9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-04-2016, 10:15 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(02-04-2016 09:10 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(02-04-2016 06:03 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Or the one who didn't click up the threads about why his precious view counts weren't shifting and how that must be not coincidental as he mentioned it, despite links given showcasing the forum having crashed and been messed up universally.

You mean you have an explanation for that? I was not just watching the view counts on that one thread. I was watching them on multiple threads on the forum for about a week before I even commented on them not changing. I have never seen that happen on any web forum before or since. It must have been just coincidence that it happened right after I said I was recording them.

psik

Who would of thought you having been given multiple posts explaining it and leading you with links to the evidence of it's cause still wouldn't think beyond what your internal conclusion of seeming coincidental influence would think it is... can't say that is surprising As that info is still sitting there with multiple threads on the forum issues threads having talked about the error.

I don't know what it is that leads you to your personal conclusions that you have, but they are consistently showing weird ticks and based on unsound thoughts.

"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
06-04-2016, 10:16 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(06-04-2016 09:56 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(03-04-2016 12:07 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Drinking Beverage

Still waiting for some kind of point, Psikeyhackr.............

You can keep waiting for what YOU call a point. I don't give a damn.

The Conservation of Momentum is incapable of giving a damn.

psik

So.. if you're just here to spam the forums with vacuous postings.

Why should people care about anything you might have to say.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2016, 01:24 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(06-04-2016 10:16 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(06-04-2016 09:56 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  You can keep waiting for what YOU call a point. I don't give a damn.

The Conservation of Momentum is incapable of giving a damn.

psik

So.. if you're just here to spam the forums with vacuous postings.

Why should people care about anything you might have to say.

I'm moderately fascinated by him. If he was a troll surely he'd be bored by now. The only thing that keeps him going must be his colossal and misplaced faith in his intellect.

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
07-04-2016, 09:32 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(03-04-2016 11:56 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  You are saying that it was OK for a government bureau responsible for technology to spend 5 years and $20,000,000 to produce a 10,000 page report on the collapses of two nearly identical skyscrapers and not specify how much concrete was in them?

But then say that collapses were inevitable?

Gregory Urich has different numbers but I don't have any reason to think they are any better or any worse. Lots of websites have your number. Do you know where they got it?

Any competent structural engineer will be able to calculate the amount and/or mass of the concrete in any multi-story structure, knowing its compressive strength, and working from the design drawings. Even the batching plants will hold accurate records. For some bizarre reason you seem to be putting far too much stead on this issue, for no real purpose.

So... what sort of (allegedly more accurate) figures do you assert as actual for the amount of concrete used? And where did you get this figure, or how exactly did you calculate it yourself? You must have some alternative figures to cite, as you've repeatedly discounted the multiple reports that state 425,000 cubic yards of concrete were used.

And from the thrust of your comments, I'm getting the distinct impression you have very little personal knowledge of structural engineering principles and practices.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SYZ's post
07-04-2016, 09:50 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
It's 000 in Australia.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
08-04-2016, 04:23 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
No point in typing it again:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy...1065750122

[58,620]
psik

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Fiziks has been History
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2016, 04:45 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(08-04-2016 04:23 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  No point in typing it again:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy...1065750122

[58,620]
psik

There was no point in typing it once.

(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
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
08-04-2016, 07:22 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
So.... Psikeyhackr links to another forum where his posts contain as much substance, or lack there of, as here?

Unless there's some amazing post within 42 Pages/400 odd posts that we're meant to read through to find?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
08-04-2016, 11:41 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
So now psikey's too lazy to even copy-paste. Rolleyes

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
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
09-04-2016, 01:24 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(08-04-2016 04:23 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  No point in typing it again:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy...1065750122

You say that: It seems to be that if you believe the airliner/Arab Conspiracy story then you do not have to prove the physics. But if you doubt the airliner destruction physics then you must prove an alternate conspiracy. Conspiracy is more important than physics.

Two mistakes you make with this... You have no empirical evidence of any conspiracy, despite the fact that you and your delusional peers have been striving for 15 years to prove one. And the physical sciences outweigh the unfounded, nonsensical notion of a "conspiracy" any day. Science will always triumph over fantasy.

And one major engineering fact that you and the "truthers" can't refute is that steel loses 50% of its strength at 1,200ºF (650ºC). —The Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society, M.I.T. engineering professor Thomas W. Eagar Sc.D, P.E.
What this means is that steel members do not have to melt in order to lose their structural sufficiency.

I also quote professor Michael Shermer M.A, Ph.D, in the June 2005 issue of Scientific American:

The belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking... and is easily refuted by noting that beliefs and theories are not built on single facts alone, but on a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry. All of the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like SYZ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: