965
Location
Texas
“All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man: it’s one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him… One of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search out and combat originality among them.”


~ H. L. Mencken, “Prejudices: Third Series (Le Contrat Social)“. Book by H. L. Mencken, 1922.
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
96,377
Reaction score
11,492
Points
2,030
What I "think", AGAIN, is immaterial- what I know, as I stated, which you failed to address, earlier is; concrete and steel structures don't implode into their own foot print
what you think is very important to this discussion, we want to know what you think happened? why are you avoiding answering?

Also, what evidence do you have on how a building might handle a jumbo jet crashing into it?
 
OP
Gdjjr

Gdjjr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
10,500
Reaction score
5,699
Points
965
Location
Texas
we want to know what you think happened?
What I "think" doesn't matter. How many times do I have to say that?

I KNOW what happened. 3 concrete and steel bldgs collapsed into their own foot print at near free fall speed.
That is IMpossible without controlled demolition.
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
96,377
Reaction score
11,492
Points
2,030
we want to know what you think happened?
What I "think" doesn't matter. How many times do I have to say that?

I KNOW what happened. 3 concrete and steel bldgs collapsed into their own foot print at near free fall speed.
That is IMpossible without controlled demolition.
you said it wasn't due to jumbo jets destroying internal structure, what is it you think happened after the planes hit and were destructive? It is very important to make your point to understand what you think happened? you're afraid to say it. why?

BTW, which of your experts you trust has done an experiment of flying a jumbo jet into a building tower?
 

Donald H

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
2,016
Reaction score
567
Points
63

Part 22: The Role of the Media — Act II: Operation Mockingbird

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles
Within your link: 60 Engineers cit evidence for demolition, or something to that effect.

So as that pertains to you and LA Ram fan, it can serve as a question to you two on why there are only 60?
Could they have not made the claim of 600 or 6000?
It would have still been a claim of erroneous bullshit in that even the 6000 would have been representative of let's say about .000001% of professional engineers. And thus just lead us back to the question on why you two accept such vacuous claims.

You're in good company with LA Ram fan in that he's still trying to promote the notion that airliner fuel (kerosene) can't melt steel!
Are you two still stuck with the understanding that the steel beams were melted?

What kind of conspiracy crackpot would stumble over something that is so basically easy to understand that it's laughable in it's ignorance?
 
OP
Gdjjr

Gdjjr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
10,500
Reaction score
5,699
Points
965
Location
Texas
It is very important to make your point to understand what you think happened? you're afraid to say it. why?
What I "think" is immaterial. What I KNOW is what's important.

Total Collapse Explained

While NIST failed to provide an explanation for the total collapse of the Twin Towers, several independent researchers have taken on that challenge.


Central to their analysis has been to measure the downward motion of the upper section of WTC 1 (the North Tower). Two papers in particular have found that, in the four seconds before the upper section disappeared from view, the rate of acceleration remained constant, at approximately 64 percent of free fall,6 and there was never an observable deceleration.7


Based on Newton’s Third Law of Motion, which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, we know there would have been a deceleration of WTC 1’s upper section if it had impacted and crushed the intact structure below it. The absence of deceleration is incontrovertible proof that another force (i.e., explosives) must have been responsible for destroying the lower structure before the upper section reached it.

I

n 2011, the ASCE’s Journal of Engineering Mechanics published a paper by Dr. Zdeněk Bažant and Jia-Liang Le titled “Why the Observed Motion History of the World Trade Center Towers Is Smooth,” 8 in which the authors attempted to argue that the upper section’s deceleration was “far too small to be perceptible,” thus accounting for why the observed motion is “smooth.” Specifically, they calculated, the deceleration was “three orders of magnitudes smaller than the error of an amateur video, and thus undetectable.”
In response, researchers Tony Szamboti and Richard Johns submitted a Discussion paper to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics in May 2011.9 Their paper argued that Bažant and Le had used incorrect values for (1) the resistance of the columns, (2) the lower structure’s floor mass, and (3) the upper section’s total mass. Szamboti and Johns showed that when the correct values are applied, Bažant and Le’s analysis actually proves that the deceleration of the upper section would have been significant and detectable (if it were a true fire-induced progressive collapse), and that the collapse would have arrested within three seconds.
Unfortunately, the Journal of Engineering Mechanics inexplicably rejected Szamboti and Johns’ Discussion paper as “out of scope” after holding it in review for 27 months. So Szamboti and Johns, along with Dr. Gregory Szuladziński, a world-renowned expert in structural mechanics, wrote another paper refuting Bažant and Le’s analysis and submitted it to the International Journal of Protective Structures. That paper, titled “Some Misunderstandings Related to the WTC Collapse Analysis,” 10 was published in June 2013.
So little research has been published on why the Twin Towers underwent total collapse that Bažant and Le’s 2011 paper, and Bažant’s three earlier papers on the subject, are the only analysis that exists to support the official explanation of a fire-induced progressive collapse. That analysis has now been indisputably debunked by Szamboti, Johns, Szuladziński, and others.
Endnotes
[1] NIST: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers (December 1, 2005), p.146. (NIST NCSTAR 1)
[2] NIST NCSTAR 1, p.xxxvii, p. 82.
[3] NIST NCSTAR 1, p.146.
[4] McIlvaine, Bob et al. “9/11 Family Members and Scholars: Request for Correction Submitted to NIST,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (June 2007). http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/RFCtoNISTbyMcIlvaineDoyleJonesRyanGageSTJ.pdf
[5] NIST: Response to the Request for Correction (September 2007).
[6] Chandler, David: “The Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (February 2010).
[7] Szamboti, Tony and MacQueen, Graeme: “The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (April 2009).
[8] Bažant, Zdeněk and Le, Jia-Liang: “Why the Observed Motion History of the World Trade Center Towers is Smooth,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics (January 2011).
[9] Szamboti, Tony and Johns, Richard: “ASCE Journals Refuse to Correct Fraudulent Paper Published on WTC Collapses,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (September 2014).
[10] Szuladziński, Gregory and Szamboti, Tony and Johns, Richard: “Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis,” International Journal of Protective Structures (June 2013).
Tweet
Near-Free-Fall Acceleration | Twin Towers

1618336493715.png


Figure 1: This graph from David Chandler’s “Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics” (Journal of 9/11 Studies, February 2010) shows that the North Tower’s upper section traveled at nearly uniform downward acceleration of -6.31 m/s2 (with an R2 value of 0.997), or 64% of free fall.
 

Donald H

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
2,016
Reaction score
567
Points
63
It is very important to make your point to understand what you think happened? you're afraid to say it. why?
What I "think" is immaterial. What I KNOW is what's important.

Total Collapse Explained

While NIST failed to provide an explanation for the total collapse of the Twin Towers, several independent researchers have taken on that challenge.


Central to their analysis has been to measure the downward motion of the upper section of WTC 1 (the North Tower). Two papers in particular have found that, in the four seconds before the upper section disappeared from view, the rate of acceleration remained constant, at approximately 64 percent of free fall,6 and there was never an observable deceleration.7


Based on Newton’s Third Law of Motion, which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, we know there would have been a deceleration of WTC 1’s upper section if it had impacted and crushed the intact structure below it. The absence of deceleration is incontrovertible proof that another force (i.e., explosives) must have been responsible for destroying the lower structure before the upper section reached it.

I

n 2011, the ASCE’s Journal of Engineering Mechanics published a paper by Dr. Zdeněk Bažant and Jia-Liang Le titled “Why the Observed Motion History of the World Trade Center Towers Is Smooth,” 8 in which the authors attempted to argue that the upper section’s deceleration was “far too small to be perceptible,” thus accounting for why the observed motion is “smooth.” Specifically, they calculated, the deceleration was “three orders of magnitudes smaller than the error of an amateur video, and thus undetectable.”
In response, researchers Tony Szamboti and Richard Johns submitted a Discussion paper to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics in May 2011.9 Their paper argued that Bažant and Le had used incorrect values for (1) the resistance of the columns, (2) the lower structure’s floor mass, and (3) the upper section’s total mass. Szamboti and Johns showed that when the correct values are applied, Bažant and Le’s analysis actually proves that the deceleration of the upper section would have been significant and detectable (if it were a true fire-induced progressive collapse), and that the collapse would have arrested within three seconds.
Unfortunately, the Journal of Engineering Mechanics inexplicably rejected Szamboti and Johns’ Discussion paper as “out of scope” after holding it in review for 27 months. So Szamboti and Johns, along with Dr. Gregory Szuladziński, a world-renowned expert in structural mechanics, wrote another paper refuting Bažant and Le’s analysis and submitted it to the International Journal of Protective Structures. That paper, titled “Some Misunderstandings Related to the WTC Collapse Analysis,” 10 was published in June 2013.
So little research has been published on why the Twin Towers underwent total collapse that Bažant and Le’s 2011 paper, and Bažant’s three earlier papers on the subject, are the only analysis that exists to support the official explanation of a fire-induced progressive collapse. That analysis has now been indisputably debunked by Szamboti, Johns, Szuladziński, and others.
Endnotes
[1] NIST: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers (December 1, 2005), p.146. (NIST NCSTAR 1)
[2] NIST NCSTAR 1, p.xxxvii, p. 82.
[3] NIST NCSTAR 1, p.146.
[4] McIlvaine, Bob et al. “9/11 Family Members and Scholars: Request for Correction Submitted to NIST,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (June 2007). http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/RFCtoNISTbyMcIlvaineDoyleJonesRyanGageSTJ.pdf
[5] NIST: Response to the Request for Correction (September 2007).
[6] Chandler, David: “The Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (February 2010).
[7] Szamboti, Tony and MacQueen, Graeme: “The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (April 2009).
[8] Bažant, Zdeněk and Le, Jia-Liang: “Why the Observed Motion History of the World Trade Center Towers is Smooth,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics (January 2011).
[9] Szamboti, Tony and Johns, Richard: “ASCE Journals Refuse to Correct Fraudulent Paper Published on WTC Collapses,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (September 2014).
[10] Szuladziński, Gregory and Szamboti, Tony and Johns, Richard: “Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis,” International Journal of Protective Structures (June 2013).
Tweet
Near-Free-Fall Acceleration | Twin Towers

View attachment 479532

Figure 1: This graph from David Chandler’s “Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics” (Journal of 9/11 Studies, February 2010) shows that the North Tower’s upper section traveled at nearly uniform downward acceleration of -6.31 m/s2 (with an R2 value of 0.997), or 64% of free fall.
You're still just a crackpot conspiracy theorist who's trying to say the steel beams were melted in the fire. How dare anyone quote pseudo-science at the same time as they spew that ignorance.

I'm outta this until you and LA RAM fan figure out that this has to be about what makes you two tick.
 
OP
Gdjjr

Gdjjr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
10,500
Reaction score
5,699
Points
965
Location
Texas
You're in good company with LA Ram fan in that he's still trying to promote the notion that airliner fuel (kerosene) can't melt steel!
Are you too still stuck with the understanding that the steel beams were melted?

What kind of conspiracy crackpot would stumble over something that is so basically easy to understand that it's laughable in it's ignorance?
Educate yourself- hyperbole and derogatory name calling isn't intellectual-

No, kerosene (jet fuel) in this instance would not melt the steel- that requires sustained temp, which is considerably less than ignition temperature- the center core structure was built with 5 inch thick flanged I beams and box tubing- 5 inches thick- think about that- the fuel was dispersed at impact- think about that- as fuel burns in an uncontrolled environment it loses heat rapidly- as it burns away the heat created is considerably less- the mat'ls used in offices is mostly fire retardant- it smokes furiously and melts- no longer providing fuel for flames- the jet fuel has already burned away- it left the bldg, so to speak-
 
OP
Gdjjr

Gdjjr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
10,500
Reaction score
5,699
Points
965
Location
Texas
You're still just a crackpot conspiracy theorist who's trying to say the steel beams were melted in the fire. How dare anyone quote pseudo-science at the same time as they spew that ignorance.

I'm outta this until you and LA RAM fan figure out that this has to be about what makes you two tick.
By- coward
 

Donald H

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
2,016
Reaction score
567
Points
63
You're in good company with LA Ram fan in that he's still trying to promote the notion that airliner fuel (kerosene) can't melt steel!
Are you too still stuck with the understanding that the steel beams were melted?

What kind of conspiracy crackpot would stumble over something that is so basically easy to understand that it's laughable in it's ignorance?
Educate yourself- hyperbole and derogatory name calling isn't intellectual-

No, kerosene (jet fuel) in this instance would not melt the steel- that requires sustained temp, which is considerably less than ignition temperature- the center core structure was built with 5 inch thick flanged I beams and box tubing- 5 inches thick- think about that- the fuel was dispersed at impact- think about that- as fuel burns in an uncontrolled environment it loses heat rapidly- as it burns away the heat created is considerably less- the mat'ls used in offices is mostly fire retardant- it smokes furiously and melts- no longer providing fuel for flames- the jet fuel has already burned away- it left the bldg, so to speak-
Good point! What melted the steel beams?

This isn't a deficient IQ problem with you, it's a stubbornness, for some peculiar reason, that is causing you to allow your mind to gloss over simple facts. That in your mind allows you to quote some invented pseudo-science that is irrelevant until you can accept the basics.

How's this for facing your nonsense straight on?

Did the steel beams melt? That is, in the true sense of the meaning of the word 'melt'? Or did those steel beams reach a temperature at which they would fail to bear the load they were meant to carry.

Get back to me after you have discussed it with LA RAM fan.
 
OP
Gdjjr

Gdjjr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
10,500
Reaction score
5,699
Points
965
Location
Texas
Or did those steel beams reach a temperature at which they would fail to bear the load they were meant to carry.
Nope- they didn't. Had that happened they would have leaned to one side- they fell straight down, with very little resistance- as in almost none-

Keep trying-
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
61,340
Reaction score
2,769
Points
1,815
9/11 Controlled Demolition Debate! Niels Harrit (Chemist) vs. Denis Rancourt (Physicist)


I am neither a Chemist, or a Physicist- but, I do know that 2+2 = 4. I also know the US gov't and it's lackey presstitutes are the lyingest entities on the planet-

There is a pod cast in the link, and no, I didn't listen to it- I did read the accompanying article though, and I have followed this 9/11 stuff for years-

From the article- if anyone cares- which I doubt- the size of a gnat attention span is what liars depend on.


As I wrote then:


On my November 6 (2010) show physics professor/activist Denis Rancourt and I spent the first hour amicably discussing 9/11, and mostly agreeing with each other. During the second hour, we had a heated debate (temperatures almost high enough to vaporize steel!) about what happened to the Twin Towers: I argued that the controlled demolition hypothesis best explains the facts, while Denis, who admits that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, claimed that the Towers could have collapsed due to plane crashes and fires as the government says.

Let me assert- 2 planes hit 2 bldg's in 2 different locations, near the tops, and brought them down in near identical fashion- in an unprecedented manner at near free fall speed- really?

OMFG
You have no clue what intellectual is.

I have an idea, you can be the poster child for the typical American idiot.
Really.
so when you cant refute the evidence,you insult,how junvenile.

Refuse stupidity? Seriously?

That would make me an ass hole too.

No thanks, you can have the title alone.
Stupidity is being afraid as you are to look at the videos on this thread that has overwhelming facts it was an inside job shill.another troll to put on ignore.
Don’t have to watch, you can’t summarize what is on it. Makes me believe you didn’t watch. I don’t need to watch conspiracy videos cause you think we should.

still waiting on if you’re saying jumbo jets didn’t hit the buildings. What kind of research do your conspiracy have showing what happens when jumbo jets fly into structures like the twin towers?

publish those experiments
I don’t need to watch conspiracy videos cause you think we should.
Ignorant by choice.

Interesting concept.
it's forum, if you have a point, summarize the point, give a time on a video. otherwise your point washes away. Let's see your evidence is my next point. Explain how someone could install dynamite charges in an occupied building full of people with security?
A possible answer is @ 51:34
A good presentation starts @ 31:30

 

LA RAM FAN

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
40,087
Reaction score
8,678
Points
2,030
I'm not going to waste my time watching an hour video
Of course not- you're afraid to see the truth-
:thankusmile: Obviously.whats even far more baffling is you would think he would be afraid to see the truth that the virus is a hoax as well sense it is a much more grand operation involving the world leaders around the world and they are using that to depopulate thw world

.he will look at the evidence of the virus being a hoax with all the leaders around the world being involved,yet incredibly,he wont look at the evidence of 9/11 being an inside job which was a much smaller operation. this is all i can say to that.:cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:

as i said before,i would be much less surprised if someone accepted 9/11 was an inside job but would not look at the evidence the virus is a hoax the fact it requires all the leaders around the world to be involved yet 9/11 does not yet.

he will look at the evidence on the virus but wont on 9/11. i cant even come up for words for that one other than WOW:cuckoo:
I saw a jumbo jet slam into a high rise building. You need to provide other evidence that something else happened. I’m just saying
He also thinks the election was rigged. Of course they said the evidence would come out. Still waiting. In fact, instead of Trump exposing Dominion voting machines for cheating, Dominion has slapped Trump Rudy and Fox with a billion dollar lawsuit. If any states won't use Dominion Voting Machines in the future because of Trump's lies and slander, they should have to pay Dominion for ruining their good name.

And I actually know one of the owners of Dominion believe it or not. He lives in Canada. He stole my girl. Or she chose him because he has a lot of $.
well it was stolen, see it's called election night, not election week. there is no justification to extending election day, so feel free to explain that and then that's a beginnning.
Didn't we have a recount in 2000? Didn't it take beyond election night?

And Trump purposely slowed up the US mail to make sure votes came in late. Fuck that. You don't get to blatantly cheat and break laws because 45% of the voters let you get away with it. Not when you are up for re election.

The governors are in charge of their states. You've heard of states rights correct? So don't tell the governor of georgia what to do. To "find" Trump 200,000 votes asap. What a cheater. You guys are deplorable and can spin anything. Such good liars.
yep, led by guidance from SCOTUS. And it was a recount, so the election night was complete. The losing campaign challenged ballots. Same thing Trump did. and yet you called him ignorant. So doesn't that then make the 2000 recount ignorant? In 2000 they did a physical forensic of each ballot looking for hanging chads. You remember? no different than Trump's assertion.
Republicans in 2000 rioted and got the recount stopped. Sound familiar?
You prove what a stupid fuck moron you are as always the fact yes bush stole the election but there was ten times less evidence on that than there was Biden stole the election that you ignore stupid fuck.:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


i love what a hypocrite troll smellybozo is,he tried to laugh off facts that compared to when bush stole the election,the evidence of that is fare more flimsy than whebiden stole the election,as always he shpws his hpocrisy and double standards claiming bush stole the election yet biden did not EVEN THOUGH as any normal person knows,elections have been rigged for DECADES. he can only sling shit in defeat like the moneky troll he is that his boy biden got in from the most massive election fraud in history.:laughing0301::laughing0301::laughing0301::laughing0301::laughing0301:

had bush been a democrat,he would NEVER have said election fraud happened nor would he deny reality that biden stole the election if he was a republican,he knows it we know it. fucking hyppocrite wants us to thank bush stole it but biden did not.cant have it both ways paid shill :laughing0301: :laughing0301: :laughing0301: :laughing0301: :laughing0301: :laughing0301:



this troll really needs to stick o the sppports section,a topic he knews something about.
 
Last edited:

LA RAM FAN

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
40,087
Reaction score
8,678
Points
2,030
Or did those steel beams reach a temperature at which they would fail to bear the load they were meant to carry.
Nope- they didn't. Had that happened they would have leaned to one side- they fell straight down, with very little resistance- as in almost none-

Keep trying-
the 9/11 apologists obviously ditched junior high school science classes.:laughing0301: thats what the best architects and the engineers in my video say,they say this is not rocket science,this is junior high school physics THEIR WORDS,they wont want to hear their words though sense it does not suppport ther warped opinions.:laughing0301:


they keep evading that steel rise towers have never fallen straight down at the speed they did in mankind history as well just to fires,that they fall l GRADUALLY for LONG periods of time spannnig hours,bld 7 is the is the one they keep evading. they design them in anticipation of fires,which is why it had never happended before or sense.yep they obviously ditched juinor high school physics or we would not have to explain any of this to them.
 

LA RAM FAN

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
40,087
Reaction score
8,678
Points
2,030
9/11 Controlled Demolition Debate! Niels Harrit (Chemist) vs. Denis Rancourt (Physicist)


I am neither a Chemist, or a Physicist- but, I do know that 2+2 = 4. I also know the US gov't and it's lackey presstitutes are the lyingest entities on the planet-

There is a pod cast in the link, and no, I didn't listen to it- I did read the accompanying article though, and I have followed this 9/11 stuff for years-

From the article- if anyone cares- which I doubt- the size of a gnat attention span is what liars depend on.


As I wrote then:


On my November 6 (2010) show physics professor/activist Denis Rancourt and I spent the first hour amicably discussing 9/11, and mostly agreeing with each other. During the second hour, we had a heated debate (temperatures almost high enough to vaporize steel!) about what happened to the Twin Towers: I argued that the controlled demolition hypothesis best explains the facts, while Denis, who admits that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, claimed that the Towers could have collapsed due to plane crashes and fires as the government says.

Let me assert- 2 planes hit 2 bldg's in 2 different locations, near the tops, and brought them down in near identical fashion- in an unprecedented manner at near free fall speed- really?

OMFG
You have no clue what intellectual is.

I have an idea, you can be the poster child for the typical American idiot.
Really.
so when you cant refute the evidence,you insult,how junvenile.

Refuse stupidity? Seriously?

That would make me an ass hole too.

No thanks, you can have the title alone.
Stupidity is being afraid as you are to look at the videos on this thread that has overwhelming facts it was an inside job shill.another troll to put on ignore.
Don’t have to watch, you can’t summarize what is on it. Makes me believe you didn’t watch. I don’t need to watch conspiracy videos cause you think we should.

still waiting on if you’re saying jumbo jets didn’t hit the buildings. What kind of research do your conspiracy have showing what happens when jumbo jets fly into structures like the twin towers?

publish those experiments
I don’t need to watch conspiracy videos cause you think we should.
Ignorant by choice.

Interesting concept.
it's forum, if you have a point, summarize the point, give a time on a video. otherwise your point washes away. Let's see your evidence is my next point. Explain how someone could install dynamite charges in an occupied building full of people with security?
A possible answer is @ 51:34
A good presentation starts @ 31:30

he wont watch it,we both know that.
 

LA RAM FAN

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
40,087
Reaction score
8,678
Points
2,030
Funny you guys don't ever seem to think Republicans are lying. But then you'll say stuff like this?
Not sure who you mean by you guys- adhominem attacks aren't intelectual discussion, btw.
See how he always lumps us in with biased republicans like mudwhiistle and political chic. :cuckoo: This stupid fuck always ignores I have said bush was a clone of Obama and that I have told pc and mud thousands of times they are idiots for ignoring how evil Reagan was and what a warmonger he is,yet this lying idiot says I don’t argue with republicans on this board,what a stupid fuck.:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
You defended Bush when he was in office. Now you throw him under the bus?

Remember, McCain was your nominee at one point. So was Romney. You guys loved them back then but now you don't. Same for Bush. Today his name is mud in the GOP.
Oh god you one fuckimg paid shill liar,everybody including you knows I have always stated bush was the most corrupt president ever and never said one good word about him you lying stupid fuck who keeps ignoring that i proved you are a liar when you said you had me on ignore but do. Not.find where I ever once defended bush shillyou can’t,you have been caught lying S always paid troll.
first this troll says i am a republican,then when i prove him wrong,he changes the subject and says i dont argue with republicans,then when i pprove him wrong on that as well,he then changes it to the funnist comment ever in his whole time here the most absurd of them all that i USED to like Bush but i threw him under the bus,that is the most funniest shit ever cause everybody knows me knows i have NEVER said anything like that in my whole life,this one tops them all of all the lies smellybozo has made up when losing arrgument against me,i am going to bookmark this one.this one is for keeps.:laughing0301::laughing0301::laughing0301::laughing0301::laughing0301::laughing0301::laughing0301::laughing0301::laughing0301::laughing0301::laughing0301::laughing0301::laughing0301::laughing0301::laughing0301:
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
96,377
Reaction score
11,492
Points
2,030
Or did those steel beams reach a temperature at which they would fail to bear the load they were meant to carry.
Nope- they didn't. Had that happened they would have leaned to one side- they fell straight down, with very little resistance- as in almost none-

Keep trying-
Based on what study?
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
96,377
Reaction score
11,492
Points
2,030
9/11 Controlled Demolition Debate! Niels Harrit (Chemist) vs. Denis Rancourt (Physicist)


I am neither a Chemist, or a Physicist- but, I do know that 2+2 = 4. I also know the US gov't and it's lackey presstitutes are the lyingest entities on the planet-

There is a pod cast in the link, and no, I didn't listen to it- I did read the accompanying article though, and I have followed this 9/11 stuff for years-

From the article- if anyone cares- which I doubt- the size of a gnat attention span is what liars depend on.


As I wrote then:


On my November 6 (2010) show physics professor/activist Denis Rancourt and I spent the first hour amicably discussing 9/11, and mostly agreeing with each other. During the second hour, we had a heated debate (temperatures almost high enough to vaporize steel!) about what happened to the Twin Towers: I argued that the controlled demolition hypothesis best explains the facts, while Denis, who admits that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, claimed that the Towers could have collapsed due to plane crashes and fires as the government says.

Let me assert- 2 planes hit 2 bldg's in 2 different locations, near the tops, and brought them down in near identical fashion- in an unprecedented manner at near free fall speed- really?

OMFG
You have no clue what intellectual is.

I have an idea, you can be the poster child for the typical American idiot.
Really.
so when you cant refute the evidence,you insult,how junvenile.

Refuse stupidity? Seriously?

That would make me an ass hole too.

No thanks, you can have the title alone.
Stupidity is being afraid as you are to look at the videos on this thread that has overwhelming facts it was an inside job shill.another troll to put on ignore.
Don’t have to watch, you can’t summarize what is on it. Makes me believe you didn’t watch. I don’t need to watch conspiracy videos cause you think we should.

still waiting on if you’re saying jumbo jets didn’t hit the buildings. What kind of research do your conspiracy have showing what happens when jumbo jets fly into structures like the twin towers?

publish those experiments
I don’t need to watch conspiracy videos cause you think we should.
Ignorant by choice.

Interesting concept.
it's forum, if you have a point, summarize the point, give a time on a video. otherwise your point washes away. Let's see your evidence is my next point. Explain how someone could install dynamite charges in an occupied building full of people with security?
A possible answer is @ 51:34
A good presentation starts @ 31:30

he wont watch it,we both know that.
Why should I? That’s odd, I already explained that. You all deaf or stupid? Explain your point yourself, I don’t do mind reading. Doesn’t pay well
 

Donald H

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
2,016
Reaction score
567
Points
63
the 9/11 apologists obviously ditched junior high school science classes.:laughing0301: thats what the best architects and the engineers in my video say,they say this is not rocket science,this is junior high school physics THEIR WORDS,they wont want to hear their words though sense it does not suppport ther warped opinions.:laughing0301:


they keep evading that steel rise towers have never fallen straight down at the speed they did in mankind history as well just to fires,that they fall l GRADUALLY for LONG periods of time spannnig hours,bld 7 is the is the one they keep evading. they design them in anticipation of fires,which is why it had never happended before or sense.yep they obviously ditched juinor high school physics or we would not have to explain any of this to them.

Two whole paragraphs that can stand as a demonstration of the lack of intelligence for which the writer accuses others.

There are perhaps several explanations for the reason why people succumb to wild conspiracy theories. In this case the reason is made obvious, even though it answers for a small % of them. This is not representative of the intelligence level of the larger body of conspiracy theorists. This is a demonstration of ignorance that can only be pitied.

For those who care, we should continue to go on searching for the answers on what makes the bulk of them tick?
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
96,377
Reaction score
11,492
Points
2,030
9/11 Controlled Demolition Debate! Niels Harrit (Chemist) vs. Denis Rancourt (Physicist)


I am neither a Chemist, or a Physicist- but, I do know that 2+2 = 4. I also know the US gov't and it's lackey presstitutes are the lyingest entities on the planet-

There is a pod cast in the link, and no, I didn't listen to it- I did read the accompanying article though, and I have followed this 9/11 stuff for years-

From the article- if anyone cares- which I doubt- the size of a gnat attention span is what liars depend on.


As I wrote then:


On my November 6 (2010) show physics professor/activist Denis Rancourt and I spent the first hour amicably discussing 9/11, and mostly agreeing with each other. During the second hour, we had a heated debate (temperatures almost high enough to vaporize steel!) about what happened to the Twin Towers: I argued that the controlled demolition hypothesis best explains the facts, while Denis, who admits that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, claimed that the Towers could have collapsed due to plane crashes and fires as the government says.

Let me assert- 2 planes hit 2 bldg's in 2 different locations, near the tops, and brought them down in near identical fashion- in an unprecedented manner at near free fall speed- really?

OMFG
You have no clue what intellectual is.

I have an idea, you can be the poster child for the typical American idiot.
Really.
so when you cant refute the evidence,you insult,how junvenile.

Refuse stupidity? Seriously?

That would make me an ass hole too.

No thanks, you can have the title alone.
Stupidity is being afraid as you are to look at the videos on this thread that has overwhelming facts it was an inside job shill.another troll to put on ignore.
Don’t have to watch, you can’t summarize what is on it. Makes me believe you didn’t watch. I don’t need to watch conspiracy videos cause you think we should.

still waiting on if you’re saying jumbo jets didn’t hit the buildings. What kind of research do your conspiracy have showing what happens when jumbo jets fly into structures like the twin towers?

publish those experiments
I don’t need to watch conspiracy videos cause you think we should.
Ignorant by choice.

Interesting concept.
it's forum, if you have a point, summarize the point, give a time on a video. otherwise your point washes away. Let's see your evidence is my next point. Explain how someone could install dynamite charges in an occupied building full of people with security?
A possible answer is @ 51:34
A good presentation starts @ 31:30

I’ve seen that back years ago rosy O’Donnell I believe it was. I’ve watched the buildings fall over a hundred times, I don’t see what that dude says happened nor do I agree with his explanation that air must go out upward. Air escapes as paths are available. Now what? I don’t buy it, you gonna beat me up cause I don’t believe you? Not sure what it is this thread is attempting to accomplish. I gave my explanation, I still haven’t heard yours. That’s what I thought was the point of the OP. Instead it was watch the fking video or I’m not talking shit. Fk that. You want to discuss, explain why you believe what you believe and make an argument. You continue to fail!
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$20.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top