Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oystein said:
Huh? What lie are you talking about here? Can you cite the passage in the NIST report that you are refering to, and explain how it is refuted by what I wrote? I don't understand the question. To my knowledge, NIST did not "lie about freefall", and I did not say that "it were not true"
Click to expand...

The NISTies are in a panic. They are on the, now you say it now you don't say it, fence of Emu vacillation. They somehow backpedal sideways. Quite a feat with both fully inserted in their oral cavity whilst their head is a ways up yonder( RCI).


Twisted NISTie.

Freefall says there is no resistance, period. Temporary free fall says there was no resistance for a period of time. There can be no freefall during the collapse of WTC7 without the removal of "resisting" lower floors. There can be no removal of a lower floor(s) without some kind of explosive event(s).

Therefore, by insisting that there were no control demolition events, you are insisting NIST lied about WTC7 freefall.

I think we should have poll vote for NISTie Number Two.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
The NISTies are in a panic. They are on the, now you say it now you don't say it, fence of Emu vacillation. They somehow backpedal sideways. Quite a feat with both fully inserted in their oral cavity whilst their head is a ways up yonder( RCI).


Twisted NISTie.

Freefall says there is no resistance, period. Temporary free fall says there was no resistance for a period of time. There can be no freefall during the collapse of WTC7 without the removal of "resisting" lower floors. There can be no removal of a lower floor(s) without some kind of explosive event(s).

Therefore, by insisting that there were no control demolition events, you are insisting NIST lied about WTC7 freefall.

I think we should have poll vote for NISTie Number Two.
Click to expand...
From the school of Max Photon, no physics, just talk. Don't need NIST to understand fire and gravity collapse, so you are the Nistie, you can't do science.

When will you defend your flying post?
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/flights/pentagonhit.html

http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_14.htm

That dive and turn would be a snap for you, would it not?
Click to expand...
Never? In 10 years? Why do you post nonsense on 911?
 
Clayton,
you quoted me, and then went on not to address my questions at all:
  • You did not reference what you refer to "a lie" in the NIST report
  • You did not explain what was refuted and how
  • You forgot to clarify a question so I could reply to it
  • You did not explain how and where NIST "lied about freefall"
  • You did not acknowledge that I didn't say "it were not true"
I must therefore repost it in full and ask you to please no answer:

Oystein said:
Huh? What lie are you talking about here? Can you cite the passage in the NIST report that you are refering to, and explain how it is refuted by what I wrote? I don't understand the question. To my knowledge, NIST did not "lie about freefall", and I did not say that "it were not true"
Click to expand...
(Please track back to the post I was responding to context yourself; I think you owe mit that bit of work to make up for your days of cowardly weaseling)



Clayton Moore said:
The NISTies are in a panic. They are on the, now you say it now you don't say it, fence of Emu vacillation. They somehow backpedal sideways. Quite a feat with both fully inserted in their oral cavity whilst their head is a ways up yonder( RCI).


Twisted NISTie.

Freefall says there is no resistance, period. Temporary free fall says there was no resistance for a period of time. There can be no freefall during the collapse of WTC7 without the removal of "resisting" lower floors. There can be no removal of a lower floor(s) without some kind of explosive event(s).
Therefore, by insisting that there were no control demolition events, you are insisting NIST lied about WTC7 freefall.

I think we should have poll vote for NISTie Number Two.
Click to expand...

Your logic hinges on a false premise. I highlighted it.
 
Clayton Moore said:
The NISTies are in a panic. They are on the, now you say it now you don't say it, fence of Emu vacillation. They somehow backpedal sideways. Quite a feat with both fully inserted in their oral cavity whilst their head is a ways up yonder( RCI).


Twisted NISTie.

Freefall says there is no resistance, period. Temporary free fall says there was no resistance for a period of time. There can be no freefall during the collapse of WTC7 without the removal of "resisting" lower floors. There can be no removal of a lower floor(s) without some kind of explosive event(s).

Therefore, by insisting that there were no control demolition events, you are insisting NIST lied about WTC7 freefall.

I think we should have poll vote for NISTie Number Two.
Click to expand...

Curious...what do you think caused the ~freefall period?
 
Clayton Moore said:
There can be no removal of a lower floor(s) without some kind of explosive event(s).
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence to back up this statement?

Residues?
Left over det-cord?
Witnesses?
Audio of explosives?
Visuals of ejected material?

How do you believe in something that you have absolutely no evidence of occuring?
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
Some sort of explosive event removed the resistance of multiple floors.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence to back up this statement?

Residues?
Left over det-cord?
Witnesses?
Audio of explosives?
Visuals of ejected material?

How do you believe in something that you have absolutely no evidence of occuring?
 
Clayton Moore said:
Love of country makes it impossible to overlook or ignore that truth.

Truth be told, all participants here should take a lie detector test.
Click to expand...
Love of country? You can't understand 911 and make up lies of explosives.

Max Photon said:
... the NISTies shrink from an explanation. ---
Click to expand...
Did you pick up NISTies from Max Photo, is he a neoNAZI too?

You lie about flying on 911, and can't defend the nonsense you post.
Clayton Moore said:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/flights/pentagonhit.html

http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_14.htm

That dive and turn would be a snap for you, would it not?
Click to expand...
What dive?

You presented web pages made up by idiots, and then mention a dive. The dive in quesion
Plane descends 7000 feet in 3 minutes,
Click to expand...
Can you do the math? Or check the facts?

Why does this stand out? What about this dive is unusual? Did you check to see if it was true?
 
Last edited:
femr2 said:
.

Comments made at a time (march 2009) when the *debunker camp* were loudly proclaiming that *jet fuel burning at over 1500C softened the steel* As I am sure you are aware, the jet fuel burned off after about 10/15 minutes, thus my comment.

I stand by the base premise...jet fuel did not cause either tower to collapse :)
Click to expand...

I do not recall the above being proclaimed by any debunker on this site in2009 or since and in fact although such a thing had been said back in Sept '01 it was quickly refuted and discarded by any and all serious debunkers.

Most certainly NIST never states that the jet fuel 'caused' the towers to collapse. NIST never stated that the jet fuel did not matter at all in the spread of the fires.

What they said was that the amount of fuel was not a particularily sensitive parameter in the spread of the fire. What is patently obvious is that the fuel dispersal is what allowed/caused the fires to be multi-floor and large area on several floors all within seconds of impact. If 300 cubic feet of jet fuel causes 4 floors to have x square feet of office on fire each and 900 Cu.ft. causes 1.1x sq.ft of office space per floor on 4 floors and 0.2xsq.ft. of office space on two more floors then a tripling of fuel had relativley little effect on the fires.
(ETA: numbers only used for illustration of what I believe they meant by 'insensitive', not taken from NIST)

What NIST DID say was that the office contents fires caused the steel to weaken ('soften' may well be technically correct but is there a subtle desire to use that word for other connotations?) and that combined with the impact damage this caused the initial collapses. THEN the dynamic loading of the upper material hitting (perhaps I could use 'ramming' for its slightly different connotation?) the lower floors that caused those FLOORS to yeild and that once this began there was no mechanisim by which collapse would be arrested.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
Freefall says there is no resistance, period. Temporary free fall says there was no resistance for a period of time. There can be no freefall during the collapse of WTC7 without the removal of "resisting" lower floors. There can be no removal of a lower floor(s) without some kind of explosive event(s).
Click to expand...

How much 'resistance' would a buckled column offer if its upper and lower parts(above and below the knee) subtended a 30 degree angle?


Therefore, by insisting that there were no control demolition events, you are insisting NIST lied about WTC7 freefall.
Click to expand...

WOW! That is one of the largest leaps of logic I have ever witnessed!
 
Clayton Moore said:
Truth be told, all participants here should take a lie detector test.
Click to expand...

Set it up. I will gladly take it. When I pass with flying colors, you will owe me your paycheck for 1 calender year. I will do the same if I fail.

Willing to put your money where your mouth is?
 
Clayton Moore said:
Therefore, by insisting that there were no control demolition events, you are insisting NIST lied about WTC7 freefall.
Click to expand...

jaydeehess said:
WOW! That is one of the largest leaps of logic I have ever witnessed!
Click to expand...

Maybe Clayton will be the first to show a CD that attains freefall. I would not bet any money on it, but maybe he will surprise us.
 
jaydeehess said:
I do not recall the above being proclaimed by any debunker on this site in2009 or since and in fact although such a thing had been said back in Sept '01 it was quickly refuted and discarded by any and all serious debunkers...
Click to expand...
From memory and on the forum I was most active on in 2009 the converse is true - conspiracy supporters were still claiming that jet fuel softened/weakened the steel. So the issue was alive but the attribution of blame was to the 'other side'. I don't think the 'truther/debunker' terminology had come into vogue on that site at that time.
 
triforcharity said:
Set it up. I will gladly take it. When I pass with flying colors, you will owe me your paycheck for 1 calender year. I will do the same if I fail.

Willing to put your money where your mouth is?
Click to expand...

I'll take some of that action myself!

Disbelief said:
Maybe Clayton will be the first to show a CD that attains freefall. I would not bet any money on it, but maybe he will surprise us.
Click to expand...

Well there is that too, yes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom