The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[Newstein]

OK, so we're back to slanderous personal attacks.

False ones, at that.

Enjoy your next vacation - maybe when you learn to converse politely we can continue this.

If I would have called you a "selfish little shiteating masonic asshole" , that would be a personal attack.
I'm not that kind of person.

[psikeyhackr]

Dude, my post was sarcastic.

So was mine: Such Brilliance!

psik

[Agi Hammerthief]

and that is all you need to know about psikeyhackr....

[Newstein]

Dude, my post was sarcastic.

So was mine: Such Brilliance!

psik

Hahaha, now I see it.
That was stupid of me !
Brilliant post

[Xaihe]

OK, so we're back to slanderous personal attacks.

False ones, at that.

Enjoy your next vacation - maybe when you learn to converse politely we can continue this.

It's the only way a CTer can cope with all the logic and evidence against their beliefs: ignore the logic and evidence and accuse the messenger of being part of the conspiracy.

[Weaver]

Being accused of being part of a Freemason conspiracy is almost as good as when Galaxian said that I was a "government disinfo agent."

[Newstein]

Being accused of being part of a Freemason conspiracy is almost as good as when Galaxian said that I was a "government disinfo agent."

Mwahahaha

[Weaver]

Being accused of being part of a Freemason conspiracy is almost as good as when Galaxian said that I was a "government disinfo agent."

Mwahahaha

Yeah. Laugh it up. He got sanctioned for the comment - just as I predict you will be sanctioned. Again.

[psikeyhackr]

and that is all you need to know about psikeyhackr....

You will have to read Agi's last 500 posts to figure out if there is anything worth knowing about him. Have fun.

psik

PS - Happy Star Trek Day, maybe we will resolve 9/11 by the 23rd century.

[cyghost]

it has been resolved - maybe by the 23rd century you'll accept it?

[Newstein]

We have witnessed the birth of a new legend, 9/11..

[Sendraks]

That's not a personal attack.

Yes it is. You called Weaver "the biggest ignorant freemason" and that is clearly a personal attack, as it is directed at Weaver rather than his arguments.

It is no more or less a personal attack than if you'd called him "selfish little shiteating masonic asshole."

You're just being ignorant to what I'm saying.

No. No he isn't and if you wanted to accuse him of being ignorant to what he was saying, then you should've used that form of words.

Do you feel insulted if I tell you you are not reading my posts?

That isn't a personal attack, because you're critiquing behaviour rather than the individual.

[felltoearth]

Dude, my post was sarcastic.

So was mine: Such Brilliance!

psik

Hahaha, now I see it.
That was stupid of me !
Brilliant post

Get a room guys!


No seriously. Get a room, shut the door and never come out.

[proudfootz]

This is proof that a building can come down without flying a Boeing into it!



This collapse is due to SOME column that failed and then the whole building came down in its footprint.
btw, those people you see were just chasing some pokemons..

debunking every single 9/11 conspiracy theory one at a time

Such Brilliance!!!

Was that a STEEL FRAME "building" or was it MASONRY?

Steel has a tendency to BEND instead of break up like masonry.

What percentage of the building was above the break point compared to the percentage below?

With the north tower it was less than 14% above the break point.

Your example looks like 50% above and 50% below minus the gape taken out in the middle so that would take Newton's equal and opposite reaction rule into account. So how does 14% destroy 86%? And notice how you can actually see the upper portion hitting the lower portion in your video. Do you see that in the 9/11 videos or do you just see a cloud of dust?

psik

Hmm. Looking at this demolition, we should note that according to Weaver there should be tons of unexploded demolition devices in the rubble.

[Weaver]

This is proof that a building can come down without flying a Boeing into it!



This collapse is due to SOME column that failed and then the whole building came down in its footprint.
btw, those people you see were just chasing some pokemons..

debunking every single 9/11 conspiracy theory one at a time

Such Brilliance!!!

Was that a STEEL FRAME "building" or was it MASONRY?

Steel has a tendency to BEND instead of break up like masonry.

What percentage of the building was above the break point compared to the percentage below?

With the north tower it was less than 14% above the break point.

Your example looks like 50% above and 50% below minus the gape taken out in the middle so that would take Newton's equal and opposite reaction rule into account. So how does 14% destroy 86%? And notice how you can actually see the upper portion hitting the lower portion in your video. Do you see that in the 9/11 videos or do you just see a cloud of dust?

psik

Hmm. Looking at this demolition, we should note that according to Weaver there should be tons of unexploded demolition devices in the rubble.

Unlikely to be "tons", given the small size of that building. But there is likely to be some notable quantity.

If you're going to try to misrepresent me, you could at least make a vague attempt to be somewhat in the same ballpark as my claims are.

[psikeyhackr]

Get a room guys!

No seriously. Get a room, shut the door and never come out.

An invader from the Mafia has come out of his room to comment!

Physics is not a game, sorry.

psik

PS - Happy Star Trek Day, maybe we will resolve 9/11 by the 23rd century.

[proudfootz]

This is proof that a building can come down without flying a Boeing into it!



This collapse is due to SOME column that failed and then the whole building came down in its footprint.
btw, those people you see were just chasing some pokemons..

debunking every single 9/11 conspiracy theory one at a time

Such Brilliance!!!

Was that a STEEL FRAME "building" or was it MASONRY?

Steel has a tendency to BEND instead of break up like masonry.

What percentage of the building was above the break point compared to the percentage below?

With the north tower it was less than 14% above the break point.

Your example looks like 50% above and 50% below minus the gape taken out in the middle so that would take Newton's equal and opposite reaction rule into account. So how does 14% destroy 86%? And notice how you can actually see the upper portion hitting the lower portion in your video. Do you see that in the 9/11 videos or do you just see a cloud of dust?

psik

Hmm. Looking at this demolition, we should note that according to Weaver there should be tons of unexploded demolition devices in the rubble.

Unlikely to be "tons", given the small size of that building. But there is likely to be some notable quantity.

If you're going to try to misrepresent me, you could at least make a vague attempt to be somewhat in the same ballpark as my claims are.

Given the 'pulled from your ass' nature of your original claim, it's entirely appropriate to mock the idiocy of your post.

[Weaver]

Such Brilliance!!!

Was that a STEEL FRAME "building" or was it MASONRY?

Steel has a tendency to BEND instead of break up like masonry.

What percentage of the building was above the break point compared to the percentage below?

With the north tower it was less than 14% above the break point.

Your example looks like 50% above and 50% below minus the gape taken out in the middle so that would take Newton's equal and opposite reaction rule into account. So how does 14% destroy 86%? And notice how you can actually see the upper portion hitting the lower portion in your video. Do you see that in the 9/11 videos or do you just see a cloud of dust?

psik

Hmm. Looking at this demolition, we should note that according to Weaver there should be tons of unexploded demolition devices in the rubble.

Unlikely to be "tons", given the small size of that building. But there is likely to be some notable quantity.

If you're going to try to misrepresent me, you could at least make a vague attempt to be somewhat in the same ballpark as my claims are.

Given the 'pulled from your ass' nature of your original claim, it's entirely appropriate to mock the idiocy of your post.

Not at all pulled from my ass - based on actual experience with explosives, something you and other denialists are entirely lacking. Kickouts and other failures are not uncommon; residue is virtually assured. But keep denying this reality just as you deny the rest if it makes holding onto your dreams and delusions easier for you.

[proudfootz]

Hmm. Looking at this demolition, we should note that according to Weaver there should be tons of unexploded demolition devices in the rubble.

Unlikely to be "tons", given the small size of that building. But there is likely to be some notable quantity.

If you're going to try to misrepresent me, you could at least make a vague attempt to be somewhat in the same ballpark as my claims are.

Given the 'pulled from your ass' nature of your original claim, it's entirely appropriate to mock the idiocy of your post.

Not at all pulled from my ass - based on actual experience with explosives, something you and other denialists are entirely lacking. Kickouts and other failures are not uncommon; residue is virtually assured. But keep denying this reality just as you deny the rest if it makes holding onto your dreams and delusions easier for you.

Tell us more about your expertise in demolition.

[Weaver]

I have never claimed expertise with demolition.

I have, however, truthfully noted that I have experience using explosives. This is something you don't possess. This experience gives me at least a very basic understanding of the behavior of large, complex explosive chains, and of the amount and types of residue typically present after a detonation. A very basic understanding - which, based on your posts, you are entirely lacking in.

Unfortunately, as Dunning and Kruger assessed, your complete lack of even a basic understanding of that behavior doesn't prevent you expressing an opinion worthy of someone with true expertise - or from attacking and mocking me despite my actual experience.