How Loony are the Loons?

It CAN'T Be Disputed

"And don't try pulling that 'radio-controlled' BS outta your arse. There's a reason demo companies use hardwiring instead of radio control. It's called interference. They don't want to take the chance that a stray radio signal, either from a cell-phone, two-way radio, or electrometer would accidentally set off the charges before they're supposed to go off."

Yes I know, I am VERY versed in RF! My point was that IT COULD be done! Your making an ABSOLUTE statement that it CAN'T!!!

Just like the government would NEVER attack it's own. Yet there are plenty of examples, the U.S.S. Liberty is one that can't be disputed.


Conspiracy Liar Blows Smoke in Smoke-free Zone: the Liberty incident, you may have noticed, has been disputed.
 
There is an explanation - I wrote that...not RB. :D

Oh, really? My mistake. I guess I just didn't parse his "quotes" properly. Perhaps if he were to use the quote function, we could avoid any further such regretable misunderstandings that I'm completely, totally sure will happen in the future.









;)
 
Just like pointing out things the Bush administration does is ALL "Bush Hatting".

No, this is "Bush hatting":

949045930288520a5.jpg


And this is "Cat Hatting":

94904587363560b05.jpg
 
No, this is "Bush hatting":

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/949045930288520a5.jpg[/qimg]

Say what you will about the man, but he definately wears a hat well.

And this is "Cat Hatting":

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/94904587363560b05.jpg[/qimg]

I propose that what you claim is a hat is in fact a shoe. I leave it to you to prove your claims that it is a hat. I await your reponse.
 
"Provide evidence of this. The NIST investigators and every other structural engineer in the world disagree with you."

Another EXAMPLE of YOU taking what YOU percieve as being the TRUTH and TWISTING it to fit your needs. There are PLENTY of structural/mechanical engineers who do not believe the official story.

Just quickly are some below!

"Alex Floum, Prof. Marcus Ford,
Derrick Grimmer (Ph.D.), Prof.
Richard McGinn, Kimberly Moore,
Robert Moore, Joseph Phelps
(MS, PE; structural engineering),
Prof. Diana Ralph, Robert
Stevens, Lon Waters (Ph.D.) and
Prof. Paul Zarembka."

So, no links to where we might check these people out? I guess we'll just have to assume they're all bogus, otherwise you wouldn't be so afraid to post a link.

It's so nice when the CTists spare us the effort of debunking them, don't you think?
 
I propose that what you claim is a hat is in fact a shoe. I leave it to you to prove your claims that it is a hat. I await your reponse.

It's on his head, isn't it? What else could it be?


And who's ever seen a shoe that size? I can attest that humungus shoes are an almost impossible to find rarity.
 
RemoveBush said:
using common sense

Inigo Montoya said:
You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean

RemoveBush said:
7/7 London bombing: They were practicing for the very thing, the exact same train and bus route when the terrorists attacked.

Bless. Facts links evidence? There was a small training excerise. Based entirely on the underground. It had nothing to do with buses at all.

Transport for london run at least dozen of such training excerises every year. Some are minor power point based training exercises, which have no control over, or indeed communication with actual paramedics.

It was based at Kings Cross because Kings Cross is a transport hub including several significant lines. There are few stations that carry as many lines as kings cross, so the decision to place it there is explanatory. This training exercise was so low key, and minor that it wasn't even effecting transport that day.

So please explain the significance of a minor training exercise, involving a subsection of the transport infratstructure, that had no control over the underground, paramedics, police, firedepartment, or even the bus service, as evidence of the 7/7 bombings being an "inside job"?

Oh and learn how to quote and tone down the abuse, please.
 
"Provide evidence of this assertion, especially the last part."

http://www.journalof911studies.com/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3020
Structural Engineer
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Fetzer/0608/20060824_Thu_Fetzer2.mp3
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1281

"You sure haven't shown us any evidence that whatever theory you have is at all likely."

Well, that's because I am OPEN to the evidence, unlike most of you in here. I review the information and determine what the truth is. I DO know that the Governments version is a FARCE!

"You claim to be an engineer, so get into the math of it. Prove to me in the pure language of mathematics that the towers couldn't have fallen any other way than... whatever theory you're saying is true (I'm assuming controlled demolitions, but it's kind of hard to tell)."

Start here:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

"A mathematical formula is not subject to rhetoric. We have several posters who are qualified to evaluate any math you care to post. I am not a mathematician or engineer, but I am hardly math illiterate and will do my best to follow along.

So post some calculations."

I can validate the math that I come across as being factual, but I am NOT a structural engineer. I rely upon people who are more educated than me or are direct workers in the field. When there are questions to the persons equation I don't consider it viable. When they don't address areas like a scientist or engineer would I keep their informtion for pinpoint arguements for or against but they are not top on the list.

What calculations or formulas do you want to discuss??? "Newtons 3 laws", "Conservation of Energy"?

How about E = MC^2?
 
he will not quote because he is embarrassed to admit he doesn't know how to. Simple as that. As he proves it post after post. And no hes not an engineer he only installs car stereos.

as far as the 'condemned' farce. Well we have proved time and time again its a fallacy. i can name several buildings off the top of my head that have aluminum cladding attached to steel. One by architect Ludwig Mies Van der rohe. In fact he pioneered the use of aluminum cladding. the Seagram's building, do you know where that is? it was built in 1958 and still stands with no cladding problem.

And the claim of the exorbitant cost of scaffolding both towers in entirety? Building pipe or even tube and coupler scaffolding over 125 feet high is impractical and you will almost never see one over 160 feet high because OSHA wont allow it. It would be unnecessary. You can maintain of even replace the exterior curtain wall facade with simple two point swing scaffolding. Or even through the interior when glass is removed.
 
"I love it! "NIST does not address the mechenism [sic] for the collapse." Uh, excuse me, but that is precisely what the NIST report DOES, in exhaustive detail. We are asked to differentiate between explaining how the building fell and providing the mechanism for its fall. Did anyone say, a distinction without a difference?"

No they have not!! Please provide the page that they define the mechanism. I have looked it over and do not see it ANYWHERE!
 
if Jane had balls she would be john. Did you even look at her calculations? don't you find something alarming? really now.. go back and check.. granted your no engineer but even a layman cant be that stupid.
 
Still can't figure that quote button out, huh?

Man, I tell ya'...

Buy 'em books, send 'em to school, and all they do is eat paste!

Can we get a better model of troll in here? I think this one is broken!

I thought I told Gravy not to smack him so hard!
 
No they have not!! Please provide the page that they define the mechanism. I have looked it over and do not see it ANYWHERE!


this is too easy

from NIST

key structural responses that led to the collapse of the towers were as follows: 1) floor
sagging caused by the failure of thermally-weakened truss members, resulting in pull-in forces between
the floor and the exterior wall, and in some cases, disconnection of the floor from the exterior wall;
2) downward displacement of the core due to aircraft impact damage and shortening of the remaining core
columns from increased load, plasticity, creep of steel at high temperatures, and buckling resulting from
fire-induced high temperatures, and unloading of the core; 3) bowing and buckling of exterior walls
caused by the pull-in forces and loss of lateral support from the sagged floors, and floor/wall
disconnections at high temperatures; and 4) redistribution of gravity loads among the columns locally,
among the exterior walls, and between the exterior walls and the core, resulting from impact damage,
relative thermal expansion, shortening of core columns, tilting of the tower above the impact zone, and
bowing and buckling of exterior walls.
In WTC 1, aircraft impact caused damage to the north and south walls, floors, some core columns, and
fireproofing. The subsequent fires caused sagging of the floors on the south side of the office area, where
fireproofing was damaged, and inward bowing of the south wall. The damage to the core columns
resulted in local load redistribution to the remaining core columns. The subsequent fire-induced high
temperatures caused the core to displace downward from plasticity and high creep strains in high stress
and high temperatures. The downward displacement of the core resulted in load redistribution from the
core to the exterior walls. With continuously increased bowing, the entire width of the south wall buckled
inward. The section of the building above the impact zone tilted to the south as instability progressed
horizontally to the adjacent east and west walls. Global collapse occurred as potential energy of the
falling upper structure exceeded the strain energy capacity in the deforming structural members.
In WTC 2, aircraft impact caused damage to the south and north exterior walls, floors, and columns in the
southeast corner of the core. The floor damage and the subsequent fires caused sagging of the floors and
local floor/wall disconnections, and resulted in bowing and buckling of the east wall. The damage to the
core columns and fire-induced high temperatures resulted in local load redistribution to the remaining
core columns in the southeast corner, which redistributed the core column loads to the east and south wall
columns, as the core leaned towards south and east. With continuously increased bowing, the entire
width of the east wall buckled inward. The section of the building above the impact zone tilted to the east
and south as instability progressed horizontally to the adjacent north and south walls. Global collapse
occurred when the potential energy of the falling upper structure exceeded the strain energy capacity in
the deforming structural members.
The results of global analysis of both WTC 1 and WTC 2 showed that global collapse of both towers was
initiated by the instability of the exterior walls pursuant to their excessive inward bowing which
progressed horizontally to adjacent walls.
 

Back
Top Bottom