9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-07-2015, 11:07 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(10-07-2015 10:57 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(10-07-2015 12:36 PM)WOPR Wrote:  No plane hit the building so your thinking that a plane or planes crashing elsewhere in the vicinity is somehow significant when it comes to explaining the buildings behaviour using aircraft crash dynamics is.... wait for it.... not supportive of your explanation of how or why the building came down.

I was going to reply to your post until I came upon this gem. "No plane hit it, therefore you're wrong" is simply a matter of you assuming your conclusion. Very well. I know better than to waste my time with someone who Knows He's Right.

(10-07-2015 12:36 PM)WOPR Wrote:  So that's it for now.... How about a nice game of solitaire?

Given the quality of your posting, that is clearly your last remaining option.

"Hell I'd piss on a spark plug if I though it'd do any good."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
10-07-2015, 11:41 PM (This post was last modified: 10-07-2015 11:45 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(10-07-2015 09:18 PM)pablo Wrote:  
(10-07-2015 09:14 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  The Illuminati are secretly run by the Jews. The Illuminati just don't know it.

What about the Freemasons?

They're currently under contract to Scientology to provide safe passage for thetans to Venus. ... Fucker's'll probably figure out how to do it too.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
11-07-2015, 11:37 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(10-07-2015 07:51 PM)pablo Wrote:  What conclusion does this lead you to?

That the so called "scientific" simulation done by Purdue is incompetent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

But it does look pretty.

10 million views in 8 years and what engineering school has pointed out the lack of horizontal deflection. Hence my sarcasm about the science.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2015, 11:55 AM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2015 12:00 PM by WOPR.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(10-07-2015 10:57 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  I was going to reply to your post until I came upon this gem. "No plane hit it, therefore you're wrong" is simply a matter of you assuming your conclusion. Very well. I know better than to waste my time with someone who Knows He's Right.

Translation: I have no intention of replying to your post. I can't provide any empirical support for how a well defined period of gravitational acceleration could occur anywhere in my ridiculous "The building got hot and fell down." scenario so I've made up a quote from you saying I'm "wrong" and then accused you of being biased based on your own conclusion (even though I know the only thing you actually said about any conclusion you'd reached was that you didn't want to discuss it yet).... that way I can then pretend to become indignant and simply dismiss the whole thing as being a waste of time ending with a stupid ass quip about you claiming to be "right" about something (even though I know you haven't used the words "right" or "wrong" in any of your posts).

(10-07-2015 10:57 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Given the quality of your posting, that is clearly your last remaining option.

No.... it's my last remaining option because for a third time now you can't simply explain your position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2015, 12:04 PM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2015 12:08 PM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(11-07-2015 11:55 AM)WOPR Wrote:  
(10-07-2015 10:57 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  I was going to reply to your post until I came upon this gem. "No plane hit it, therefore you're wrong" is simply a matter of you assuming your conclusion. Very well. I know better than to waste my time with someone who Knows He's Right.

Translation: I have no intention of replying to your post.

Exactly.


(11-07-2015 11:55 AM)WOPR Wrote:  I can't provide any empirical support for how a well defined period of gravitational acceleration could occur anywhere in my ridiculous "The building got hot and fell down." scenario so I've made up a quote from you saying I'm "wrong" and then accused you of being biased based on your own conclusion (even though I know the only thing you actually said about any conclusion you'd reached was that you didn't want to discuss it yet)....

Never made that argument.

(11-07-2015 11:55 AM)WOPR Wrote:  that way I can then pretend to become indignant and simply dismiss the whole thing as being a waste of time ending with a stupid ass quip about you claiming to be "right" about something (even though I know you haven't used the words "right" or "wrong" in any of your posts).

"Indignant"? M'boy, you flatter yourself. You aren't enough to get worked up over, a garden-variety one-trick pony whose good opinion is not worth my time or effort. Internet run-of-the-mill, a unique grain of sand on an electronic beach. *yawn*

(11-07-2015 11:55 AM)WOPR Wrote:  No, it's my last remaining option because for a third time now you can't simply explain your position.

I can explain why heat causes metal to fail and buildings to collapse, but generally speaking, I live by the maxim, "Never try to teach a pig to speak; it's wastes your time, and annoys the pig."

Given that you've demonstrated an inability to carry on an adult discussion, I'll let you have the last word, because I don't don't regard this conversation as productive, nor do I see any potential in you to change that course.

You have a nice day, now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2015, 03:14 PM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2015 04:00 PM by WOPR.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(11-07-2015 12:04 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(11-07-2015 11:55 AM)WOPR Wrote:  Translation: I can't provide any empirical support for how a well defined period of gravitational acceleration could occur anywhere in my ridiculous "The building got hot and fell down." scenario so I've made up a quote from you saying I'm "wrong" and then accused you of being biased based on your own conclusion (even though I know the only thing you actually said about any conclusion you'd reached was that you didn't want to discuss it yet)....

Never made that argument.

Right.... in fact you haven't really said anything at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2015, 04:01 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(11-07-2015 12:04 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  "Indignant"? M'boy, you flatter yourself. You aren't enough to get worked up over, a garden-variety one-trick pony whose good opinion is not worth my time or effort. Internet run-of-the-mill, a unique grain of sand on an electronic beach. *yawn*

Jibberish.

(11-07-2015 12:04 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(11-07-2015 11:55 AM)WOPR Wrote:  No, it's my last remaining option because for a third time now you can't simply explain your position.

I can explain why heat causes metal to fail and buildings to collapse....

Not at gravitational acceleration you can't, and you haven't.... making your "The building got hot and fell down." assessment nothing more than fantasy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2015, 04:03 PM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2015 05:42 PM by WOPR.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(11-07-2015 12:04 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  ....but generally speaking, I live by the maxim, "Never try to teach a pig to speak; it's wastes your time, and annoys the pig."

More jibberish.

(11-07-2015 12:04 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  ....I don't don't regard this conversation as productive, nor do I see any potential in you to change that course.

I don't regard it as productive either. For there to be an actual conversation there has to be some argument to discuss. Since you're not making any argument or saying anything really in support of your stated conclusion that fire brought down the building (in spite of the clear impossibility of any period of gravitational acceleration occurring during the course of any heat induced natural progressive gravity driven structural failure of a steel frame building), and I'm not interested in discussing my conclusion yet.... there can be no conversation and so no course to change.

So to sum up.... Your conclusion (as an alleged former Air Force firefighter) is that a welded and bolted together steel frame building (WTC7) was brought down by fire at gravitational acceleration due to heating but you either can't or won't provide any empirical support (defined as empirically verifiable research carried out by you or someone else) for your conclusion or even touch on the subject of gravitational acceleration, and I've said I'm not going discuss my conclusion yet.

We can have a coversation if or when one of those two things changes.... when either you decide to provide some kind of empirical support for your LooneyTunes conclusion that the building was brought down by fire at gravitational acceleration, or when I decide to discuss my conclusion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2015, 04:05 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
[Image: someone_kill_me_now_by_duncan_townie-d42f9rj.png]

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
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
11-07-2015, 05:28 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
[Image: tarnation.jpg]

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: