[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still
I'm kind of reminded of a JFK conspiracist on International Skeptics a few years ago who produced a blurry black-and-white photo taken from a press car in the Dallas motorcade, looking ahead down Elm to the underpass, and he'd circled two light areas which he said were 'puffs of gunsmoke on the grassy knoll.' Except rifles have not puffed smoke like that since the 1890s, a rifl
Citation needed for the Judy Wood quote.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
That is probably working out for her, but it’s also a narcissistic thing. You promote a spurious theory so daft that most people won't believe it, then you claim to be superior to the sheeple because you see into the secret heart of things.
The part with the bullets not firing themselves in the fire is a little strange. Either she's just throwing everything she can find at this argument that might stick - which I think is a huge mistake if you're trying to claim something that can be tested or she really thinks there is some other magical force that is accomplishing something that she thinks is outrageous (which isn't), or at least assumes that others won't know the difference.
The fact that she either truly believes that there is some additional hidden force accomplishing literally nothing at all or just alluding to this force as to help her accomplish this argument is really incredible, actually.
Define physics.
Define momentum.
Or retract your statements that include words you cannot define.
Jump in a lake idiot. Admit you don't understand basic physics, how about that. You are not worth talking to. I'm not wasting my time. I'm only here to laugh at you until you fix your basic physics errors. You won't so you get nothing but derision from me.
I've toyed with the idea that it is actually Judy Wood and (s)he is just brain damaged. Something is definitely going on in that brain that shouldn't be.To be clear, I don't think it is, but it is very strange how hard he goes for her. It takes a LOT of willful denial of reality to believe her.Just think for a second what it would mean if those floors STOPPED every time they st
Even d2 must be losing the faith. I mean, what is actually going on here? Who is this gorgo arguing with?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
@Gorgo - I'm pretty sure that in his circular reasoning addled brain it works something like this:
Building was dustified --> there was no collapsing mass --> collapse couldn't have happened that quickly --> building didn't collapse but was dustified.
That is point 3. The final analysis.
Point 1 we debunk the nonsensical buffoonary known as "the inward buckle". For the buckling mass resists changes to its motion. This is called inertia. The inward buckle negates a free fall rate (or gorgo's own patented longer than free fall cos loltubz).
Secondly there was not the mass remaining post "collapse".
Lastly to the models predicted in the book that include multiple best-case (for NIST) scenarios. A minimum of 27 s collapse time. And that excludes all the other evidence even being considered. On its face it is dead, by Newtonian mechanical law, the NIST wacko story, and the gorgo long fall twist are impossible.
Just "basic physics" in the words of someone special.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
That is point 3. The final analysis.Point 1 we debunk the nonsensical buffoonary known as "the inward buckle". For the buckling mass resists changes to its motion. This is called inertia. The inward buckle negates a free fall rate (or gorgo's own patented longer than free fall cos loltubz).Secondly there was not the mass remaining post "collapse".Lastly to the models predicted
Your minimum 27s collapse time assumes most of the mass was dustified, correct?
What is your minimum collapse time if most of the mass had not been dustified?
I personally watched one of the towers collapse. LOL at saying that there was no collapsing mass. Also, if the buildings were dustified in the way he describes, how did we end up with such an immense amount of non-dustified wreckage and debris at ground zero?
It was not immense, by any stretch of the imagination. There was nowhere near enough material for a conventional collpase.
We all personally watched the event and have seen it multiple times. If you mean you were there then so what. You still waited for TV to tell you what you saw.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Yes by the masses of primary evidence.
"Oh but 1.8 million tonnes said the TV the TV said the TV".
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Your source for the 1.8 million tonnes figure being false is Judy Wood, correct? What is her source? Why should I believe you (or her) rather than the TV?
This annoying habit you have of evasively latching onto a tangential point or an aside like a leech is just that, very ****ing annoying. The centrifugal force part is not important, the point is that terrestrial gravitation is the same thing as universal gravitation. It is the force exerted by the mass of the earth according to the law of universal gravitation.
Ok you cannot define centrifugal force yet you see fit to use the term to me, a subject matter expert by comparison to you. Let us leave that there and move on.
Lol no re gravity.
Give the formula for the weight of an object in terms of the gravitational field strength and inertial mass.
Next give the formula describing Newton's law of universal gravitation. Define terms.
Then, if you wish, equate the two, stating any assumptions you make. Give the reasons why you think these assumptions are reasonable.
If you are still fully confident your result is sound, then give the experimental method from which the law of universal gravitation is derived.
Then tell me this is sound physics.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The part with the bullets not firing themselves in the fire is a little strange. Either she's just throwing everything she can find at this argument that might stick - which I think is a huge mistake if you're trying to claim something that can be tested or she really thinks there is some other magical force that is accomplishing something that she thinks is outrageous (which
You may be confusing David Hughes's analysis.
In any case you seem to be lost in the trees. Stand back and see the woods.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ok you cannot define centrifugal force yet you see fit to use the term to me, a subject matter expert by comparison to you. Let us leave that there and move on.Lol no re gravity.Give the formula for the weight of an object in terms of the gravitational field strength and inertial mass.Next give the formula describing Newton's law of universal gravitation. Define terms.Then, if
Good lord the forum is almost completely unusable today. I have to wait like 5 minutes for every action.
I see dumbass has posted a bunch of bullsht again.
What is the source for "not nearly enough debris" please? My number didn't come from "the TV" idiot.
Your minimum 27s collapse time assumes most of the mass was dustified, correct?
What is your minimum collapse time if most of the mass had not been dustified?
Nope the 27 s collapse time has nothing to do with dustification. Dustification is what happened, hardly NIST's claim.
"Inward buckling" would take over 100 s.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Good lord the forum is almost completely unusable today. I have to wait like 5 minutes for every action.
I see dumbass has posted a bunch of bullsht again.
What is the source for "not nearly enough debris" please? My number didn't come from "the TV" idiot.
Oh yes I forgot.
Youtube.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Nope. I note that you would rather guess than give a source yourself. See, they counted the truckloads of debris (over 108,000) and know how much each load weighed. It totaled 1.8 million tons. This info can be found in lots of places including:
Hamill, Denis (September 16, 2001). "Rescue Workers Keep Up Quest for Signs of Life Ruin All Over, But Not One Unkind Word". Daily News (New York).
What's your source? Going to deflect again or just answer, liar?
Looks like we are in for another case of "proof by just look at it"
It was not immense, by any stretch of the imagination. There was nowhere near enough material for a conventional collpase.
We all personally watched the event and have seen it multiple times. If you mean you were there then so what. You still waited for TV to tell you what you saw.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Yes. I mean I personally witnessed it with my own eyes, not on a TV. I didn't have to wait for a TV to tell me what I saw.
