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 13:01:32 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.
So you cannot, or just as likely, are unwilling to answer my question. Why am I not surprised? |
|
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 13:19:41 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.
So you cannot, or just as likely, are unwilling to answer my question. Why am I not surprised? Walter, Your deflective, ad hominem question is so stupid that it scarcely deserves a response. However, I have to give you credit for not deleting my angry attacks on you for still trusting the NIST fraudsters. You're a lousy physicist, but you're a good sport. I apologize for my hostility. I'm a truther. How do I know that physicist David Chandler has READ the fraudulent NIST Report? Because he has a posted a detailed, 4 part debunking of the NIST Report at the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth-- including clips of his own direct questions to the fraudster who ran the NIST scam |
|
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 13:27:45 GMT -5
So you cannot, or just as likely, are unwilling to answer my question. Why am I not surprised? Walter, Your deflective, ad hominem question is so stupid that it scarcely deserves a response. However, I have to give you credit for not deleting my angry attacks on you for still trusting the NIST fraudsters. You're a lousy physicist, but you're a good sport. I apologize for my hostility. I'm a truther. How do I know that physicist David Chandler has READ the fraudulent NIST Report? Because he has a posted a detailed, 4 part debunking of the NIST Report at the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth-- including clips of his own direct questions to the fraudster who ran the NIST scam If he has debunked it, explain his intentional omissions? Why, for instance, does he claim that collapse initiated nearly 3 seconds after NIST? On what is he basing that assumption? How does he know when the collapse sequence began? |
|
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 13:56:26 GMT -5
Walter, Your deflective, ad hominem question is so stupid that it scarcely deserves a response. However, I have to give you credit for not deleting my angry attacks on you for still trusting the NIST fraudsters. You're a lousy physicist, but you're a good sport. I apologize for my hostility. I'm a truther. How do I know that physicist David Chandler has READ the fraudulent NIST Report? Because he has a posted a detailed, 4 part debunking of the NIST Report at the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth-- including clips of his own direct questions to the fraudster who ran the NIST scam If he has debunked it, explain his intentional omissions? Why, for instance, does he claim that collapse initiated nearly 3 seconds after NIST? On what is he basing that assumption? How does he know when the collapse sequence began? He uses a "stop watch" and a "ruler" to calculate a free fall collapse acceleration within 1 per cent of the acceleration of gravity. It's not that complicated. Look at the film of the collapse. Also, it's obvious that the collapse is NOT caused by a pancaking of upper floors onto lower floors. The distance between the upper floors remains constant as the entire structure abruptly drops in a free fall--as seen in expert demolitions. |
|
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 14:18:07 GMT -5
If he has debunked it, explain his intentional omissions? Why, for instance, does he claim that collapse initiated nearly 3 seconds after NIST? On what is he basing that assumption? How does he know when the collapse sequence began? He uses a "stop watch" and a "ruler" to calculate a free fall collapse acceleration within 1 per cent of the acceleration of gravity. It's not that complicated. Look at the film of the collapse. Also, it's obvious that the collapse is NOT caused by a pancaking of upper floors onto lower floors. The distance between the upper floors remains constant as the entire structure abruptly drops in a free fall--as seen in expert demolitions. The NIST report indicates collapse long before the area of the building observable in the video. Again, I cannot stress enough that you read the damn report. If you understand their idea of the version of events and then hold it up to Chandler's, it will lead you to question Chandler far more than NIST. According to NIST, 7 floors had begun to collapse between floors 5 and 14 long before anything was evident on the exterior. That catastrophic failure was what ultimately rippled up the building and set off the massive exterior collapse, even though the internal support framing had long since ceased to provide upper floor support. Why doesn't Chandler address this before he starts blabbing about "demolition"? |
|
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 14:30:20 GMT -5
He uses a "stop watch" and a "ruler" to calculate a free fall collapse acceleration within 1 per cent of the acceleration of gravity. It's not that complicated. Look at the film of the collapse. Also, it's obvious that the collapse is NOT caused by a pancaking of upper floors onto lower floors. The distance between the upper floors remains constant as the entire structure abruptly drops in a free fall--as seen in expert demolitions. The NIST report indicates collapse long before the area of the building observable in the video. Again, I cannot stress enough that you read the damn report. If you understand their idea of the version of events and then hold it up to Chandler's, it will lead you to question Chandler far more than NIST. According to NIST, 7 floors had begun to collapse between floors 5 and 14 long before anything was evident on the exterior. That catastrophic failure was what ultimately rippled up the building and set off the massive exterior collapse, even though the internal support framing had long since ceased to provide upper floor support. Why doesn't Chandler address this before he starts blabbing about "demolition"? If the unprecedented, abrupt, free fall collapse of the 47 floor steel WTC7 structure was caused by localized office fires in the building, (an absurd notion, frankly) why was it perfectly symmetrical and non-progressive? The building did not collapse partially, or in stages, nor was there observable asymmetry in the collapse, as would be expected with focal, asymmetrical heating of various structural components throughout the building. Nor was there any observed pancaking of floors. Rather it descended in an abrupt symmetrical, continuous free fall, as Chandler proved. Do you now agree that NIST lied about the parameters of the free fall? |
|
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 14:56:29 GMT -5
The NIST report indicates collapse long before the area of the building observable in the video. Again, I cannot stress enough that you read the damn report. If you understand their idea of the version of events and then hold it up to Chandler's, it will lead you to question Chandler far more than NIST. According to NIST, 7 floors had begun to collapse between floors 5 and 14 long before anything was evident on the exterior. That catastrophic failure was what ultimately rippled up the building and set off the massive exterior collapse, even though the internal support framing had long since ceased to provide upper floor support. Why doesn't Chandler address this before he starts blabbing about "demolition"? If the unprecedented, abrupt, free fall collapse of the 47 floor steel WTC7 structure was caused by localized office fires in the building, (an absurd notion, frankly) why was it perfectly symmetrical and non-progressive? The building did not collapse partially, or in stages, nor was there observable asymmetry in the collapse, as would be expected with focal, asymmetrical heating of various structural components throughout the building. Nor was there any observed pancaking of floors. Rather it descended in an abrupt symmetrical, continuous free fall, as Chandler proved. Do you now agree that NIST lied about the parameters of the free fall? Chandler proved exactly squat. He doesn't address the progressive internal collapse, the damage caused by falling debris of WTC1, the loss of lateral support of columns by progressive detachment of the floor framing, nor the effects of 7 hours of fire or any of the other issues NIST discusses regarding the lower floors. Why did he fail to address such an important set of structural issues that directly relate to the stability of the building? Instead, he acts like the high school science teacher he is. He addresses the video only. That's it. And from that he comes to global structural conclusions for which he has zero evidence, and likely, little expertise to even understand. And you suck it up like cherry Kool-aid. |
|
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 20:00:25 GMT -5
If the unprecedented, abrupt, free fall collapse of the 47 floor steel WTC7 structure was caused by localized office fires in the building, (an absurd notion, frankly) why was it perfectly symmetrical and non-progressive? The building did not collapse partially, or in stages, nor was there observable asymmetry in the collapse, as would be expected with focal, asymmetrical heating of various structural components throughout the building. Nor was there any observed pancaking of floors. Rather it descended in an abrupt symmetrical, continuous free fall, as Chandler proved. Do you now agree that NIST lied about the parameters of the free fall? Chandler proved exactly squat. He doesn't address the progressive internal collapse, the damage caused by falling debris of WTC1, the loss of lateral support of columns by progressive detachment of the floor framing, nor the effects of 7 hours of fire or any of the other issues NIST discusses regarding the lower floors. Why did he fail to address such an important set of structural issues that directly relate to the stability of the building? Instead, he acts like the high school science teacher he is. He addresses the video only. That's it. And from that he comes to global structural conclusions for which he has zero evidence, and likely, little expertise to even understand. And you suck it up like cherry Kool-aid. Is Traitor Willie STILL claiming that 9/11 was an inside job?
No REAL shrink would believe all the nutty conspiracy theories that HE does. That dumbass thinks EVERYTHING is a conspiracy. Nothing is more demented that that.
|
|
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 20:57:59 GMT -5
Fascinating, detailed article at Global Research yesterday about the truly bizarre mass media censorship of the voluminous scientific and historical data debunking the official U.S. government "Al Qaeda" conspiracy theory of 9/11.
Not unprecedented, because the mainstream U.S. media has worked closely with the CIA and Joint Chiefs for the past 56 years to promote the fraudulent Warren Commission Report, which was completely debunked by scholars years ago.
But, as the author noted, when the true story of 9/11 finally appears in the mainstream U.S. media, the shock waves will reverberate for years.
It will make Watergate and the JFK assassination look like small potatoes.
|
|
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 21:40:02 GMT -5
Fascinating, detailed article at Global Research yesterday about the truly bizarre mass media censorship of the voluminous scientific and historical data debunking the official U.S. government "Al Qaeda" conspiracy theory of 9/11. Not unprecedented, because the mainstream U.S. media has worked closely with the CIA and Joint Chiefs for the past 56 years to promote the fraudulent Warren Commission Report, which was completely debunked by scholars years ago. But, as the author noted, when the true story of 9/11 finally appears in the mainstream U.S. media, the shock waves will reverberate for years. It will make Watergate and the JFK assassination look like small potatoes. LOL.. Willie'e ADHD kicks in right on schedule. ::SMH:: |
|
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 22:17:31 GMT -5
Fascinating, detailed article at Global Research yesterday about the truly bizarre mass media censorship of the voluminous scientific and historical data debunking the official U.S. government "Al Qaeda" conspiracy theory of 9/11. Not unprecedented, because the mainstream U.S. media has worked closely with the CIA and Joint Chiefs for the past 56 years to promote the fraudulent Warren Commission Report, which was completely debunked by scholars years ago. But, as the author noted, when the true story of 9/11 finally appears in the mainstream U.S. media, the shock waves will reverberate for years. It will make Watergate and the JFK assassination look like small potatoes. LOL.. Willie'e ADHD kicks in right on schedule. ::SMH:: What the heck is he talking about THIS time? We know what happened at Watergate, AND we know Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK and J.D. Tippitt. (Why is Tippitt always ignored? His life was just as important as Kennedy's.)
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 17:47:39 GMT -5
LOL.. Willie'e ADHD kicks in right on schedule. ::SMH:: What the heck is he talking about THIS time? We know what happened at Watergate, AND we know Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK and J.D. Tippitt. (Why is Tippitt always ignored? His life was just as important as Kennedy's.)
Oswald didn't kill JFK or Tippitt. That much is now a well-established scientific/historical fact.
Nor was Oswald a Marxist. He was a long-term CIA asset, trained as a False Defector to Russia, who posed as a Marxist, pro-Castro sympathizer in New Orleans and Dallas in 1963, while working as a U.S. government informant. CIA asset Ruth Paine arranged for him to take a job at the Texas School Book Depository in October of 1963, where his compartmentalized assignment (based on a need-to-know basis) was to play the part of a pro-Castro Marxist patsy in an assassination attempt on President Kennedy, to be used to trigger an invasion of Cuba. Oswald believed that he would be flown out of Red Bird Airport (south of Dallas) to Houston with the CIA crew-- including Edward Lansdale, George H.W. Bush, David Sanchez Morales, et.al.-- that carried out the assassination op.
And 9/11 was a CIA/Saudi/Mossad false flag op used as a "New Pearl Harbor" event to launch the 21st century Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz Project for a New American Century. That much is also a well-established scientific/historical fact.
So, how do we explain the fact that Americans like Psycho Mutt and Walter still don't know these well-established facts about the Crime of the 20th century (11/22/63) and the 9/11 Crime of the 21st century?
Modern mass propaganda... Psychological ops...
The systematic suppression of the facts and propagation of false narratives by the national "security state"-regulated mass media-- including television, newspapers, magazines, Hollywood, and the internet...
Only 5% of the American public know that a third skyscraper in NYC-- WTC7-- was demolished on 9/11. It was never hit by a plane.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Sept 19, 2019 17:58:55 GMT -5
What the heck is he talking about THIS time? We know what happened at Watergate, AND we know Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK and J.D. Tippitt. (Why is Tippitt always ignored? His life was just as important as Kennedy's.)
Oswald didn't kill JFK or Tippitt. That much is now a well-established scientific/historical fact. Nor was Oswald a Marxist. He was a long-term CIA asset, trained as a False Defector to Russia, who posed as a Marxist, pro-Castro sympathizer in New Orleans and Dallas in 1963, while working as a U.S. government informant. CIA asset Ruth Paine arranged for him to take a job at the Texas School Book Depository in October of 1963, where his compartmentalized assignment (based on a need-to-know basis) was to play the part of a pro-Castro Marxist patsy in an assassination attempt on President Kennedy, to be used to trigger an invasion of Cuba. Oswald believed that he would be flown out of Red Bird Airport (south of Dallas) to Houston with the CIA crew-- including Edward Lansdale, George H.W. Bush, David Sanchez Morales, et.al.-- that carried out the assassination op.
And 9/11 was a CIA/Saudi/Mossad false flag op used as a "New Pearl Harbor" event to launch the 21st century Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz Project for a New American Century. That much is also a well-established scientific/historical fact. So, how do we explain the fact that Americans like Psycho Mutt and Walter still don't know these well-established facts about the Crime of the 20th century (11/22/63) and the 9/11 Crime of the 21st century? Modern mass propaganda... Psychological ops... The systematic suppression of the facts and propagation of false narratives by the national "security state"-regulated mass media-- including television, newspapers, magazines, Hollywood, and the internet... Only 5% of the American public know that a third skyscraper in NYC-- WTC7-- was demolished on 9/11. It was never hit by a plane.
Instead, it was hit by flying debris from a collapsing 110 story building across the street which damaged the structure in numerous areas and started fires that raged for more than 7 hours on about 1/3 of the floors. You know...the kind of stuff that happens all the time. |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 20:28:08 GMT -5
Oswald didn't kill JFK or Tippitt. That much is now a well-established scientific/historical fact. Nor was Oswald a Marxist. He was a long-term CIA asset, trained as a False Defector to Russia, who posed as a Marxist, pro-Castro sympathizer in New Orleans and Dallas in 1963, while working as a U.S. government informant. CIA asset Ruth Paine arranged for him to take a job at the Texas School Book Depository in October of 1963, where his compartmentalized assignment (based on a need-to-know basis) was to play the part of a pro-Castro Marxist patsy in an assassination attempt on President Kennedy, to be used to trigger an invasion of Cuba. Oswald believed that he would be flown out of Red Bird Airport (south of Dallas) to Houston with the CIA crew-- including Edward Lansdale, George H.W. Bush, David Sanchez Morales, et.al.-- that carried out the assassination op.
And 9/11 was a CIA/Saudi/Mossad false flag op used as a "New Pearl Harbor" event to launch the 21st century Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz Project for a New American Century. That much is also a well-established scientific/historical fact. So, how do we explain the fact that Americans like Psycho Mutt and Walter still don't know these well-established facts about the Crime of the 20th century (11/22/63) and the 9/11 Crime of the 21st century? Modern mass propaganda... Psychological ops... The systematic suppression of the facts and propagation of false narratives by the national "security state"-regulated mass media-- including television, newspapers, magazines, Hollywood, and the internet... Only 5% of the American public know that a third skyscraper in NYC-- WTC7-- was demolished on 9/11. It was never hit by a plane.
Instead, it was hit by flying debris from a collapsing 110 story building across the street which damaged the structure in numerous areas and started fires that raged for more than 7 hours on about 1/3 of the floors. You know...the kind of stuff that happens all the time. Of course. Wally... And then those randomly smoldering office fires abruptly and completely demolished the entire 47 floor steel beam substructure in a sudden, uniform demolition, enabling a perfectly symmetrical, free fall collapse into the building's foundation... Happens all the time... as in... uh... NEVER... |
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Administrator
|
Post by Walter on Sept 19, 2019 22:14:22 GMT -5
Instead, it was hit by flying debris from a collapsing 110 story building across the street which damaged the structure in numerous areas and started fires that raged for more than 7 hours on about 1/3 of the floors. You know...the kind of stuff that happens all the time. Of course. Wally... And then those randomly smoldering office fires abruptly and completely demolished the entire 47 floor steel beam substructure in a sudden, uniform demolition, enabling a perfectly symmetrical, free fall collapse into the building's foundation... Happens all the time... as in... uh... NEVER... If you can show me examples of 110 story buildings that collapsed across the street from the subject structure, perhap we can compare the outcomes. I await your list. |
|
