The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[Agi Hammerthief]

13 years?
People who can count are SO IMPRESSIVE!

so, not only was there a gigantic conspiracy, but also it was pulled off overnight?
now THAT is really impressive

you don't fall for US Gubbmint propaganda, except when it concerns the ability to pull off whatever, eh?

I guess we are all lucky we don't buy into your stuff, or else we'd all be killed, in totally coincidential accidents, by now
just to keep the truth from spreading

[psikeyhackr]

13 years?
People who can count are SO IMPRESSIVE!

so, not only was there a gigantic conspiracy, but also it was pulled off overnight?
now THAT is really impressive

you don't fall for US Gubbmint propaganda, except when it concerns the ability to pull off whatever, eh?

Care to provide a link to where I talk about the government besides pointing out nonsense in the NCSTAR1 report?

Care to point out where I say who did what, or why? I DO NOT GIVE A DAMN!!! It is only a Physics problem.

But of course our engineering schools should be dealing with physics problems. How about modelling them?

[111194]
psik

[Agi Hammerthief]

DO NOT GIVE A DAMN!!! It is only a Physics problem.

if you get so buthurt about it, you shouldn't make fun of someones post, when they clearly NOT talk about physics, but the alleged conspiracy

[psikeyhackr]

DO NOT GIVE A DAMN!!! It is only a Physics problem.

if you get so buthurt about it, you shouldn't make fun of someones post, when they clearly NOT talk about physics, but the alleged conspiracy

13 YEARS is about TIME. That brings in physics.

It is one of those space-time continuum things. LOL

psik

[Agi Hammerthief]

damn

you really got the hang of trolling without violating the FUA by now

impressive !

[Moridin]

Responding to a typo instead of the actual argument? Must be very hard to raise up to that supreme level of intellectual honesty and integrity.

[psikeyhackr]

Responding to a typo instead of the actual argument? Must be very hard to raise up to that supreme level of intellectual honesty and integrity.

If you want to present an "ARGUMENT" by talking about Bill Clinton and "blowjobs" that is your business. But with that crap you just make yourself look ridiculous complaining about typos. Blowjobs in relation to 9/11 have something to do with intellectual honesty?

ROFLMAO

Quote me on whatever I have said about conspiracies and I will consider responding. Otherwise you can talk about conspiracies all you want.

psik

[Weaver]

No, psikeyhackr doesn't buy into conspiracy theories. He never claims to know how the towers collapsed, or to speculate on what could have caused the collapses. All he knows is that reality didn't happen the way it happened.

[Moridin]

No, psikeyhackr doesn't buy into conspiracy theories. He never claims to know how the towers collapsed, or to speculate on what could have caused the collapses. All he knows is that reality didn't happen the way it happened.

That tactic is usually called JAQing off. Never state anything about their own positions and just hide behind "asking questions".

[psikeyhackr]

All he knows is that reality didn't happen the way it happened.

What a great misinterpretation!

What I know is that the CLAIMED REALITY has not been explained. People are just supposed to BELIEVE on the basis of the limited amount they can see. Of course we cannot see the core during the so called COLLAPSE. And cannot even be told the location of the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower. And then no one even tries to explain why that tilted top portion did not fall down the side.

SEE! It just happened!



[111366]
psik

[psikeyhackr]

No, psikeyhackr doesn't buy into conspiracy theories. He never claims to know how the towers collapsed, or to speculate on what could have caused the collapses. All he knows is that reality didn't happen the way it happened.

That tactic is usually called JAQing off.

More Bill Clinton and Blowjob type stuff. Maybe you should see a psychiatrist about that.

Arguing about what can only be based on circumstantial evidence is idiotic.

But then our engineering schools haven't been able to model the "reality" of complete collapse. Which ones have even tried? Which ones have said NOTHING official about 9/11 in 11 years and 10 months? I guess that qualifies as not JAQing off.

Pointing out that the NIST never specifies the total amount of concrete in the towers is not just asking questions. Building a physical model isn't either. Suggesting using 3D printers to make larger and more precise models isn't either. Is there an acronym for just tossing off insults? You at least try to be good at that.

psik

[Onyx8]

!	GENERAL MODNOTE Topic locked for review

[Onyx8]

!

MODNOTE Psikeyhackr, this post and this post are deemed inflammatory and therefore you have earned a warning. Please review your posts before hitting the submit button in order to stay within the spirit and the word of the Forum Users' Agreement in the future, thanks. Please do not discuss moderation issues in this thread. If you wish to discuss moderation issues, please PM me or another Moderator.

[Onyx8]

!	GENERAL MODNOTE the_5th_ape, in this post you use a members name as a form of epithet. This could be considered inflammatory; please refrain from doing so again.

[Agi Hammerthief]

And then no one even tries to explain why that tilted top portion did not fall down the side.

do away with the lies already, we've been over this:

December 2010

June 2012

what shall the lurkers think of you

[psikeyhackr]

And then no one even tries to explain why that tilted top portion did not fall down the side.

do away with the lies already, we've been over this:

December 2010

what shall the lurkers think of you

I suppose that can qualify as TRY but it is really just silly babble.

I am happy to encourage anyone to TRY and read that and make sense of it.

psik

[psikeyhackr]

The moderators are sure getting nit-picky these days.

psik

[Weaver]

And then no one even tries to explain why that tilted top portion did not fall down the side.

do away with the lies already, we've been over this:

December 2010

what shall the lurkers think of you

I suppose that can qualify as TRY but it is really just silly babble.

I am happy to encourage anyone to TRY and read that and make sense of it.

psik

Why did you eliminate one of his links when you replied, without acknowledgement? Appears dishonest ...

And I read it, and it made perfect sense - completely refuted your assertion that the "top block" should have slipped over the side instead of generating a top-down collapse within the basic footprint of the building.

[Agi Hammerthief]

I suppose that can qualify as TRY but it is really just silly babble.

that's really rich soming from someone who can't compose a post thats more than just three-liners of the same old BS

Pointing out that the NIST never specifies the total amount of concrete in the towers is not just asking questions.

very true, to people who know that the report specifies the surface area per level and the weight of concrete per square meter, it is actually a display of epic lazyness;
but of cause it is easier to JAQ off on the topic than doing some simple math.

I have long ago given you page referrences to those numbers,
Those pages must have looked too much like silly babble, eh?

[psikeyhackr]

Why did you eliminate one of his links when you replied, without acknowledgement? Appears dishonest ...

As you wish but I regarded as even more ridiculous than the first one so I wasn't going to even comment on it, so I didn't bother to list it.

psik