created by: inquiring minds | Jan 4, 2013

Top Stories

17,784 votes

Was 911 an Inside Job

Click on an option to vote

  • YES
  • No
  • Don't know
  • Possibly

Comments (Page 183)

Showing posts 3,641 - 3,660 of4,996
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3857
Apr 5, 2013
 
Nikki wrote:
<quoted text>The draft report does no such thing. There is no mention of acceleration of any kind, free fall or otherwise, in Table 3-1, page 39.

The draft goes on to describe a meaningless analysis in which the "average acceleration" of the roof line (over a time interval that begins at a time of no actual significance - since the roof line is not in motion) is "40% longer than computed free fall time."

Your charlatan masters gave you obvious lies and pseudo-scientific "analysis," not a complete or even partial investigation rooted in sound logic or scientific fact.

Sorry.
They didn't write it in crayon so most twoofers are oblivious to the fact that it's there. Sorry for your luck.

Meanwhile, the "free fall" canard has absolutely no meaning or relevance to what caused the buildings to collapse.
Pablito

Korolėv, Russia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3858
Apr 5, 2013
 
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
It meant secondary explosions which could be caused by many things, especially gas buildup. Fuel vapors sink.
"Could be"? Do I detect uninformed speculation (or desperate floundering)?

The windows of the Tower lobbies were blown out before firefighters arrived. How could "gas build up" in the fully ventilated lobby? What "gas" are you speculating about? Does this gas have an odor, and do you suppose that firefighters would set up a staging area at a location where such an odor is strong?

When a firefighter says,"people don't understand! There may be more! Any one of these fkn buildings can blow up! This ain't done yet!", does it sound like he's limiting the danger to just the damaged Towers? Remember, this video was shot prior to the collapse of the Towers and WTC7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3859
Apr 5, 2013
 
Freakin Hippies !!!
WasteWater wrote:
Vaclav

Prague, Czech Republic

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3860
Apr 5, 2013
 
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
They didn't write it in crayon so most twoofers are oblivious to the fact that it's there. Sorry for your luck.
Meanwhile, the "free fall" canard has absolutely no meaning or relevance to what caused the buildings to collapse.
Is that why you can't quote the part where NIST admits a period of free fall in the draft report? Is that why you've been fighting the "free fall canard" tooth-and-nail until, confronted repeatedly with empirical evidence in the videos, you are forced into a fall-back position that "it has absolutely no meaning or relevance"?

Is this why Shyam Sunder fumbled at the August 2008 technical briefing when confronted with the fact of free-fall?

Here's Sunder:
"The analysis showed there is a
difference in time between a free fall time-a free fall time would be an object that has no structural
components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video, it shows that the time it takes for the
17-for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video,
below which you can't see anything in the video, is about 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows, and the
structural analysis shows, or the collapse analysis shows, is that same that it took for the structural
model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is 5.4 seconds. It's
about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all
unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a
sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."
That's right, Sunder. A "free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it." The problem is, Sunder, that even a perimeter of buckling columns HAS structural components below it -- buckling columns, and the buckling doesn't happen suddenly and instantaneously. And yet the visible perimeter of WTC-7 were dropping suddenly AS A UNIT, AT FREE FALL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

What could cause sudden free-fall? The simultaneous destruction of supporting structures by a carefully synchronized demolition.

What couldn't cause sudden free-fall? A gradual weakening of steel structures (insulated steel!!) as a result of fires (that admittedly consume all fuel in any given location in at most 20-30 minutes).

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3861
Apr 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pablito wrote:
<quoted text>
"Could be"? Do I detect uninformed speculation (or desperate floundering)?
The windows of the Tower lobbies were blown out before firefighters arrived. How could "gas build up" in the fully ventilated lobby? What "gas" are you speculating about? Does this gas have an odor, and do you suppose that firefighters would set up a staging area at a location where such an odor is strong?
When a firefighter says,"people don't understand! There may be more! Any one of these fkn buildings can blow up! This ain't done yet!", does it sound like he's limiting the danger to just the damaged Towers? Remember, this video was shot prior to the collapse of the Towers and WTC7.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
No you don't. Firemen enter an dangerous and unpredictable environment fighting fires. They speculate until they have a reasonable grasp of what is happening and the consequences. An explosion is often caused by buildup of gasses and back drafts. The fact is, the windows of the lobby were sucked in by such drafting. You are simply speculating upon something which is inconclusive.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3862
Apr 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

YellowPissreality wrote:
Freakin Hippies !!!<quoted text>
Not really. It's about art. Fire art and performance art. The hippies brought nothing too it but simply used the event contributing little or nothing.

“WELL PAID GOVIE SHILL ”

Since: Jun 07

Cold Spring Harbor, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3863
Apr 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

And if you ever bothered to read NIST's report it very clearly explains that there was an internal collpase of 12 floors before the exterior facade began to move downward and this accounts for the very brief period of free fall ... by the way have you guys found any CD that drops in free fall yet ?!?!?!?!??
Vaclav wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that why you can't quote the part where NIST admits a period of free fall in the draft report? Is that why you've been fighting the "free fall canard" tooth-and-nail until, confronted repeatedly with empirical evidence in the videos, you are forced into a fall-back position that "it has absolutely no meaning or relevance"?
Is this why Shyam Sunder fumbled at the August 2008 technical briefing when confronted with the fact of free-fall?
Here's Sunder: <quoted text>
That's right, Sunder. A "free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it." The problem is, Sunder, that even a perimeter of buckling columns HAS structural components below it -- buckling columns, and the buckling doesn't happen suddenly and instantaneously. And yet the visible perimeter of WTC-7 were dropping suddenly AS A UNIT, AT FREE FALL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
What could cause sudden free-fall? The simultaneous destruction of supporting structures by a carefully synchronized demolition.
What couldn't cause sudden free-fall? A gradual weakening of steel structures (insulated steel!!) as a result of fires (that admittedly consume all fuel in any given location in at most 20-30 minutes).

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3865
Apr 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Skyscraper Defies Physics during Fire!

http://youtu.be/QKW7386h0JI

Insults Are Easier
John

Anonymous Proxy

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3867
Apr 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RADEKT wrote:
And if you ever bothered to read NIST's report it very clearly explains that there was an internal collpase of 12 floors before the exterior facade began to move downward and this accounts for the very brief period of free fall ... by the way have you guys found any CD that drops in free fall yet ?!?!?!?!??
<quoted text>
The thing is, Mr. Radekt (or is it "YellowPissRealit y" or "Timeten"?), if YOU bothered to read the NIST report, you could quote me that "clear explanation" that accounts for the 100+ feet of free fall for the entire visible perimeter... if in fact there is a "clear explanation" for this in the NIST report.

Of course, there isn't, is there?

Controlled demolitions don't need to drop at free fall. Why would a demolition company invest in the additional explosives and additional set-up time necessary to take out ALL supports when they can achieve their objectives with less destruction?

The demolition of WTC-7 indicates planning and preparation to destroy this building as quickly as possible. Free-fall indicates the maximum downward acceleration and the minimum collapse time --(barring the propulsion of the structure downward by rockets!)

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3870
Apr 5, 2013
 
Vaclav wrote:
<quoted text>Is that why you can't quote the part where NIST admits a period of free fall in the draft report? Is that why you've been fighting the "free fall canard" tooth-and-nail until, confronted repeatedly with empirical evidence in the videos, you are forced into a fall-back position that "it has absolutely no meaning or relevance"?

Is this why Shyam Sunder fumbled at the August 2008 technical briefing when confronted with the fact of free-fall?

Here's Sunder:[QUOTE]"The analysis showed there is a
difference in time between a free fall time-a free fall time would be an object that has no structural
components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video, it shows that the time it takes for the
17-for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video,
below which you can't see anything in the video, is about 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows, and the
structural analysis shows, or the collapse analysis shows, is that same that it took for the structural
model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is 5.4 seconds. It's
about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all
unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a
sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.""

That's right, Sunder. A "free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it." The problem is, Sunder, that even a perimeter of buckling columns HAS structural components below it -- buckling columns, and the buckling doesn't happen suddenly and instantaneously. And yet the visible perimeter of WTC-7 were dropping suddenly AS A UNIT, AT FREE FALL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

What could cause sudden free-fall? The simultaneous destruction of supporting structures by a carefully synchronized demolition.

What couldn't cause sudden free-fall? A gradual weakening of steel structures (insulated steel!!) as a result of fires (that admittedly consume all fuel in any given location in at most 20-30 minutes).
Nice word salad.

Is it worth sacrificing time with my family to re-read a few hundred pages of a draft version of an engineering paper to find various references which you obvious won't understand because they aren't explicit statements written in crayon when the subject of free fall is meaningless to begin with?

Ummm...no.

Particularly when no twoofer has ever shown free fall to be an inherent characteristic of controlled demolition and there's never been a lock of qualification for the oft repeated claim that fire cannot cause structural failure.

Change your socks and try again proxy sockie.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3871
Apr 5, 2013
 
RADEKT wrote:
<quoted text>And if you ever bothered to read NIST's report it very clearly explains that there was an internal collpase of 12 floors before the exterior facade began to move downward and this accounts for the very brief period of free fall ... by the way have you guys found any CD that drops in free fall yet ?!?!?!?!??
Exactly, the proxy sock wants it written in crayon so he understands it.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3872
Apr 5, 2013
 
Insults Are Easier wrote:
Skyscraper Defies Physics during Fire!

http://youtu.be/QKW7386h0JI

Insults Are Easier
Steel plating?
Rupert

Shepperton, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3875
Apr 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice word salad.
Is it worth sacrificing time with my family to re-read a few hundred pages of a draft version of an engineering paper to find various references which you obvious won't understand because they aren't explicit statements written in crayon when the subject of free fall is meaningless to begin with?
Ummm...no.
HA! A man who has posted 26,708 times (and counting) is suddenly concerned with "sacrificing time with my family"?? You are too funny!! It wouldn't take much time, by the way. You could do a word/phrase search. Try "free fall" or "free" or "acceleration" or "gravit"...

Does "word salad" signify a lack of comprehension on your part?
Porkpie Hat wrote:
...Particularly when no twoofer has ever shown free fall to be an inherent characteristic of controlled demolition and there's never been a lock of qualification for the oft repeated claim that fire cannot cause structural failure.
Change your socks and try again proxy sockie.
"Free fall" is not an inherent characteristic of demolition... But demolition is an absolute necessity for free-fall when the object in free fall is a structurally redundant 47-story steel-frame building with the foot print roughly the size of a foot ball field!

(Was that a "word salad"? Maybe if I rewrite it in crayon you will gain a better appreciation for my explanation?)

Does your family know how you spend your time away from them? Yes, you should give this shill business up. Your efforts have been determined, but the lie is too obvious. Go explain to your kid now why you have been defending mass murderers and a lie that is destroying his future.
mztza

Mesa, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3876
Apr 5, 2013
 
it's rather interesting
how many people who have so much suspicions of everything
can any imagine, how this person is so convinced of any kind of conspiracies of 911
i wonder, when how far will this paranoia take them
by creating chaos, doubt,
by doing this what is the answer
instead of creating this doubt
are you trying, to take the focus off the terrorists and just blame our government
who do you really sympathise with, THE TERRORISTS
any who are sympathetic to the terrorists are TRAITORS or TERRORISTS

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3877
Apr 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>Steel plating?
You are just a propaganda/slander response program set on a timer.

Insults Are Easier

“WELL PAID GOVIE SHILL ”

Since: Jun 07

Cold Spring Harbor, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3878
Apr 5, 2013
 
Oh the IRONY Sock Puppet ..... I think I'm Captain John O Dung too or maybe Say the Truth !?!?!?!?!?
John wrote:
<quoted text>
The thing is, Mr. Radekt (or is it "YellowPissRealit y" or "Timeten"?), if YOU bothered to read the NIST report, you could quote me that "clear explanation" that accounts for the 100+ feet of free fall for the entire visible perimeter... if in fact there is a "clear explanation" for this in the NIST report.
Of course, there isn't, is there?
Controlled demolitions don't need to drop at free fall. Why would a demolition company invest in the additional explosives and additional set-up time necessary to take out ALL supports when they can achieve their objectives with less destruction?
The demolition of WTC-7 indicates planning and preparation to destroy this building as quickly as possible. Free-fall indicates the maximum downward acceleration and the minimum collapse time --(barring the propulsion of the structure downward by rockets!)

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3879
Apr 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a witness to and casualty of the first blast in the lobby ("before the plane hit")
www.youtube.com/watch... ;
There is no evidence of a blast prior to the plane hitting the building. The guy was shaken and said, "I think....."

He is a most unconvincing witness.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3880
Apr 5, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Pablito wrote:
<quoted text>
"Could be"? Do I detect uninformed speculation (or desperate floundering)?
The windows of the Tower lobbies were blown out before firefighters arrived. How could "gas build up" in the fully ventilated lobby? What "gas" are you speculating about? Does this gas have an odor, and do you suppose that firefighters would set up a staging area at a location where such an odor is strong?
When a firefighter says,"people don't understand! There may be more! Any one of these fkn buildings can blow up! This ain't done yet!", does it sound like he's limiting the danger to just the damaged Towers? Remember, this video was shot prior to the collapse of the Towers and WTC7.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Why was all the glass inside the lobby rather than outside. Your explanation defies the law of physics.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Three Hills, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3882
Apr 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Rupert wrote:
<quoted text>
HA! A man who has posted 26,708 times (and counting) is suddenly concerned with "sacrificing time with my family"?? You are too funny!! It wouldn't take much time, by the way. You could do a word/phrase search. Try "free fall" or "free" or "acceleration" or "gravit"...
Does "word salad" signify a lack of comprehension on your part?
And therein lies the massive ignorance of twoof and justification for calling them crayon eating window lickers!
You've just totally validated my point that unless a explicit statement is made, you won't understand it. Here's the skinny proxy sock, the paper is written for engineers and not for imbecilic little weenies who can't recognise conditions such as free fall within the tables and terminology of the paper.
And given that you've probably made double or triple the number of posts as myself but you hide that reality behind a proxy is laughable. My family does come first, particularly when I'm working up to 15 hours a day (as I have been for the last couple weeks).
Rupert wrote:
<quoted text>
"Free fall" is not an inherent characteristic of demolition... But demolition is an absolute necessity for free-fall when the object in free fall is a structurally redundant 47-story steel-frame building with the foot print roughly the size of a foot ball field!
(Was that a "word salad"? Maybe if I rewrite it in crayon you will gain a better appreciation for my explanation?)
Yes, just another unsupported word salad of stupid. See proxy sock, in order to make statements like, " But demolition is an absolute necessity", you have to be able to qualify them first...you obviously can't because every time I've asked any twoofer here (most being you by proxy) to do so, they've declined to present supporting data.
Rupert wrote:
<quoted text>
Does your family know how you spend your time away from them? Yes, you should give this shill business up. Your efforts have been determined, but the lie is too obvious. Go explain to your kid now why you have been defending mass murderers and a lie that is destroying his future.
*yawn*

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Three Hills, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3883
Apr 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
You are just a propaganda/slander response program set on a timer.
Insults Are Easier
Says the idiot with a dozen or so unsupported claims...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 3,641 - 3,660 of4,996
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

438 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 6 min dirty white boy- 719,760
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 7 min Chess Jurist 532,204
Is homosexuality an ABOMINATION?? 9 min Doctor REALITY 4
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 10 min Aura Mytha 223,973
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 18 min lisw 172,171
Placing children in homosexual homes is MORALLY... 19 min Doctor REALITY 13
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 19 min Take Your Country Back 114,924
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 59 min Porkpie Hat 256,334
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••