• 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.

Moderated Continuation - Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Justin39640 said:
bill you know the plane wasnt just made up of its skin
it had a frame too
you can launch a 1 gram piece of aluminum at your face at 500 mph and see what happens
id say it would blow the brains out of the back of your head but that would imply you had a brain

i didnt see it but i know about 100 people who did
i explained the concept of a "no-planer" to my close friend who witnessed it from lincoln center's observation deck
he said god help them if he ever runs into one and they try to tell him that

millions saw it happen
all of those skyscrapers were packed with people watching the north tower burn when the 2nd plane hit
not to mention the people watching from parts of jersey, brooklyn, queens, parts of long island, and i would guess a few spots in westchester and rockland counties too
no-planers = no-brainers lol
Click to expand...


WTC2 was designed to be a 'spectacular' exactly along Hollywood lines. Thus the huge fireball. Remember back on the day when the North Tower was hit that loads of people got on the phone to their friends to say ' switch on your TV'..'a plane just flew into the World Trade Centre' So millions did of course- just in time to catch the 'spectacular'. Do you think the 15-minute gap between the planes was just an accident ? You couldn't be that stupid surely ?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
WTC2 was designed to be a 'spectacular' exactly along Hollywood lines. Thus the huge fireball. Remember back on the day when the North Tower was hit that loads of people got on the hone to their friends to say ' switch on your TV'..'a plane just flew into the World Trade Centre' So millions did of course- just in time to catch the 'dpectacular'. Do you think the 15-minute gap between the planes was just an accident ? You couldn't be that stupid surely ?
Click to expand...

10000 gallons of jet fuel makes a big fireball bill
youve seen the video of that b52 nosediving
thats called real life not hollywood bill

and yes you described exactly what al-qaeda was trying to do
you couldnt be that stupid to not understand that they wanted coverage
thats why they picked the most famous buildings in the most famous city in the world

and you didnt mention the planes frame bill
why?
forgot that sheetmetal has to be riveted to something?
something strong?
truther say der :p? lol
 
bill smith said:
Why do you 100% of the time redact any Truther post that you are answering ?
Click to expand...

Because I prefer not to waste people's time by asking them to re-read any part of the post that I choose not to reply to. In contrast, your practice of quoting lengthy posts in full to add a single line of comment is a waste of time, poor etiquette and makes you appear unable to use basic text editing tools. But please continue, if you wish, ascribing to me a sinister motive for doing something completely normal and in some situations mandatory; it gives a clear idea to the onlooker of the level of paranoia under which you labour.

You'd notice, if your confirmation bias would let you, that neither do I edit 100% of truther posts I reply to, but nor do I edit 0% of debunker posts.

bill smith said:
Is the intention to decontextualise the posts or do you have another reason ?
Click to expand...

Since the post to which I'm replying can be read in full by clicking the little arrow in the top of the quote box, and since I'm assuming that readers are (a) capable of figuring out how to do this and (b) discerning enough to do so if they're particularly interested in context, I assume that decontextualising the excerpt is not an option available to me even should I wish to do so. Decontextualising the posts is equally difficult, since the thread in which they are posted supplies the context.

Dave
 
bill smith said:
An excellent result. Don't furget that many architects will not have the guts to put pen to paper while being now fully aware of the situation and probably sympathetic to the goals of www.ae911truth.org. Like Richard says, almost no architect who sees building seven collapse will have any doubt what he is seeing. Almost 740 degreed and licenced architects and engineers signed up since 2007. Way to go.
Click to expand...

Oh bill.

<facepalm>

1. when you get 10 degreed and licensed architects out of 24000 over 4 days... that is NOT success by any defintion... that is less than 1 1/1000th of the people there... That is a massive fail.

2. He had 4 days to show 24,000 AIA registered architects building 7.... but only 10 signed up... does that mean by twoof standards, there are only 10 architects there?

3. twoof LIE. 740 degreed OR licensed "engineers" and architects (which include landscaping engineers, sanitation engineers and software engineers).
Wow.. that is sooooo amazing... that you can find some quacks...
 
Heiwa said:
Serious attempts to make it very simple and easy? lol! WITH EVERY ASSUMPTION TO STOP THE COLLAPSE? LOL!

OK, put all that info together and produce a structure A that will one-way crush down when you drop a part C (C=1/10A) on it. Keep It Simple, Stupid (= KISS).

BTW in civilized Europe engineering universities are free of charge as higher education is seen as a national investment so you don't pay up then ... but later with your taxes. Results are good engineers, like me.
Click to expand...
er, lets not get into Europe vs USA. Heiwa should be adding a disclaimer onto his posts saying somthing along the lines that "my idiotic drivel is not representative of the standard of European Engineering so please take it all with a pinch of salt, or ignore me altogether because I really am insane"

Im sure there are plenty of very good structural engineers in Europe.

I would think most of the truthers are American anyway, the "protect the population from the government" crowd that think every bad event is somehow a government conspiracy. Nutjobs.

Truthers - you are all nutjobs who watch too much TV.
 
bill smith said:
Those same sane and smart people think that 1mm aluminium cut through 33 14'' x 14'' steel box columns that were braced against the concrete floors at 12 foot intervals . he 13 foot diameter lane severed these pretty cleanly and went on to destroy up to ten massive core columns snd partally carrying on to exit the building through maybe a dozen more 14'' x 14'' steel box columns.

Bread does not cut the knife and neither does liquid fuel nor paper-thin aluminium so maybe you see the level of respect that a person ight have for people who hold that opinion. So when people like that call a Truther stupid for making this point you can see why a stundie is a kind of ironic Oscar for us.
Click to expand...

ummm bill.

can a piece of foam destroy a 2inch thick ceramic tile? Can a fleck of paint puncture a space suit? can a bolt destroy a satelight? Can a rock the size of a small house destroy 100 miles of forest? can a piece of straw shatter bricks? Can a bird destroy a metal engine? huh?

huh twoof?
 
Last edited:
Did you never wonder why WT7 as pre-rigged with explosivs at all ? Surely they did not plan to perform a controlled demolition on it at that time ?

No what I think happened was that flight 93 was supposed to have hit WTC7 exactly as the Twin Towers were hit. That would have meant that all three buildings were pre-rigged with explosives/incendiaries and all three were planned to go down in exctly the same way. Three buildings-three planes. AAll nice and neat.

But then fate intervened and the best laid plans started to unravel. Flight 93 got stuck in the runway and could not take off for an hour. By then it was too late to continue with it's planned mission so they had it fly out over Pennsvlvania while they decided what to do with it. In the end they faked a crash- very badly and landed the plane,probably at Cleveland.

Meantime they had a problem with WTC7 because they were already fairly advanced in the weakening of the structure prior to the plane hitting. So the building had to go. So they lit some unlikely looking fires on seperate floors of the building in the hope it would burn. No such luck so they had to go ahead and demolish it in the standard way at 5:20 in the afternoon. Thus their endless problems with WTC7- the forced errror that will bring them down.
 
Last edited:
TruthersLie said:
Oh bill.

<facepalm>

1. when you get 10 degreed and licensed architects out of 24000 over 4 days... that is NOT success by any defintion... that is less than 1 1/1000th of the people there... That is a massive fail.

2. He had 4 days to show 24,000 AIA registered architects building 7.... but only 10 signed up... does that mean by twoof standards, there are only 10 architects there?

3. twoof LIE. 740 degreed OR licensed "engineers" and architects (which include landscaping engineers, sanitation engineers and software engineers).
Wow.. that is sooooo amazing... that you can find some quacks...
Click to expand...

Slowlee steadilee catchee monkee.
 
bill smith said:
No what I think happened was that flight 93 was supposed to have hit WTC7 exactly as the Twin Towers were hit.
Click to expand...

And, at the same time, you think the Twin Towers weren't really hit at all. Your capacity for doublethink is impressive. Why do truthers embody all the evils of the fictional societies they claim to be fighting against?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Because I prefer not to waste people's time by asking them to re-read any part of the post that I choose not to reply to. In contrast, your practice of quoting lengthy posts in full to add a single line of comment is a waste of time, poor etiquette and makes you appear unable to use basic text editing tools. But please continue, if you wish, ascribing to me a sinister motive for doing something completely normal and in some situations mandatory; it gives a clear idea to the onlooker of the level of paranoia under which you labour.

You'd notice, if your confirmation bias would let you, that neither do I edit 100% of truther posts I reply to, but nor do I edit 0% of debunker posts.



Since the post to which I'm replying can be read in full by clicking the little arrow in the top of the quote box, and since I'm assuming that readers are (a) capable of figuring out how to do this and (b) discerning enough to do so if they're particularly interested in context, I assume that decontextualising the excerpt is not an option available to me even should I wish to do so. Decontextualising the posts is equally difficult, since the thread in which they are posted supplies the context.

Dave
Click to expand...
No sweat Dave. I' sure we will all watch your future posting to see your system in action.
 
oh poor twoof.

I swear we need a 9/11 pop up book. I'll explain it in twoof.

jet moves fast.
jet hits building
next jet hits building
buildings burn long
buildings fall down
wtc7 gets hit
wtc7 burns
burns
burns
wtc7 falls down

simple really twoof.
Next time with things like FACTS, EVIDENCE, and PROOF.
 
bill smith said:
Did you never wonder why WT7 as pre-rigged with explosivs at all ? Surely they did not plan to perform a controlled demolition on it at that time ?

No what I think happened was that flight 93 was supposed to have hit WTC7 exactly as the Twin Towers were hit. That would have meant that all three building were pre-rigged with explosives/incendiariees and all three were planned to go down in exctly the same way. Three building-three planes. AAll nice and neat.

But then fate intervened and the best laid plans started to unravel. Flight 93 got stuck in th runway and could not take off for an hour. By then it was too late to continue with it's planned mission so they had it fly out over Pennsvlvania while they decided what to do with it. In the end they faked a crash- very badly and landed the plane,probably at Cleveland.

Meantime they had a problem with WTC7 because they were already fairly advanced in the weakening of the structure prior to the plane hitting. So the building had to go. So they lit some unlikely looking fires on seperate floors of the building in the hope it would burn. No such luck so they had to go ahead and demolish it in the standard way at 5:20 in th afternoon. Thus their endless problems with WTC7- the forced errror that will bring them down.
Click to expand...


i second dave
plus
thats why it was making a B line for washington?
so they blew up the building even though the plane never got there?

you make no sense
you are obviously disturbed or lying
or a tad bit of both
 
aggle-rithm said:
Bread moving at sufficient velocity -- and that would be a very, VERY high velocity -- WILL cut the knife. Of course, it will be destroyed itself, just as the airliners that hit the WTC towers were destroyed.

It's counter-intuitive, I know...but when you're talking about large masses moving at high speeds, or smaller masses moving at even higher speeds, the results are almost always counter-intuitive.
Click to expand...
Bill smith has trouble comprehending simple mechanics of momentum and impulse. (or he deliberately pretends not to know because he knows he's lying). He's also repeating yet again a misconception in that the plane didn't need to 'cut' the steel. The columns in many cases were stripped off the bolts holding them in place thanks to the impact. That's why we don't expect a maggical cartoon cutout

TruthersLie said:
Can a rock the size of a small house destroy 100 miles of forest?
Click to expand...

In 1908 a rock about 100 feet in diameter did this in Siberia:

781pxtunguskaeventfalle.jpg


And all of that was just from the air burst; it exploded five miles above the surface and IIRC the shock wave traveled across the globe twice. Is that what you were thinking about? (I'd hate to think of the kind of damage it'd have done if it hit the ground directly)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom