Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2019 15:38:51 GMT -5
Quit moving the goal posts, Wally. We were discussing the 4 Facts I posted toward the top of the thread. Do you admit that Bin Laden, Cheney, and Mueller made the statements above-- facts 1, 2, and 3? Yea or nay? As for 9/11, you're years behind me in studying and understanding what happened. In fact, you're persistently, willfully ignorant about 9/11. It's frightening, especially considering that you know more about 9/11 than the other guys on the forum. You've never read the NIST report. I'll guess you've never read the 9/11 Commission Report either. Every time I post something to rebut your nonsense, we discover that you've never read it. We discovered another one today. You've never read Mueller's speech that you keep citing. You got a funny way of "studying and understanding", dude. Tell me. Are you an investor in any of those idiotic clickbait websites? Dammit, Wally, stop lying. You're a complete intellectual fraud-- a dupe. You don't know a damned thing about Neocon Phillip Zelikow's non-investigation of 9/11, the visible (and audible) explosive demolitions of the WTC buildings, or the fraudulent NIST cover up, because you have refused for years to study any of the scientific references I have posted here. Everyone knows the NIST Report was a pseudo-scientific fraud! Why did they refuse to publish the "data" for their computer "simulation?" Explain. Why did they decline to explain the free fall collapse of WTC7? As for the subject under debate here-- you just went 0-for-4, before trying to change the subject again. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Sept 16, 2019 21:22:56 GMT -5
You've never read the NIST report. I'll guess you've never read the 9/11 Commission Report either. Every time I post something to rebut your nonsense, we discover that you've never read it. We discovered another one today. You've never read Mueller's speech that you keep citing. You got a funny way of "studying and understanding", dude. Tell me. Are you an investor in any of those idiotic clickbait websites? Dammit, Wally, stop lying. You're a complete intellectual fraud-- a dupe. You don't know a damned thing about Neocon Phillip Zelikow's non-investigation of 9/11, the visible (and audible) explosive demolitions of the WTC buildings, or the fraudulent NIST cover up, because you have refused for years to study any of the scientific references I have posted here. Everyone knows the NIST Report was a pseudo-scientific fraud! Why did they refuse to publish the "data" for their computer "simulation?" Explain. Why did they decline to explain the free fall collapse of WTC7? As for the subject under debate here-- you just went 0-for-4, before trying to change the subject again. Meanwhile, you have never read any of the things you claim to have "studied". Until you do, you are just another dumbass. What a waste of an Ivy League education. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2019 21:37:33 GMT -5
Sorry Walt, but this reads like two fools jerking off...
Enjoy.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2019 21:48:02 GMT -5
Dammit, Wally, stop lying. You're a complete intellectual fraud-- a dupe. You don't know a damned thing about Neocon Phillip Zelikow's non-investigation of 9/11, the visible (and audible) explosive demolitions of the WTC buildings, or the fraudulent NIST cover up, because you have refused for years to study any of the scientific references I have posted here. Everyone knows the NIST Report was a pseudo-scientific fraud! Why did they refuse to publish the "data" for their computer "simulation?" Explain. Why did they decline to explain the free fall collapse of WTC7? As for the subject under debate here-- you just went 0-for-4, before trying to change the subject again. Meanwhile, you have never read any of the things you claim to have "studied". Until you do, you are just another dumbass. What a waste of an Ivy League education. Don't worry about my Ivy League education, Wally. I was always an ace. But, speaking of a wasted education, they obviously never taught you basic Calculus, Physics 101, or Chemistry 101 at USC. As for the NIST Report, why would I waste time reading that ludicrous work of PNAC science fiction? I'm interested in science and history, not fiction. It's a computer "simulation" model that can't even be verified, because the fraudsters who wrote it for Dick Cheney and the Mossad won't even publish the "data" they used in their "simulation!" Meanwhile, if you ever get off of your Wally World Denial merry-go-round, tell us how the NIST fraudsters explained the free fall collapse of WTC7. (Hint: They didn't.) |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Sept 16, 2019 22:01:06 GMT -5
Meanwhile, you have never read any of the things you claim to have "studied". Until you do, you are just another dumbass. What a waste of an Ivy League education. Don't worry about my Ivy League education, Wally. I was always an ace. But, speaking of a wasted education, they obviously never taught you basic Calculus, Physics 101, or Chemistry 101 at USC. As for the NIST Report, why would I waste time reading that ludicrous work of PNAC science fiction? I'm interested in science and history, not fiction. It's a computer "simulation" model that can't even be verified, because the fraudsters who wrote it for Dick Cheney and the Mossad won't even publish the "data" they used in their "simulation!" Meanwhile, if you ever get off of your Wally World Denial merry-go-round, tell us how the NIST fraudsters explained the free fall collapse of WTC7. (Hint: They didn't.) Yeah, they did. You just chose not to read it. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2019 22:15:51 GMT -5
Don't worry about my Ivy League education, Wally. I was always an ace. But, speaking of a wasted education, they obviously never taught you basic Calculus, Physics 101, or Chemistry 101 at USC. As for the NIST Report, why would I waste time reading that ludicrous work of PNAC science fiction? I'm interested in science and history, not fiction. It's a computer "simulation" model that can't even be verified, because the fraudsters who wrote it for Dick Cheney and the Mossad won't even publish the "data" they used in their "simulation!" Meanwhile, if you ever get off of your Wally World Denial merry-go-round, tell us how the NIST fraudsters explained the free fall collapse of WTC7. (Hint: They didn't.) Yeah, they did. You just chose not to read it. O.K., sucker. Tell us how they explained it. I'll wait. And, as Albert Einstein once said, "If you can't explain it straightforwardly, you probably don't understand it. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Sept 17, 2019 5:16:49 GMT -5
Yeah, they did. You just chose not to read it. O.K., sucker. Tell us how they explained it. I'll wait. And, as Albert Einstein once said, "If you can't explain it straightforwardly, you probably don't understand it. Read the report and find out. If after reading it, you find you still disagree with their conclusions, we can parse particular aspects of that with which you take issue. As I noted earlier, pay close attention to the part where they discuss deliberate demolition hypotheses. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2019 16:33:55 GMT -5
O.K., sucker. Tell us how they explained it. I'll wait. And, as Albert Einstein once said, "If you can't explain it straightforwardly, you probably don't understand it. Read the report and find out. If after reading it, you find you still disagree with their conclusions, we can parse particular aspects of that with which you take issue. As I noted earlier, pay close attention to the part where they discuss deliberate demolition hypotheses.
Walter,
You went 0-for-4 in our discussion of 4 historical facts about the 9/11 "Bin Laden" evidence on this thread.
Then you tried to change the subject to your beloved, fraudulent, Dick Cheney NIST Report-- which didn't even ATTEMPT to explain the abrupt, total, free fall demolition of WTC7.
You can't explain it, and neither did Dick Cheney's NIST goons. It's not rocket science. It's basic Newtonian physics.
As I tried to teach you five years ago-- the observed free fall collapse of a 47 floor steel skyscraper NECESSARILY implies that there was ZERO RESISTANCE to collapse caused by the lower level steel girders. In other words, something caused the abrupt, simultaneous, symmetrical demolition of ALL of those steel girders.
Office fires , obviously, could NOT have done that. Not only would they have been insufficiently HOT, they would have been asymmetrical, partial, and randomly distributed.
FREE FALL = ZERO RESISTANCE to the acceleration of gravity.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Sept 17, 2019 18:15:24 GMT -5
Read the report and find out. If after reading it, you find you still disagree with their conclusions, we can parse particular aspects of that with which you take issue. As I noted earlier, pay close attention to the part where they discuss deliberate demolition hypotheses. Walter, You went 0-for-4 in our discussion of 4 historical facts about the 9/11 "Bin Laden" evidence on this thread. Then you tried to change the subject to your beloved, fraudulent, Dick Cheney NIST Report-- which didn't even ATTEMPT to explain the abrupt, total, free fall demolition of WTC7. You can't explain it, and neither did Dick Cheney's NIST goons. It's not rocket science. It's basic Newtonian physics.
As I tried to teach you five years ago-- the observed free fall collapse of a 47 floor steel skyscraper NECESSARILY implies that there was ZERO RESISTANCE to collapse caused by the lower level steel girders. In other words, something caused the abrupt, simultaneous, symmetrical demolition of ALL of those steel girders. Office fires , obviously, could NOT have done that. Not only would they have been insufficiently HOT, they would have been asymmetrical, partial, and randomly distributed.
FREE FALL = ZERO RESISTANCE to the acceleration of gravity. FREE FALL the top 18 floors (that part of the building visible in the video), (242 ft) = 3.9 SECONDS WTC7 18 floors collapse time = 5.3 SECONDS. SO....no, it was not freefall. READ....THE....DAMN....REPORT...How many times do I need to tell you? It's getting tiresome answering dumbass question after dumbass question when you can't even get past the basics. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Sept 17, 2019 19:32:49 GMT -5
Walter, You went 0-for-4 in our discussion of 4 historical facts about the 9/11 "Bin Laden" evidence on this thread. Then you tried to change the subject to your beloved, fraudulent, Dick Cheney NIST Report-- which didn't even ATTEMPT to explain the abrupt, total, free fall demolition of WTC7. You can't explain it, and neither did Dick Cheney's NIST goons. It's not rocket science. It's basic Newtonian physics.
As I tried to teach you five years ago-- the observed free fall collapse of a 47 floor steel skyscraper NECESSARILY implies that there was ZERO RESISTANCE to collapse caused by the lower level steel girders. In other words, something caused the abrupt, simultaneous, symmetrical demolition of ALL of those steel girders. Office fires , obviously, could NOT have done that. Not only would they have been insufficiently HOT, they would have been asymmetrical, partial, and randomly distributed.
FREE FALL = ZERO RESISTANCE to the acceleration of gravity. FREE FALL the top 18 floors (that part of the building visible in the video), (242 ft) = 3.9 SECONDS WTC7 18 floors collapse time = 5.3 SECONDS. SO....no, it was not freefall. READ....THE....DAMN....REPORT...How many times do I need to tell you? It's getting tiresome answering dumbass question after dumbass question when you can't even get past the basics. |
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2019 20:36:37 GMT -5
Walter,
I can't fix your stubborn anti-scientific stupidity, nor Harry's habitual, greasy dishonesty, but anyone who understands basic Newtonian physics knows that NIST lied about the physical dynamics of the free fall demolition of WTC7. David Chandler exposes NIST's 9/11 fraudulence in scientific detail (below.) Stop wasting your time defending this pseudo-scientific PNAC propaganda, and learn from Chandler's analysis.
They lied about the observable physical parameters of the free fall, and they lied in their spurious claim that there was a progressive collapse of the 47 story structure!
IT WASN'T PROGRESSIVE!! LOOK !!@#$%
It was a sudden, complete, symmetrical, free fall collapse-- openly measurable at the acceleration of gravity!!!!
The NIST LIED !!!!!!!!
It is INSANE for you and Harry to deny that basic empirical fact.
LOOK at the f*cking free fall demolition!!!
(And, yes, there is a mountain of heavily-funded "spin" and U.S./Israeli government disinformation on-line denying the basic science of the Mossad's 9/11 demolitions of Larry Silverstein's WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. The guys who did 9/11 are TERRIFIED that the American people will learn the truth about the 9/11 black op.)
WTC7 Free Fall on 9/11 Is Now An Established Scientific Fact!!
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by AlaCowboy on Sept 17, 2019 20:49:38 GMT -5
Walter, you stated when you created this forum on the board that any posts had to be substantiated with facts and legitimate links. Yet you have allowed Nie der hut to post 21 posts in this thread without any FACTUAL links to prove his posts. Not only that, you have also abetted and encouraged him with 21 post that copied his bogus conspiracy garbage. Please clean up his garbage by deleting all but the first two posts I made and allow this thread to be pure again.
Admonish Nie der hut and banish him to the Sandbox and Conspiracy rooms until such time that he promises to abide by the rules.
|
|
|
56-43-2* OVER FLORIDA. ALWAYS IN THE LEAD.
THE CRYBABY LIZARDS WOULD ACCEPT THIS IF THEY WERE HONEST
*2020 Is Negated By Covid-19
15 SEC CHAMPIONSHIPS FOR GEORGIA
FLORIDA HAS ONLY 8 SEC CHAMPIONSHIPS
BACK-TO-BACK NATIONAL CHAMPIONS 2021! 2022!
FOUR NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS!
AMERICAN BY BIRTH. SOUTHERN BY THE GRACE OF GOD!!!
2017 GRAND DOUCHE AWARD WINNER - NOW RETIRED
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2019 21:02:45 GMT -5
Walter, you stated when you created this forum on the board that any posts had to be substantiated with facts and legitimate links. Yet you have allowed Nie der hut to post 21 posts in this thread without any FACTUAL links to prove his posts. Not only that, you have also abetted and encouraged him with 21 post that copied his bogus conspiracy garbage. Please clean up his garbage by deleting all but the first two posts I made and allow this thread to be pure again.
Admonish Nie der hut and banish him to the Sandbox and Conspiracy rooms until such time that he promises to abide by the rules. DON'T HIJACK THIS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THREAD FOR WALTER, RA MEY.
I JUST SLAM-DUNKED ON WALTER AND THE GREASY CHICKEN.
The debate about the free fall demolition of WTC7 is officially OVER. I WON and Walter Lost.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Sept 18, 2019 7:09:51 GMT -5
Walter,
I can't fix your stubborn anti-scientific stupidity, nor Harry's habitual, greasy dishonesty, but anyone who understands basic Newtonian physics knows that NIST lied about the physical dynamics of the free fall demolition of WTC7. David Chandler exposes NIST's 9/11 fraudulence in scientific detail (below.) Stop wasting your time defending this pseudo-scientific PNAC propaganda, and learn from Chandler's analysis.
They lied about the observable physical parameters of the free fall, and they lied in their spurious claim that there was a progressive collapse of the 47 story structure!
IT WASN'T PROGRESSIVE!! LOOK !!@#$%
It was a sudden, complete, symmetrical, free fall collapse-- openly measurable at the acceleration of gravity!!!!
The NIST LIED !!!!!!!!
It is INSANE for you and Harry to deny that basic empirical fact.
LOOK at the f*cking free fall demolition!!!
(And, yes, there is a mountain of heavily-funded "spin" and U.S./Israeli government disinformation on-line denying the basic science of the Mossad's 9/11 demolitions of Larry Silverstein's WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. The guys who did 9/11 are TERRIFIED that the American people will learn the truth about the 9/11 black op.)
WTC7 Free Fall on 9/11 Is Now An Established Scientific Fact!!
David Chandler? So lemme get this straight. You 'study' a report by a guy who attempts to debunk a report you have never read. How do we know Chandler has read the NIST report? I doubt he has. What part the report is he disputing? You have no idea. For instance, where is his comment about the internal collapse that started the total collapse? Why is that not included in his calculation? Post the salient portions of the NIST report that Mr. Clickbait is disputing and explain why you believe him to be correct. Then I will show you the parts he either ignored, or like you, never bothered to read. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2019 10:41:42 GMT -5
Walter and Harry don't know what "free fall" acceleration is.
Instead of learning something about basic physics, they ignore the scientific data and focus on "ad hominem" arguments.
Walter is a classic case of a guy who is shown a picture of a blue object, but insists that the object is red because an "official" authority figure tells him it is red, not blue.
Study the basic physics of the obvious free fall, non-progressive collapse of WTC7, Wally.
I can't teach you how to think... but Chandler is a good physics teacher for you and the ignorant, hairy chicken.
|
|
