• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christophera said:
We have 2 roles dominating this thread in the denial crew, we have the garbage men, and the deniers. When the deniers fail to support their denial with reason, they count on the garbage men to bury the reasonable explanations of the issue with loads of crap.

Then later they all complain about how much crap there is and want the promoter of truth to dig trough all the crap to find the reasonable explanation that was certainly read by everyone of the crew but since they have no use for the truth they are unreasonably selective with evidence to enable denial and don't care about the explanation anyway so don't bother explaining anything at all.




Click to expand...

And so we have Chris's emotional collapse...er demolition. A fitting capstone to this thread.
 
Originally Posted by Christophera;
Uh, ................ I ask for accountability and I get the above. Reason not available, hmm, ........... must be OUT TO LUNCH! The laws of conservation of energy deny you are reasonable.


Try some emotional reasoning.


Your children will suffer because you cannot use truth to aid in the protection of their lives, their futures. A chance of harmony and sustainability. peace


Patricio Elicer said:
[modp]Christophera, you are continuously derailing the thread with unrelated matters. Please stay focused on the subject of discussion.[/modp]
Click to expand...

I'm questioning your reasons for discussing unreasonably dummie. Without evidence dummie. Ilogocally dummie. Get the point dummie? Your whole reason for posting is f*cked up. The denial crew has a mental, emotional, spiritual problem contrary to higher human instinct. Reptilian behavior.

Darkness = unknowingness​
 
Last edited:
Patricio Elicer said:
[modp]Christophera, you are continuously derailing the thread with unrelated matters. Please stay focused on the subject of discussion.[/modp]
Click to expand...
Christophera said:
I'm questioning your reasons for discussing unreasonably dummie. Without evidence dummie. Ilogocally dummie. Get the point dummie? Your whole reason for posting is f*cked up. The denial crew has a mental, emotional, spiritual problem contrary to higher human instinct. Reptilian behavior.

Darkness = unknowingness​
Click to expand...
Our friend seems to be angling for a banning. What a surprise!
 
Don't ban him...he is just looking for it so he can go tell his fellow whiners that the big bad JREF wolves Huffed and Puffed and blew his house down...

I'd say just lock the thread, and let him post as he likes...doesn't seem to be doing much harm...more like a mosquito than anything else.

TAM
 
Yeah, I'd actually like to split the einsteen discussion into a seperate thread. christophera is starting to remind me of one of those little kids that screams while mommy is on the phone.
 
KingMerv00 said:
What a horrible thing to say. Chris and Killtown combined on their worst days are NOTHING compared to David Icke.

Something to shoot for though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're probably right, Christophera doesn't even have a brittish accent anyways... :D
 
Christophera said:
You won't argue that light is knowing?

Reasoning as to accounting for your intentions, how they relate to your instinctual understanding of the purpose of truth.
Click to expand...


I might be way out of line here, but why do you think that truth has a purpose?
In my language truth isn't directed anywhere. It has no purpose beyond its own existence.
A thing is either true or not true.

I can't say that a truth has a purpose.
In the context of this thread you are denying the truth and stating some strange lie over and over again.
Are you saying that restating a lie often enough can turn it into a "truth" which serves your purpose?
 
Einsteen, can I suggest you start a new thread to discuss something of interest? I was impressed by the way you owned up to your mistake earlier and would like to follow more of your discussions but this thread is far too noisy.
 
Last edited:
Shrinker said:
Einsteen, can I suggest you start a new thread to discuss something of interest? I was impressed by the way you owned up to your mistake earlier and would like to follow more of your discussions but this thread is far too noisy.
Click to expand...

For not being a native English speaker, einsteen has done a remarkable job of communicating better than many that have come here from LCF.
 
Christophera said:
The laws of conservation of energy deny you are reasonable.
Click to expand...

They do no such thing.

Try some emotional reasoning.
Click to expand...

Have you stooped that low, now ?

Your children will suffer because you cannot use truth to aid in the protection of their lives, their futures.
Click to expand...

Pardalis is Canadian. Don't you know anything ?

A chance of harmony and sustainability. peace and strenght based in knowledge. Your race will suffer becaue your vision does not include a sense of justice, fairness and understanding of our natures.
Click to expand...

Sounds like idealistic crap to me.

Your lack of acceptance will cause your mis decision and demise for those you love in all ways in your failure to use truth.
Click to expand...

Are you out of arguments, now ?

Knowledge and power serve love, because love protects life.
Click to expand...

Okay now we're completely down woo lane.
 
einsteen said:
@Belz,

Did you read all papers from A-Z ?

So, in your opinion, these are simple calculations and couch potatoes on the internet are better qualified than experts to analyse the situation

Answer: No, but let me explain what I mean

If you have a point mass for example and it follows a track to the ground, you can use a complex way of calculating the velocity as a function of time v(t) or distance, x(t), finally when it hits the ground or is at height x1 at time t1, then you have a speed of v(t1), alternatively you can use the kinetic energy formula to find the speed at height x1. They should be the same.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure. uh-huh. What's your point ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom