9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-11-2015, 08:24 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(02-11-2015 06:16 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  What did I ever say about any conspiracy?

It is not my fault if you think conspiracies are more important than physics.

Talking about mass, gravity and the conservation of momentum is a word game?

Only because you do not understand them I presume.

psik

(02-11-2015 01:16 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Please, share your thoughts on what you think happened on that day.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
02-11-2015, 09:16 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(02-11-2015 06:16 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(01-11-2015 11:51 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Bullshit psik you're a conspiracy theorist playing word games, data not required you were owned ages ago there is no conspiracy
I presume.

psik

That's your problem. If you stopped being blatantly presumptions and made arguments based on logical flaws, you would come off better. (such as your positive claim nobody has made a model in 14 years that MULTIPLE people over several posts have tried to point out is a flawed bit of logic by you. You don't know it hasn't been done, because it's not visible or discoverable to you isn't direct prove it hasn't been done)

If you are honest, not deranged or a troll. You really need to learn up on how to judge arguments logically not by your "presumed" conclusions. Stick to direct question answering and direct provable pathways in reasoning.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2015, 05:00 AM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2015 09:26 AM by adey67.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(02-11-2015 06:16 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(01-11-2015 11:51 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Bullshit psik you're a conspiracy theorist playing word games, data not required you were owned ages ago there is no conspiracy

What did I ever say about any conspiracy?

It is not my fault if you think conspiracies are more important than physics.

Talking about mass, graviry and the conservation of momentum is a word game?

Only because you do not understand them I presume.

psik

If you don't accept the official cause of the collapse then there must be another reason yet you refuse to postulate on this and yes it does matter because if you are correct it leads on to questions of unknown cause or demolition theory the latter is a conspiracy theory the former leaves the field wide open to yup, conjecture of more conspiracy theories among other things. Taking a single issue approach is like saying " I have put the wings on this aircraft so the tail doesn't matter" like people say its how you come off that is so infuriating if you were not such a pompous bombast and actually listened to people, didn't selectively quote them to suit your own agenda you would have a much more meaningful dialogue.
You are correct that I'm no physics grad but I don't need it common sense is enough and others are making more sense than you I'm afraid, plus I have the ability to get along with people understand different perspectives and will admit when I'm wrong and apologize,you may consider those weaknesses I consider them strengths. Oh I almost forgot...... you're owned, get used to it ! Laugh out load Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2015, 05:12 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(02-11-2015 06:16 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(01-11-2015 11:51 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Bullshit psik you're a conspiracy theorist playing word games, data not required you were owned ages ago there is no conspiracy

What did I ever say about any conspiracy?

It is not my fault if you think conspiracies are more important than physics.

Talking about mass, graviry and the conservation of momentum is a word game?

Only because you do not understand them I presume.

psik

You stupid fuck.

We saw airplanes crash into both buildings. The evidence, and theoretical models, concur with what we saw; two airplanes crashing into the World Trade Centers, piloted by religious zealots who high-jacked them.

If you continue to reject the official, and not at all controversial, reconstruction of events as agreed upon by the vast majority of experts consulted on the matter; what alternate explanation do you have that better explains the available evidence?

Stop with this "just asking questions" bullshit. People who do this with evolution always ending up being creationist shills, and you are acting just like every other conspiracy theorists fuktard we've seen come and go before you.

Quit dancing around the question you petulant ignorant little shit. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
03-11-2015, 09:48 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(03-11-2015 05:12 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You stupid fuck.

We saw airplanes crash into both buildings. The evidence, and theoretical models, concur with what we saw; two airplanes crashing into the World Trade Centers, piloted by religious zealots who high-jacked them.

If you continue to reject the official, and not at all controversial, reconstruction of events as agreed upon by the vast majority of experts consulted on the matter; what alternate explanation do you have that better explains the available evidence?

Stop with this "just asking questions" bullshit. People who do this with evolution always ending up being creationist shills, and you are acting just like every other conspiracy theorists fuktard we've seen come and go before you.

Quit dancing around the question you petulant ignorant little shit. Drinking Beverage

All I saw was electronic images. I wasn't there. I don't know what you saw.

I watched the Sears Tower being constructed with my own eyes. We could see it from campus and my pledge father was an architect.

Seeing a building from the outside does not tell you the distribution of mass. But every supposed study claiming the top of the north tower could fall straight down and destroy everything below should provide mass distribution data on the steel and concrete. It should be obvious to a 7th grade school kid that the lower portion of any skyscraper should be stronger than the upper portion to support the weight above and withstand the torque created by the wind.

What study do you claim did this? I built a self supporting model and demonstrated the collapse effects. That is not, Just asking questions."

It is not my fault that you cannot figure out the obvious or handle the obvious conclusions. Is someone forcing you to read this thread? If I am so stupid then why do you bother reading my posts and responding? I don't read most of the posts you people make. I just read the last three and respond to the most idiotic. Laugh out load

How can you know what, "We all saw"? If I had been in New York on that day how would you know?

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2015, 09:52 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(03-11-2015 09:48 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 05:12 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You stupid fuck.

We saw airplanes crash into both buildings. The evidence, and theoretical models, concur with what we saw; two airplanes crashing into the World Trade Centers, piloted by religious zealots who high-jacked them.

If you continue to reject the official, and not at all controversial, reconstruction of events as agreed upon by the vast majority of experts consulted on the matter; what alternate explanation do you have that better explains the available evidence?

Stop with this "just asking questions" bullshit. People who do this with evolution always ending up being creationist shills, and you are acting just like every other conspiracy theorists fuktard we've seen come and go before you.

Quit dancing around the question you petulant ignorant little shit. Drinking Beverage

All I saw was electronic images. I wasn't there. I don't know what you saw.

I watched the Sears Tower being constructed with my own eyes. We could see it from campus and my pledge father was an architect.

Seeing a building from the outside does not tell you the distribution of mass. But every supposed study claiming the top of the north tower could fall straight down and destroy everything below should provide mass distribution data on the steel and concrete. It should be obvious to a 7th grade school kid that the lower portion of any skyscraper should be stronger than the upper portion to support the weight above and withstand the torque created by the wind.

What study do you claim did this? I built a self supporting model and demonstrated the collapse effects. That is not, Just asking questions."

It is not my fault that you cannot figure out the obvious or handle the obvious conclusions. Is someone forcing you to read this thread? If I am so stupid then why do you bother reading my posts and responding? I don't read most of the posts you people make. I just read the last three and respond to the most idiotic. Laugh out load

How can you know what, "We all saw"? If I had been in New York on that day how would you know?

psik

Are you so stupid that you can't even understand the question, or are you just doing the troll dance?

What is your hypothesis or theory of what happened to the towers? Put up or shut up. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
03-11-2015, 09:54 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(02-11-2015 09:16 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(02-11-2015 06:16 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  I presume.

psik

That's your problem. If you stopped being blatantly presumptions and made arguments based on logical flaws, you would come off better. (such as your positive claim nobody has made a model in 14 years that MULTIPLE people over several posts have tried to point out is a flawed bit of logic by you. You don't know it hasn't been done, because it's not visible or discoverable to you isn't direct prove it hasn't been done)

If you are honest, not deranged or a troll. You really need to learn up on how to judge arguments logically not by your "presumed" conclusions. Stick to direct question answering and direct provable pathways in reasoning.

So provide a link to this model.

How about the Purdue simulation?

They only did the top 20 stories of the north tower and not the collapse. The most hilarious thing is that their "scientific model" does not move horizontally due to the aircraft impact. But the NIST admits that the south tower moved horizontally 12 inches 11 stories below where the plane impacted. Purdue did not even simulate that far down relative to the impact point.

Very Scientific!!! Laugh out load

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2015, 09:58 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Well done mate your last but one post just confirmed that you are both a troll and a conspiracy theorist, next you'll be telling us the planes were hologramsLaugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
03-11-2015, 10:01 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(03-11-2015 09:48 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  All I saw was electronic images. I wasn't there. I don't know what you saw.

I watched the Sears Tower being constructed with my own eyes. We could see it from campus and my pledge father was an architect.

Seeing a building from the outside does not tell you the distribution of mass. But every supposed study claiming the top of the north tower could fall straight down and destroy everything below should provide mass distribution data on the steel and concrete. It should be obvious to a 7th grade school kid that the lower portion of any skyscraper should be stronger than the upper portion to support the weight above and withstand the torque created by the wind.

What study do you claim did this? I built a self supporting model and demonstrated the collapse effects. That is not, Just asking questions."

It is not my fault that you cannot figure out the obvious or handle the obvious conclusions. Is someone forcing you to read this thread? If I am so stupid then why do you bother reading my posts and responding? I don't read most of the posts you people make. I just read the last three and respond to the most idiotic. Laugh out load

How can you know what, "We all saw"? If I had been in New York on that day how would you know?

psik

First;

(02-11-2015 01:16 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Please, share your thoughts on what you think happened on that day.

Second:

Wait... so if you don't see something with your own eyes and only see something electronically, hence you doubt said medium's veracity....

Do you think the Moon landings were real? Do you think Kennedy was shot? Do you wonder if there's actually people on the other side of your internet connection and not just well developed 'Elisa" programs?

That you still cannot seem to grasp even the basics of how the towers were built. After multiple links, quotes, posts etc. Facepalm

Again the floors did NOTHING to support the weight of the structure. The towers were NOT built like a frikkin' "Layered" wedding cake.

Okay?

Can we at least work over this glaring misconception? Please?

I'm just a simple, blue collar trade's man and I can grasp the basics of how the tower's were built.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2015, 12:18 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(03-11-2015 09:48 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 05:12 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You stupid fuck.

We saw airplanes crash into both buildings. The evidence, and theoretical models, concur with what we saw; two airplanes crashing into the World Trade Centers, piloted by religious zealots who high-jacked them.

If you continue to reject the official, and not at all controversial, reconstruction of events as agreed upon by the vast majority of experts consulted on the matter; what alternate explanation do you have that better explains the available evidence?

Stop with this "just asking questions" bullshit. People who do this with evolution always ending up being creationist shills, and you are acting just like every other conspiracy theorists fuktard we've seen come and go before you.

Quit dancing around the question you petulant ignorant little shit. Drinking Beverage

All I saw was electronic images. I wasn't there. I don't know what you saw.

I watched the Sears Tower being constructed with my own eyes. We could see it from campus and my pledge father was an architect.

Seeing a building from the outside does not tell you the distribution of mass. But every supposed study claiming the top of the north tower could fall straight down and destroy everything below should provide mass distribution data on the steel and concrete. It should be obvious to a 7th grade school kid that the lower portion of any skyscraper should be stronger than the upper portion to support the weight above and withstand the torque created by the wind.

What study do you claim did this? I built a self supporting model and demonstrated the collapse effects. That is not, Just asking questions."

It is not my fault that you cannot figure out the obvious or handle the obvious conclusions. Is someone forcing you to read this thread? If I am so stupid then why do you bother reading my posts and responding? I don't read most of the posts you people make. I just read the last three and respond to the most idiotic. Laugh out load

How can you know what, "We all saw"? If I had been in New York on that day how would you know?

psik

Fuck off troll. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: