9/11 EXPOSED

[adey67]

(09-02-2016 01:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  

(09-02-2016 01:20 PM)adey67 Wrote:  At least he finally laid his cards on the line and admitted he doesn't believe that the aircraft bought down the towers that's all I asked him to do and I have to give him acknowledgment for that .

I still say it doesn't count until he plainly states what he thinks did bring them down.

You and I both know he is never gonna do that, not if he wants to maintain a shred of credibility but the admission he has made is 1) a step forward 2) obvious to all capable of reading between the lines, its the best we are going to get short of torturing him and although he doesn't care about the victims at least we can lay to rest a bunch of bollocks

[psikeyhackr]

(09-02-2016 01:37 PM)adey67 Wrote:  You and I both know he is never gonna do that, not if he wants to maintain a shred of credibility but the admission he has made is 1) a step forward 2) obvious to all capable of reading between the lines, its the best we are going to get short of torturing him and although he doesn't care about the victims at least we can lay to rest a bunch of bollocks

Victims? Every two month more Americans are killed in automobile accidents. The number of people who died due to the unusual events of 9/11 is unimportant compared to what happened to the Twin Towers.

I recently saw a program about the Shanghai Tower.

TWO THOUSAND FEET! The most interesting thing is the aerodynamic design. Rounded corners with a 120 degree twist to the building.

But we can't analyse the physics of a simple collapse.

[46,173]
psik

[morondog]

(09-02-2016 01:56 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  But we can't analyse the physics of a simple collapse.

You can't, certainly, and you only reject other analyses 'cos they don't fit your preconceived conclusions that you reached via magical thinking. Twit.

[adey67]

Ooh that sucks you cannot compare accidental automobile accidents to 9/11 what the fuck man!!!

[ClydeLee]

(09-02-2016 11:30 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  

(09-02-2016 11:14 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Why don't you actually tell us what you think, for once?

Isn't it obvious.

I think collapse could be PROVEN, or not, strictly on the basis of the physics. But that requires accurate data on the buildings. Physicists and engineers should have been demanding that in 2002.

Personally I doubt that airliners and fires could destroy the towers.

I DON'T CARE WHO DID IT!!!

But the problem should be unequivocally solved.

psik

Again and again you jump to these positions on your presumptions?

You never still seem capable of an answer to what you constantly claim that these things SHOULD of happened or that engineers and college students SHOULD of done X exact model type or X way to model it.

All you've responded about it is because you are curious and doubtful based on your examination of evidence... so what? Because you think x doesn't give anyone else reason to think x unless you're just that self-contained in your view of the outside world.

[psikeyhackr]

(09-02-2016 02:02 PM)adey67 Wrote:  Ooh that sucks you cannot compare accidental automobile accidents to 9/11 what the fuck man!!!

Since apparently you can't notice I was comparing number of deaths. I have known for many years that amounted to 30 to 40 THOUSAND per year so I did the math for you.

533,000 for the US since 2001 but not including 2015 which would probably be another 30,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mo...S._by_year

So 9/11 is trivial on the basis of the number of deaths. How many of those are the result of drunken drivers so are the really "accidental"?

The issue is what could destroy 1300 foot skyscrapers and make them come down in less than 30 seconds. That does not happen so often but people have built more 1000+ foot buildings since 9/11. The Shanghai Tower is double that height.

[46,416]
psik

[Chas]

(11-02-2016 09:14 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  The issue is what could destroy 1300 foot skyscrapers and make them come down in less than 30 seconds.
psik

Asked and answered.

[adey67]

(11-02-2016 09:14 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  

(09-02-2016 02:02 PM)adey67 Wrote:  Ooh that sucks you cannot compare accidental automobile accidents to 9/11 what the fuck man!!!

Since apparently you can't notice I was comparing number of deaths. I have known for many years that amounted to 30 to 40 THOUSAND per year so I did the math for you.

533,000 for the US since 2001 but not including 2015 which would probably be another 30,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mo...S._by_year

So 9/11 is trivial on the basis of the number of deaths. How many of those are the result of drunken drivers so are the really "accidental"?

The issue is what could destroy 1300 foot skyscrapers and make them come down in less than 30 seconds. That does not happen so often but people have built more 1000+ foot buildings since 9/11. The Shanghai Tower is double that height.

[46,416]
psik

Ok, point taken. However most drunk drivers diddnt go out expressly to kill people they just wanted to get home without being caught and things didn't work out that's no excuse but one needs to take into consideration intent and that's what makes 9/11 different from accidental road deaths. So I cannot help but think your arguments are straw man and false cause but I do consider you made some relevant points and that the situation is not as clear as it would outwardly appear.

[cjlr]

(11-02-2016 09:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 09:14 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  The issue is what could destroy 1300 foot skyscrapers and make them come down in less than 30 seconds.
psik

Asked and answered.

That's the wonderful thing about idiots. They ask misunderstanding-laden questions and then refuse to listen to the answers. Then they shit on the chessboard and declare victory. Adorable!

If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS!!!

[psikeyhackr]

(11-02-2016 11:16 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That's the wonderful thing about idiots.

Yeah, they claim to answer things that can't be answered because nobody has the data.

The NIST admitted they needed the distribution of weight to analyze the impacts but then they don't specify the amount of concrete.

psik