the-psychology-of-conspiracy-denial

[Fizz]

you said planes flew into buildings what more evidence is needed

correct.

well thats just crazy how do you know explosives did not play a roll ?

how do you know martians didnt play a role? are you saying we should investigate life on mars to see if they played a role?? (not roll, you uneducated moron)

 

[eots]

correct.

well thats just crazy how do you know explosives did not play a roll ?

how do you know martians didnt play a role? are you saying we should investigate life on mars to see if they played a role?? (not roll, you uneducated moron)

There is no fire investigation protocol to check for martin involvement but there is for accelerants and explosives as well as preservation of evidence..none of this was done...you uneducated moron

 

[fyrenza]

No, why should I waste my time presenting material that will be immediately rejected without consideration?

The last thing Troofers want is the truth. You want validation for your insanity.

If you want "truth," it seems to me that you'd be willing to believe basic, high school level physics for an explanation of the collapses.

Since physics is a PRECISE, mathematical science, I tend to believe the explanation that is offered, which says that the collapses were a controlled demolition. With all of the vids and articles out there, doesn't it seem like SOMEONE that knew better than the folks drawing it all out for us would have piped up and called bullshit if there were any problems with the equations?

I don't see any way around accepting that it WAS a controlled demolition, UNLESS you can refute the laws and science of physics,

and if you CAN, I'd be more than happy to drop this subject.

If you can't, right away we've got a major problem with the entire "story" that is being offered to the public, you know?

I know y'all had a problem with the dowel, washers and paper spacer model, but regardless of the materials used, that model proves the fact that the bottom of any given structure Supports the Top of said structure. If it didn't, every structure would just collapse under it's own weight.

Can we agree about that?

 

[eots]

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/pdf/efop/efo33863.pdf

Scientific protocols for fire ... - Google Books

 

[Ringel05]

No, why should I waste my time presenting material that will be immediately rejected without consideration?

The last thing Troofers want is the truth. You want validation for your insanity.

If you want "truth," it seems to me that you'd be willing to believe basic, high school level physics for an explanation of the collapses.

Since physics is a PRECISE, mathematical science, I tend to believe the explanation that is offered, which says that the collapses were a controlled demolition. With all of the vids and articles out there, doesn't it seem like SOMEONE that knew better than the folks drawing it all out for us would have piped up and called bullshit if there were any problems with the equations?

I don't see any way around accepting that it WAS a controlled demolition, UNLESS you can refute the laws and science of physics,

and if you CAN, I'd be more than happy to drop this subject.

If you can't, right away we've got a major problem with the entire "story" that is being offered to the public, you know?

I know y'all had a problem with the dowel, washers and paper spacer model, but regardless of the materials used, that model proves the fact that the bottom of any given structure Supports the Top of said structure. If it didn't, every structure would just collapse under it's own weight.

Can we agree about that?

Sorry, your physics are faulty. Which explains why you're one of these nut cases also.
(Of course it could just be the drugs and alcohol......)

 

[eots]

No, why should I waste my time presenting material that will be immediately rejected without consideration?

The last thing Troofers want is the truth. You want validation for your insanity.

If you want "truth," it seems to me that you'd be willing to believe basic, high school level physics for an explanation of the collapses.

Since physics is a PRECISE, mathematical science, I tend to believe the explanation that is offered, which says that the collapses were a controlled demolition. With all of the vids and articles out there, doesn't it seem like SOMEONE that knew better than the folks drawing it all out for us would have piped up and called bullshit if there were any problems with the equations?

I don't see any way around accepting that it WAS a controlled demolition, UNLESS you can refute the laws and science of physics,

and if you CAN, I'd be more than happy to drop this subject.

If you can't, right away we've got a major problem with the entire "story" that is being offered to the public, you know?

I know y'all had a problem with the dowel, washers and paper spacer model, but regardless of the materials used, that model proves the fact that the bottom of any given structure Supports the Top of said structure. If it didn't, every structure would just collapse under it's own weight.

Can we agree about that?

Sorry, your physics are faulty. Which explains why you're one of these nut cases also.
(Of course it could just be the drugs and alcohol......)

you do not have the first clue of the physics of 9/11 so why do you pretend you do ? your entire knowledge of 9/11 comes from television sound bites I have no doubt you do not even know the final conclusions of NIST or how they reacted these conclusions..

 

[daveman]

No, why should I waste my time presenting material that will be immediately rejected without consideration?

The last thing Troofers want is the truth. You want validation for your insanity.

If you want "truth," it seems to me that you'd be willing to believe basic, high school level physics for an explanation of the collapses.

Since physics is a PRECISE, mathematical science, I tend to believe the explanation that is offered, which says that the collapses were a controlled demolition. With all of the vids and articles out there, doesn't it seem like SOMEONE that knew better than the folks drawing it all out for us would have piped up and called bullshit if there were any problems with the equations?

I don't see any way around accepting that it WAS a controlled demolition, UNLESS you can refute the laws and science of physics,

and if you CAN, I'd be more than happy to drop this subject.

If you can't, right away we've got a major problem with the entire "story" that is being offered to the public, you know?

I know y'all had a problem with the dowel, washers and paper spacer model, but regardless of the materials used, that model proves the fact that the bottom of any given structure Supports the Top of said structure. If it didn't, every structure would just collapse under it's own weight.

Can we agree about that?

Like I said: Enjoy your delusion.

 

[fyrenza]

Sorry, your physics are faulty. Which explains why you're one of these nut cases also.
(Of course it could just be the drugs and alcohol......)

I'll drop this subject in a heartbeat if you can prove the science wrong.

p.s. Please spare me these childish posts, okay? I'm not trying to insult you, nor am I calling you names. I'm honestly trying to understand what happened that day.

 

[DiveCon]

Sorry, your physics are faulty. Which explains why you're one of these nut cases also.
(Of course it could just be the drugs and alcohol......)

I'll drop this subject in a heartbeat if you can prove the science wrong.

p.s. Please spare me these childish posts, okay? I'm not trying to insult you, nor am I calling you names. I'm honestly trying to understand what happened that day.

the science is not wrong, but what you are calling science, ISNT

 

[eots]

No, why should I waste my time presenting material that will be immediately rejected without consideration?

The last thing Troofers want is the truth. You want validation for your insanity.

If you want "truth," it seems to me that you'd be willing to believe basic, high school level physics for an explanation of the collapses.

Since physics is a PRECISE, mathematical science, I tend to believe the explanation that is offered, which says that the collapses were a controlled demolition. With all of the vids and articles out there, doesn't it seem like SOMEONE that knew better than the folks drawing it all out for us would have piped up and called bullshit if there were any problems with the equations?

I don't see any way around accepting that it WAS a controlled demolition, UNLESS you can refute the laws and science of physics,

and if you CAN, I'd be more than happy to drop this subject.

If you can't, right away we've got a major problem with the entire "story" that is being offered to the public, you know?

I know y'all had a problem with the dowel, washers and paper spacer model, but regardless of the materials used, that model proves the fact that the bottom of any given structure Supports the Top of said structure. If it didn't, every structure would just collapse under it's own weight.

Can we agree about that?

Like I said: Enjoy your delusion.

this is all they got...thats it...it is daves entire argument..denial

 

[Ringel05]

If you want "truth," it seems to me that you'd be willing to believe basic, high school level physics for an explanation of the collapses.

Since physics is a PRECISE, mathematical science, I tend to believe the explanation that is offered, which says that the collapses were a controlled demolition. With all of the vids and articles out there, doesn't it seem like SOMEONE that knew better than the folks drawing it all out for us would have piped up and called bullshit if there were any problems with the equations?

I don't see any way around accepting that it WAS a controlled demolition, UNLESS you can refute the laws and science of physics,

and if you CAN, I'd be more than happy to drop this subject.

If you can't, right away we've got a major problem with the entire "story" that is being offered to the public, you know?

I know y'all had a problem with the dowel, washers and paper spacer model, but regardless of the materials used, that model proves the fact that the bottom of any given structure Supports the Top of said structure. If it didn't, every structure would just collapse under it's own weight.

Can we agree about that?

Sorry, your physics are faulty. Which explains why you're one of these nut cases also.
(Of course it could just be the drugs and alcohol......)

you do not have the first clue of the physics of 9/11 so why do you pretend you do ? your entire knowledge of 9/11 comes from television sound bites I have no doubt you do not even know the final conclusions of NIST or how they reacted these conclusions..

I have the first clue of physics, and the second, third, forth, etc.....
I used to build building for a living, I know how they can come down as well as go up. Structural steel joint failure, when encased in cement, has the same appearance of the so called explosions because the force of the failure is causing a normal outward reaction. Duh. Vibration harmonics will cause such a failure under the right circumstances. Fully loaded planes hitting these buildings with the resultant fuel explosion(s) are more than adequate to do the job hence the right circumstances existed. (Again duh!)
That is all.......

 

[fyrenza]

the science is not wrong, but what you are calling science, ISNT

Are you saying that what is taught as high school physics is bogus?

THIS is an example of what I'm calling "the science:"

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QMSAsOkumI"]Controlled Demolition or Structural Failure Part 1[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecmQegzMJQE&feature=related"]Part 2[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_j1jAv1j3U&feature=related"]Part 3[/ame]



As an aside, I giggle every time he says Instantanuously!

 

[Ringel05]

Sorry, your physics are faulty. Which explains why you're one of these nut cases also.
(Of course it could just be the drugs and alcohol......)

I'll drop this subject in a heartbeat if you can prove the science wrong.

p.s. Please spare me these childish posts, okay? I'm not trying to insult you, nor am I calling you names. I'm honestly trying to understand what happened that day.

Post #191
Personal field knowledge of how structures go up and down, about 25 years.
And **** you if you don't like my "childish" posts. Stop frying your brain and learn how to use it properly then the answers would be clear as a bell.

 

[eots]

Sorry, your physics are faulty. Which explains why you're one of these nut cases also.
(Of course it could just be the drugs and alcohol......)

you do not have the first clue of the physics of 9/11 so why do you pretend you do ? your entire knowledge of 9/11 comes from television sound bites I have no doubt you do not even know the final conclusions of NIST or how they reacted these conclusions..

I have the first clue of physics, and the second, third, forth, etc.....
I used to build building for a living, I know how they can come down as well as go up.

so how many steel buildings have collapsed primarily due to fire before in the history of man ??

Structural steel joint failure, when encased in cement, has the same appearance of the so called explosions because the force of the failure is causing a normal outward reaction. Duh.

first responders give multiple reports of explosions blowing out walls,.stair wells, etc..you have no clue of the testimony given in regards to explosions

Vibration harmonics will cause such a failure under the right circumstances

.

are you saying you can bring down buildings like the towers with harmonics..lol

Fully loaded planes hitting these buildings with the resultant fuel explosion(s) are more than adequate to do the job hence the right circumstances existed. (Again duh!)
That is all.......

completely... at near free fall speed...how ??

no plane hit wtc 7 and damage played no significant role in the collapse

 

[daveman]

this is all they got...thats it...it is daves entire argument..denial

"Never teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

I've tried teaching the truth to Troofers. It annoys them.

 

[Ringel05]

I have the first clue of physics, and the second, third, forth, etc.....
I used to build building for a living, I know how they can come down as well as go up.

so how many steel buildings have collapsed primarily due to fire before in the history of man ??






first responders give multiple reports of explosions blowing out walls,.stair wells, etc..you have no clue of the testimony given in regards to explosions

.

are you saying you can bring down buildings like the towers with harmonics..lol

Fully loaded planes hitting these buildings with the resultant fuel explosion(s) are more than adequate to do the job hence the right circumstances existed. (Again duh!)
That is all.......

completely... at near free fall speed...how ??

no plane hit wtc 7 and damage played no significant role in the collapse

Christ! You're twisting everything like it was a tornado but then that's what you brain fried idiots do. It's you bread and butter. You want so badly for this to be something that it's not you'll believe any bull shit "study" and "expert" that comes down the pike. They're selling you sake oil and you're lapping it up with both hands and both feet. Wtc 7 was knocked down by the fall of the other buildings you moron, it's obvious for anbody to see that wants to. Yes the harmonics caused by the plane strikes were more than enough to cause the failure and solid walls, stairs, etc. will only flex and bend so much before they experience what is called an explosive failure.
Christ! Get off the drugs and come into the light! Welcome to reality!

 

[eots]

this is all they got...thats it...it is daves entire argument..denial

"Never teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

I've tried teaching the truth to Troofers. It annoys them.

No you dont you post a link to popular mechanics once and then post stupid little empty two line post of denial ,thats your whole act

 

[DiveCon]

this is all they got...thats it...it is daves entire argument..denial

"Never teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

I've tried teaching the truth to Troofers. It annoys them.

No you dont you post a link to popular mechanics once and then post stupid little empty two line post of denial ,thats your whole act

PM debunks all your bullshit

 

[eots]

so how many steel buildings have collapsed primarily due to fire before in the history of man ??






first responders give multiple reports of explosions blowing out walls,.stair wells, etc..you have no clue of the testimony given in regards to explosions

.

are you saying you can bring down buildings like the towers with harmonics..lol




completely... at near free fall speed...how ??

no plane hit wtc 7 and damage played no significant role in the collapse

Christ! You're twisting everything like it was a tornado but then that's what you brain fried idiots do. It's you bread and butter. You want so badly for this to be something that it's not you'll believe any bull shit "study" and "expert" that comes down the pike. They're selling you sake oil and you're lapping it up with both hands and both feet. Wtc 7 was knocked down by the fall of the other buildings you moron, it's obvious for anbody to see that wants to. Yes the harmonics caused by the plane strikes were more than enough to cause the failure and solid walls, stairs, etc. will only flex and bend so much before they experience what is called an explosive failure.
Christ! Get off the drugs and come into the light! Welcome to reality!

NIST and the 9/11 commission are the snake oil and you are drinking it l..but you wouldn't know that because you are completely unfamiliar with the report which is clear by your harmonics statement..it shows a complete ignorance to the estimated effect of the impact according to NIST

 

[daveman]

this is all they got...thats it...it is daves entire argument..denial

"Never teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

I've tried teaching the truth to Troofers. It annoys them.

No you dont you post a link to popular mechanics once and then post stupid little empty two line post of denial ,thats your whole act

Do you think you're the first Troofer I've dealt with?