9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-02-2016, 08:11 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(22-02-2016 08:09 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(22-02-2016 07:56 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Why is it nobody here JAQing off on the what actually happened doesn't have the balls to bite the bullet and put forth their own explanation?

Oh, WOPR does. Assuming for the moment that he is actually "IsaacNewton", he claims that the only valid explanation for the collapse of the towers is that they were taken down by controlled demolition via explosives, and that the only possible culprit was the US government.

Still incredibly stupid, yes, but he does at least have a theory.

That doesn't sound like a good thing.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 08:39 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(22-02-2016 08:09 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(22-02-2016 07:56 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Why is it nobody here JAQing off on the what actually happened doesn't have the balls to bite the bullet and put forth their own explanation?

Oh, WOPR does. Assuming for the moment that he is actually "IsaacNewton", he claims that the only valid explanation for the collapse of the towers is that they were taken down by controlled demolition via explosives, and that the only possible culprit was the US government.

Still incredibly stupid, yes, but he does at least have a theory.

But he's still in Creationist territory. If that's his proposal, then he needs t explain all of that too. Who was responsible, what was their motivation, how did they accomplish it; and how is all of that a more plausible explanation than the one he's slagging off.

No credit for partial work. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 11:25 PM (This post was last modified: 23-02-2016 12:16 AM by WOPR.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(22-02-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(22-02-2016 05:47 PM)WOPR Wrote:  Gifsets? Well, you can call them what you like but it won't change the fact that they're scale animated scientific visualizations formatted by a Cambridge University educated forty-five year veteran PhD reasearch physicist.

Are they, now? Because what they appear to be is a series of nonsense animations....

Right.... like I said, they were formatted by an experienced physicist who understands them, I understand them, others understand them, but you don't, so naturally they appear to you as a series of nonsense animations, kind of like a rat trying to figure out how a screwdriver works.... no problem.

(22-02-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  ....shotgunned all over the internet by someone calling themselves, alternately, "Aemilius" and "IsaacNewton".

This anonymous poster doesn't seem to actually understand a damn thing about the topic of building collapse in general, or the collapse of WTC 7 in particular.

Not anonymous, I've mentioned it here and there.... name's Emile Cole from Seattle. Building collapse? Well, the upper part of the building descended as a single unit. Application of the Law of Conservation of Energy to a body descending as a single unit doesn't change whether the body is a simple rock or a complexly constructed eighteen jewel pocketwatch, f=ma works equally well for both.... Shocking isn't it?


(22-02-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  They just post the same copy-pasted idiocy over and over, usually in dead threads or forums which have very little traffic, and expect people to take it at face value.

No.... not copy-pasted. I created all the animations and wrote all the accompanying text. And I'll post it anywhere I want, anytime I like and as often as I wish. You don't even understand little 1+1=2 level analogical models.... What's it to you?

(22-02-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  When the flaws in their "empirically verifiable scientific method driven graphical method target system analysis" (and I say that with the strongest possible air quotes) are pointed out - as Chas and other posters have already done, and which takes about ten seconds' research to do - they simply leave, or babble incoherently for a while and then leave.

No.... Can't you get anything right? The fact is that not one person in any of the many forums I've brought this up in (including this one) anywhere on the internet has ever successfully refuted any aspect of the analysis by simply copying and pasting one of the simple easy to understand animations along with a bit of accompanying descriptive text that says anything like.... "This animation and accompanying descriptive text is incorrect, the scenario would not play out as depicted/described and here's why...." followed by any sort of cogently stated objection or perceived needed correction. Not one.... just lots of misdirection, distraction and unsupported speculation.... like Chas with his miraculous failure mode that somehow magically hollows out the lower part of a building while the upper part of the building just waits around for the right conditions to emerge beneath it before sudden natural progressive structural failure at about three times the speed of sound suddenly causes all the remaining columns to buckle at gravitational acceleration.... Hah! Not the first time I've heard it but it still sounds just as stupid now as it did before.

(22-02-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I don't claim to know whether or not you are the same IsaacNewton that has been roundly thrashed across two dozen different forums (though it seems likely, given your signature)........

Agreed.... in fact you don't claim to know much of anything, and you haven't shown anything like that to be true about any "thrashing" either.... just more distraction, fabrication and misdirection. If I was going to get a thrashing anywhere it should have been at that link in my signature, the Cambridge University sponsored science forum and podcast TheNakedScientists. The analysis was posted there about a year and a half ago with 50,000 views now and there hasn't been even one posted objection to any part of it.

(22-02-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  ....and I certainly don't claim to care.

Exactly.... Why would a rat care about a screwdriver?

(22-02-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  But if you're going to come here and expect to change any minds, you had best bring something better than this drivel.

The only drivel here is the kind of stuff you're writing. You just keep talking and talking without saying anything.... just like everywhere else.

(22-02-2016 06:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Until that time, get this weak-ass shit out of my kitchen.

No.

________________WTC7 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION________________
An Empirically Verifiable Graphical Target System Analysis and Conclusion
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2016, 12:29 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
OP, WOPR, you're the one who made these? If you can do this, why not publish a paper?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2016, 12:34 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(22-02-2016 08:09 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Assuming for the moment that he is actually "IsaacNewton", he claims that the only valid explanation for the collapse of the towers is that they were taken down by controlled demolition via explosives, and that the only possible culprit was the US government.

Still incredibly stupid, yes, but he does at least have a theory.

Actually, what's incredibly stupid here is you going on about what I said about the "towers" when I've never mentioned anything but WTC7. I don't even think you're sure of what the topic is.... Would you like a little piece of cheese?

________________WTC7 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION________________
An Empirically Verifiable Graphical Target System Analysis and Conclusion
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2016, 12:47 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(23-02-2016 12:34 AM)WOPR Wrote:  
(22-02-2016 08:09 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Assuming for the moment that he is actually "IsaacNewton", he claims that the only valid explanation for the collapse of the towers is that they were taken down by controlled demolition via explosives, and that the only possible culprit was the US government.

Still incredibly stupid, yes, but he does at least have a theory.

Actually, what's incredibly stupid here is you going on about what I said about the "towers" when I've never mentioned anything but WTC7. I don't even think you're sure of what the topic is.... Would you like a little piece of cheese?

Rolleyes You're in a thread, in the conspiracy section, about how the towers were brought down. For FUCK's sake man.

Now gimme a link to your peer reviewed article, Mr Phd Particle fucken physicist Dodgy Who's apparently moonlighting as a structural engineer.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2016, 12:48 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(23-02-2016 12:29 AM)morondog Wrote:  OP, WOPR, you're the one who made these? If you can do this, why not publish a paper?

Because that takes real effort and a real education. He'd actually have to go and learn physics and structural engineering, not MSPaint and whining on the internet. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
23-02-2016, 12:53 AM (This post was last modified: 23-02-2016 02:30 AM by WOPR.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(22-02-2016 05:24 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Does WOPR mean you have a big dick, or are you talking about a hamburger?

What.... you never saw the movie WarGames, or do you just spend a lot of time thinking about big dicks and hamburgers?

[Image: oie_animation.gif]

________________WTC7 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION________________
An Empirically Verifiable Graphical Target System Analysis and Conclusion
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2016, 01:38 AM (This post was last modified: 23-02-2016 01:48 AM by WOPR.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(23-02-2016 12:47 AM)morondog Wrote:  You're in a thread, in the conspiracy section, about how the towers were brought down. For FUCK's sake man.

No.... Are you actually trying to be stupid? I just started a thread topic devoted to WTC7 but it was (not unexpectedly) immediately thrown into this mosh pit by some moderator.... Who cares?

(23-02-2016 12:47 AM)morondog Wrote:  Now gimme a link to your peer reviewed article, Mr Phd Particle fucken physicist Dodgy Who's apparently moonlighting as a structural engineer.

So.... you think that the Law of Conservation of Energy as applied to a body falling as a single unit actually requires peer review to be reliable.... Hah! It's a rock dropping! That's just riotously funny man! I haven't laughed that hard in a while (I told my brother and he's still cracking up). So.... you think maybe gravitational acceleration is like string theory or black holes or something? Hah! Maybe we should call in Stephen Hawking!

________________WTC7 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION________________
An Empirically Verifiable Graphical Target System Analysis and Conclusion
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2016, 03:24 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(23-02-2016 01:38 AM)WOPR Wrote:  
(23-02-2016 12:47 AM)morondog Wrote:  Now gimme a link to your peer reviewed article, Mr Phd Particle fucken physicist Dodgy Who's apparently moonlighting as a structural engineer.

So.... you think that the Law of Conservation of Energy as applied to a body falling as a single unit actually requires peer review to be reliable.... Hah! It's a rock dropping! That's just riotously funny man! I haven't laughed that hard in a while (I told my brother and he's still cracking up). So.... you think maybe gravitational acceleration is like string theory or black holes or something? Hah! Maybe we should call in Stephen Hawking!

No, you wanker. I think that anyone can make up shit and post it on the internet. I think that a peer reviewed paper, which if you *are* what you claim, you should know how to write, would be much more convincing than some rambling forum post.

You are not what you claim however, because a real scientist would know this shit. So you're some basement dwelling fuckhead.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: