9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-10-2015, 01:59 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Frusty

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2015, 02:11 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(19-10-2015 01:37 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(19-10-2015 11:05 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  You are an idiot.

So we now have a long history of commercial jets crashing into buildings?

The other building was evacuated early on and allowed to burn while they searched for survivors in the other two.

You keep saying stuff and we keep slamming you down.

A jet crashed into building 7?

Now how many experts have said it was fires that brought down the twin towers and not the aircraft impacts?

But wouldn't the simulation I suggested of removing levels 91 through 95 be more damage than fires and impact could do? Why are SKEPTICS so scared of such a simple simulation? Of course if the simulation failed to collapse then the skeptics would look awfully dumb. The trouble is you just claim to slam stuff down but all it is is talk.

No Experiments!

psik

Read what I wrote again.

Building 7 was allowed to burn unchecked, because it was evacuated completely. The resources were put into the twin towers.

Which absolutely failed because of the jet crashing into them and the multiple fires.

Again, the buildings were filled with office equipment, tons of wood, plastics and not to mention paper.

Plus add to that the airplane itself will burn.

Metal does fail when it's exposed to prolonged fire.

The only person to denies this are whack jobs like yourself.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
19-10-2015, 02:38 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(19-10-2015 01:37 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Now how many experts have said it was fires that brought down the twin towers and not the aircraft impacts?

Pretty much all of them.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
19-10-2015, 02:45 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(19-10-2015 02:38 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(19-10-2015 01:37 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Now how many experts have said it was fires that brought down the twin towers and not the aircraft impacts?

Pretty much all of them.

Well any of them that are not hacks.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
19-10-2015, 03:33 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(19-10-2015 01:37 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  A jet crashed into building 7?

You know that's not true, hence are just fishing for reactions.

(19-10-2015 01:37 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Now how many experts have said it was fires that brought down the twin towers and not the aircraft impacts?

Again, you're misrepresenting the events.

NO one is denying that,

A) Planes hit each of the towers.

B) That fires raged within said buildings

(19-10-2015 01:37 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  But wouldn't the simulation I suggested of removing levels 91 through 95 be more damage than fires and impact could do? Why are SKEPTICS so scared of such a simple simulation? Of course if the simulation failed to collapse then the skeptics would look awfully dumb. The trouble is you just claim to slam stuff down but all it is is talk.

Skeptics aren't scared of simulations. Neither are they 'scared' of the reviews in regards to the events of the day.

Of course, that a plane impacted into each tower.

We don't need a simulation of what was witnessed. Just a simulation to better help understand what transpired on the day.

(19-10-2015 01:37 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  No Experiments!

psik

No experiments that you would seem to accept... or understand.

So, your point being, again (For the umpteeth time) ask for you words on what you believe happened on the day back in September.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2015, 03:41 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(19-10-2015 02:11 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Metal does fail when it's exposed to prolonged fire.
We discussed this in intro physics. We had a local warehouse that collapsed because the heat (it was a tobacco warehouse) made the metal so weak it collapsed. I forget the exact pressure but it was so high there was no chance of saving the structure.

Again, intro physics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2015, 04:42 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(19-10-2015 08:19 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(19-10-2015 07:55 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  The curious thing is people who call themselves skeptics would not want models done of such a famous unusual event. 3 skyscrapers collapse in the same place on the same day but with all other skyscraper fires in history

NO COLLAPSES!!!

Laugh out load Laugh out load Laugh out load

psik

And the only other building to be hit by a plane was the Empire State back in 1950 something. Which shows that now all planes are the same and neither are all buildings.

So, your point being, again (For the umpteeth time) ask for you words on what you believe happened on the day back in September.

1945.

A B-25 medium bomber hit the Empire State Building at the 79th floor.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
19-10-2015, 04:45 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(19-10-2015 03:33 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  No experiments that you would seem to accept... or understand.

So, your point being, again (For the umpteeth time) ask for you words on what you believe happened on the day back in September.

Just more talk with implications of superior intelligence/knowledge.

Specify these experiments. Got a link?

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2015, 04:48 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(19-10-2015 01:37 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(19-10-2015 11:05 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  You are an idiot.

So we now have a long history of commercial jets crashing into buildings?

The other building was evacuated early on and allowed to burn while they searched for survivors in the other two.

You keep saying stuff and we keep slamming you down.

A jet crashed into building 7?

Now how many experts have said it was fires that brought down the twin towers and not the aircraft impacts?

Pretty much all of them. Drinking Beverage

Quote:But wouldn't the simulation I suggested of removing levels 91 through 95 be more damage than fires and impact could do?

So what? That didn't happen and you have not supported why that is even interesting.

Quote:Why are SKEPTICS so scared of such a simple simulation?

We're not. But a scale model is not a simulation.

Quote:Of course if the simulation failed to collapse then the skeptics would look awfully dumb. The trouble is you just claim to slam stuff down but all it is is talk.

No Experiments!

psik

Software simulations have been done. You have no credible argument.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
19-10-2015, 05:15 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(19-10-2015 04:45 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Just more talk with implications of superior intelligence/knowledge.

Specify these experiments. Got a link?

psik

There's nothing to indicate you've look at any of the myriad links previously provided.

When you answer some of the questions put to you, then maybe we'll move forwards.

How goes your answer for what you believe happened on the day, then?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: