9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-09-2015, 12:04 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(03-09-2015 11:05 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(03-09-2015 09:39 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  You are also not really answering questions... Undecided

Yes. This is a common tactic among conspiracy theorists, particularly those of the 9/11 crowd. It is referred to as "JAQing off" in reference to the common conspiracy mantra, "we're just asking questions!"

Not answering questions about conspiracies when I never said anything about conspiracies. You can get as upset about that as you want.

Asking how the steel had to be distributed in the WTC that supposedly collapsed straight down when the steel is what had to hold the building up IS JUST ASKING QUESTIONS?

Some people are just too stupid to figure out the really obvious questions.

When have any of you built a physical model that can completely collapse but damages its own components in the process of collapse. All you people can do is talk and ask STUPID questions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

And try to come up with excuses regarding a model when you haven't built any.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2015, 12:05 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Work that shaft Psikey. You'll come soon. I mean it's been fucking months. Surely after all that you deserve release.

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
03-09-2015, 12:13 PM (This post was last modified: 04-09-2015 04:02 AM by adey67.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
I'm sorry pisskey but you fuck me off if you manage to climb out of you own anal orifice that's great but even as a non physicist I can see you are deluded . This guy is not serious he is a wind up merchant and piss key you might not give a shit about the victims and their families but I do and so do others on here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2015, 12:15 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(01-09-2015 07:30 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(01-09-2015 08:43 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Now I know you are a dishonest person unwilling to engage in any meaningful dialogue you take one small quote and that's all. You cannot answer my questions can you ? Ever heard of 7/7 ? Look it up there is a place called the UK in North West Europe and stop being so colloquial there are other countries apart from the USA you know.

I don't give a sh!t about 7/7. I don't care how many people died on 9/11.

Terrorists cannot change the Laws of Physics. Can airliners weighing less than 200 tons totally destroy skyscrapers weighing more than 400,000 tons in less than two hours and make them collapse straight down?

Fire, you fucking idiot.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
03-09-2015, 12:41 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(03-09-2015 09:19 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(02-09-2015 11:58 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Should? Who and according to what are these standards that people should of done these experiments and done them by X time? Where do these perceptions come from?

How often have skyscrapers collapsed around the world?

How often have the top portions of any skyscrapers tilted by more than 10 degrees?

In 1940 it only took 4 months to build a 1/200th scale model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and that had to be built in a wind tunnel. The model was 50 ft long and they did not have electronic computers.

So why should this event be such a problem?

psik

You don't seem to care or grasp what making assertions or presumptuous statements do to your argument. Maybe this can be made clearer.

You are saying and applying these "shoulds" to these cases. You are the one who would answer why should this event be a problem or why this should be built. You stand as the person who is these things ought to be the case. So it's your question to answer, not someone who doesn't think it ought to exist. They have no reason to think like you think. You probably would benefit to communicate in a strictly rational argumentative manner in discussion to make that case to someone.

"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
03-09-2015, 01:42 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(03-09-2015 12:04 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Not answering questions about conspiracies when I never said anything about conspiracies.

(03-09-2015 11:05 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It's essentially a variant of the Gish gallop technique of drowning the opposition in so much idiocy that they can't possibly answer it all at once, but with a twist put on it so that the conspiracy theorist never actually has to assume the burden of proof; after all, they haven't actually asserted anything. They're just asking questions! It is the responsibility of the rest of the world to answer those questions, and if they can't be answered, well...

...nothing, really.

(03-09-2015 12:04 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Asking how the steel had to be distributed in the WTC that supposedly collapsed straight down when the steel is what had to hold the building up IS JUST ASKING QUESTIONS?

Yes.

(03-09-2015 12:04 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Some people are just too stupid to figure out the really obvious questions.

They certainly are.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
03-09-2015, 03:30 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(03-09-2015 12:41 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You don't seem to care or grasp what making assertions or presumptuous statements do to your argument. Maybe this can be made clearer.

You are saying and applying these "shoulds" to these cases. You are the one who would answer why should this event be a problem or why this should be built. You stand as the person who is these things ought to be the case. So it's your question to answer, not someone who doesn't think it ought to exist. They have no reason to think like you think. You probably would benefit to communicate in a strictly rational argumentative manner in discussion to make that case to someone.

Someone can't grasp alright.





200 tons versus 400,000 tons or 550,000 tons depending on where you check.

All you are saying is that as long as you do not doubt then nothing has to be proven.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2015, 03:37 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(03-09-2015 03:30 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(03-09-2015 12:41 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You don't seem to care or grasp what making assertions or presumptuous statements do to your argument. Maybe this can be made clearer.

You are saying and applying these "shoulds" to these cases. You are the one who would answer why should this event be a problem or why this should be built. You stand as the person who is these things ought to be the case. So it's your question to answer, not someone who doesn't think it ought to exist. They have no reason to think like you think. You probably would benefit to communicate in a strictly rational argumentative manner in discussion to make that case to someone.

Someone can't grasp alright.





200 tons versus 400,000 tons or 550,000 tons depending on where you check.

All you are saying is that as long as you do not doubt then nothing has to be proven.

psik

[Image: tumblr_lysrbvwSrJ1qmzxy4o1_400.gif]

Fuck, just finish already... Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
04-09-2015, 04:04 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(03-09-2015 03:30 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(03-09-2015 12:41 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You don't seem to care or grasp what making assertions or presumptuous statements do to your argument. Maybe this can be made clearer.

You are saying and applying these "shoulds" to these cases. You are the one who would answer why should this event be a problem or why this should be built. You stand as the person who is these things ought to be the case. So it's your question to answer, not someone who doesn't think it ought to exist. They have no reason to think like you think. You probably would benefit to communicate in a strictly rational argumentative manner in discussion to make that case to someone.

Someone can't grasp alright.





200 tons versus 400,000 tons or 550,000 tons depending on where you check.

All you are saying is that as long as you do not doubt then nothing has to be proven.

psik

All that video is a guy saying, It's prosperous because it seems so based on the perspective, while I happen to completely disregard concepts like momentum while at it. There was literally nothing but a personal incredulity case.

All I'm saying is you don't seem to care about logical sound cases. It's because people aren't motivated to prove something to people who make arguments like that. When you doubt, do it based on rational means and don't propose assertions.

I've kept asking you because you input all this they "should" talk, to answer why is this the case? Repeating your case for why the story doesn't add up doesn't answer Why engineering schools should care or make models. Do you not grasp the logical leaps you are making to get to that point? They need a reason to do it, do you not get it? Because it's impossible or unconfirmed to you or other video makers isn't a strong motivator to get someone with no connection to the event to do something. So again, why do you think these people "should" make said models, tests, etc?

"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
04-09-2015, 03:44 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(04-09-2015 04:04 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  All that video is a guy saying, It's prosperous because it seems so based on the perspective, while I happen to completely disregard concepts like momentum while at it. There was literally nothing but a personal incredulity case.

Is that supposed to be "preposterous"?

Scale is not perspective.

Quote:I happen to completely disregard concepts like momentum

Are you actually saying that? It is just insanely stupid. Momentum cannot be disregarded. The Laws of Physics do not give a damn what people think.

A single concrete floor slab was 600 tons. Three times the weight of the plane. The south tower only deflected 15 inches due to the impact of the plane hitting at 500 mph.

It is the credulity of the people who can't comprehend the obvious that is the problem. They do not understand what they see much less figure out what they do not see. But if what they believe is true then why do they have a problem with accurate data and experimentation. Every level of the building had to be strong enough to support all of the weight above. That meant more steel meaning more mass meaning the upper portion had to overcome the inertia of the lower portion. There is no escaping MOMENTUM.

Saying that is an admission of idiocy. That is why after 14 years the 9/11 Affair is historically hilarious.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: