9/11 Conspiracy

[CAPTCHATHIS]

Your agenda is to get recruited by Barnum and Bailey's Circus - your a lying f'n clown!

 

[daws101]

Like a cartoon huh?

Answer a question for me. David Chandler showed a graph of the supposed free fall period right?

If that graph supposedly shows that all the steel was cut at the same time to produce that freefall period, explain why there is .8 seconds worth of slower than freefall just before. Are you saying that the section above the cut steel just hanged in the air for a few seconds like a cartoon before deciding to drop?

Like a cartoon huh?

You got it, just like Popeye's house from cartoon termites.

So why was there a non-freefall period prior to the freefall period in Chandler's graph? What does that indicate to you?

I did not see the graph, however:

A non-freefall period would indicate nothing in terms of how the building was brought down. A non-freefall period (a small one at that) and the use of explosives for example would not necessarily be mutually exclusive.
On the the other hand, the freefall period could only occur after total removal of any and all supporting structures - no resistance to the falling mass. < This happened!

for only 2.5 seconds all that means is that for that tiny amount of time the face of wtc7 hit nothing as it fell. well within the laws of probability
and is no indication of explosive use.

well within the laws of probability

hahahaaa

It free fell through 8 stories of the building!!

Like a cartoon huh?

Answer a question for me. David Chandler showed a graph of the supposed free fall period right?

If that graph supposedly shows that all the steel was cut at the same time to produce that freefall period, explain why there is .8 seconds worth of slower than freefall just before. Are you saying that the section above the cut steel just hanged in the air for a few seconds like a cartoon before deciding to drop?

Like a cartoon huh?

You got it, just like Popeye's house from cartoon termites.

So why was there a non-freefall period prior to the freefall period in Chandler's graph? What does that indicate to you?

I did not see the graph, however:

A non-freefall period would indicate nothing in terms of how the building was brought down. A non-freefall period (a small one at that) and the use of explosives for example would not necessarily be mutually exclusive.
On the the other hand, the freefall period could only occur after total removal of any and all supporting structures - no resistance to the falling mass. < This happened!

for only 2.5 seconds all that means is that for that tiny amount of time the face of wtc7 hit nothing as it fell. well within the laws of probability
and is no indication of explosive use.

well within the laws of probability

hahahaaa

It free fell through 8 stories of the building!!

and? your point?
oh that's, right you have none

 

[daws101]

Your agenda is to get recruited by Barnum and Bailey's Circus - your a lying f'n clown!

so as always you need to make shit up as you have no real proof
speaking of clowns, you're Corny the brown nosed clown.

 

[daws101]

You got it, just like Popeye's house from cartoon termites.

So why was there a non-freefall period prior to the freefall period in Chandler's graph? What does that indicate to you?

I did not see the graph, however:

A non-freefall period would indicate nothing in terms of how the building was brought down. A non-freefall period (a small one at that) and the use of explosives for example would not necessarily be mutually exclusive.
On the the other hand, the freefall period could only occur after total removal of any and all supporting structures - no resistance to the falling mass. < This happened!

for only 2.5 seconds all that means is that for that tiny amount of time the face of wtc7 hit nothing as it fell. well within the laws of probability
and is no indication of explosive use.

well within the laws of probability

hahahaaa

It free fell through 8 stories of the building!!

You got it, just like Popeye's house from cartoon termites.

So why was there a non-freefall period prior to the freefall period in Chandler's graph? What does that indicate to you?

I did not see the graph, however:

A non-freefall period would indicate nothing in terms of how the building was brought down. A non-freefall period (a small one at that) and the use of explosives for example would not necessarily be mutually exclusive.
On the the other hand, the freefall period could only occur after total removal of any and all supporting structures - no resistance to the falling mass. < This happened!

for only 2.5 seconds all that means is that for that tiny amount of time the face of wtc7 hit nothing as it fell. well within the laws of probability
and is no indication of explosive use.

well within the laws of probability

hahahaaa

It free fell through 8 stories of the building!!

and? your point?
oh that's, right you have none

oh and since it was the façade, it's impossible for it to fall through that OR ANY BUILDING.

 

[daws101]

Yes that would be your type of logic, dismiss basic physics or other facts because they don't fit your agenda.

You're a fraud and you prove it over and over and over again.

how am I a fraud....?

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

Your agenda is to get recruited by Barnum and Bailey's Circus - your a lying f'n clown!

so as always you need to make shit up as you have no real proof
speaking of clowns, you're Corny the brown nosed clown.

To show that I'm a nice guy and I mean well - a word of advice ...
(You might want to save yourself some embarrassment and delete that before someone actually reads it)

 

[daws101]

Your agenda is to get recruited by Barnum and Bailey's Circus - your a lying f'n clown!

so as always you need to make shit up as you have no real proof
speaking of clowns, you're Corny the brown nosed clown.

To show that I'm a nice guy and I mean well - a word of advice ...
(You might want to save yourself some embarrassment and delete that before someone actually reads it)

nothing I've said is embarrassing....to me or anyone who's not conspiracy obsessed or mentally unstable.
that leaves you out...
a twoofer giving advice......the irony!
still no proof I'm a fraud....

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

Your agenda is to get recruited by Barnum and Bailey's Circus - your a lying f'n clown!

so as always you need to make shit up as you have no real proof
speaking of clowns, you're Corny the brown nosed clown.

To show that I'm a nice guy and I mean well - a word of advice ...
(You might want to save yourself some embarrassment and delete that before someone actually reads it)

nothing I've said is embarrassing....to me or anyone who's not conspiracy obsessed or mentally unstable.
that leaves you out...
a twoofer giving advice......the irony!
still no proof I'm a fraud....

Obviously you are the one that's obsessed, you're on here as much as anyone "defending" the "official conspiracy theory" that you claim needs no defending against a truth movement that's "dead" -- or perhaps there's really something you're afraid of??

 

[Gamolon]

How ironic for you to say this!

You're the one saying WTC7 came down like a cartoon --because of an office fire!

Like a cartoon huh?

Answer a question for me. David Chandler showed a graph of the supposed free fall period right?

If that graph supposedly shows that all the steel was cut at the same time to produce that freefall period, explain why there is .8 seconds worth of slower than freefall just before. Are you saying that the section above the cut steel just hanged in the air for a few seconds like a cartoon before deciding to drop?

Like a cartoon huh?

You got it, just like Popeye's house from cartoon termites.

So why was there a non-freefall period prior to the freefall period in Chandler's graph? What does that indicate to you?

I did not see the graph, however:

A non-freefall period would indicate nothing in terms of how the building was brought down. A non-freefall period (a small one at that) and the use of explosives for example would not necessarily be mutually exclusive.
On the the other hand, the freefall period could only occur after total removal of any and all supporting structures - no resistance to the falling mass. < This happened!

That's where you're wrong.

The non free fall period indicates that something was in the process of failing/losing strength and NOT immediately severed. The fact that there WAS a non-freefall period indicates that your belief that all the supports over 8 floors were severed at the same time is complete fallacy. If what you claim was true, free-fall would have begun the moment the roof started it's downward movement when all the supports were severed.

Get it now?

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

You're the one saying WTC7 came down like a cartoon --because of an office fire!

Like a cartoon huh?

Answer a question for me. David Chandler showed a graph of the supposed free fall period right?

If that graph supposedly shows that all the steel was cut at the same time to produce that freefall period, explain why there is .8 seconds worth of slower than freefall just before. Are you saying that the section above the cut steel just hanged in the air for a few seconds like a cartoon before deciding to drop?

Like a cartoon huh?

You got it, just like Popeye's house from cartoon termites.

So why was there a non-freefall period prior to the freefall period in Chandler's graph? What does that indicate to you?

I did not see the graph, however:

A non-freefall period would indicate nothing in terms of how the building was brought down. A non-freefall period (a small one at that) and the use of explosives for example would not necessarily be mutually exclusive.
On the the other hand, the freefall period could only occur after total removal of any and all supporting structures - no resistance to the falling mass. < This happened!

That's where you're wrong.

The non free fall period indicates that something was in the process of failing/losing strength and NOT immediately severed. The fact that there WAS a non-freefall period indicates that your belief that all the supports over 8 floors were severed at the same time is complete fallacy. If what you claim was true, free-fall would have begun the moment the roof started it's downward movement when all the supports were severed.

Get it now?

For starters I never said "all the supports over 8 floors were severed at the same time." Obviously each floor could be 'removed' progressively, so long as they offered no resistance. Still, all I said was that it experienced a free fall through 8 stories.

As to you're point, and I didn't see the model so I am not conceding a .8 second non free fall period.
But if it's as you say, you're making the assumption that what caused the .8 second of non free fall movement is the same "event" that caused the 8 story free fall.
Put another way:
The roof starting it's descent isn't necessarily caused by the same thing as that which caused the 8 story free fall -- it could be the result of something that occurred first in a series of rapidly occurring 'events.'

But you already know that....

 

[Gamolon]

For starters I never said "all the supports over 8 floors were severed at the same time." Obviously each floor could be 'removed' progressively, so long as they offered no resistance. Still, all I said was that it experienced a free fall through 8 stories.

As to you're point, and I didn't see the model so I am not conceding a .8 second non free fall period.
But if it's as you say, you're making the assumption that what caused the .8 second of non free fall movement is the same "event" that caused the 8 story free fall.
Put another way:
The roof starting it's descent isn't necessarily caused by the same thing as that which caused the 8 story free fall -- it could be the result of something that occurred first in a series of rapidly occurring 'events.'

But you already know that....

No it wasn't a different event.

The point on the roofline that was used to measure free-fall movement, from beginning (the non-free-fall past AND the free-fall part) to end, moved downward along with the REST of the roofline. Whatever event initiated the downward movement of the roofline affected the WHOLE roofline.

Do you not even understand what truthers are claiming? They say that the entirety of what remained of WT7 came down SYMMETRICALLY. That all vertical supports for eight floors were severed. That is why there was 2.25 seconds of free-fall. There cannot be different parts of the building falling at different times or speeds. That goes against everyting they are claiming.

Or are you disagreeing with what the other truthers believe?

 

[Gamolon]

The roof starting it's descent isn't necessarily caused by the same thing as that which caused the 8 story free fall -- it could be the result of something that occurred first in a series of rapidly occurring 'events.

Then what was it? Couldn't have been explosives because that would have generated immediate free-fall.

Consider this also. The graph that shows free-fall is an AVERAGE of data points taken at various times during the roofline descent. An AVERAGE based on points HIGHER and LOWER than free-fall speeds. How do you explain those data points?

 

[daws101]

Your agenda is to get recruited by Barnum and Bailey's Circus - your a lying f'n clown!

so as always you need to make shit up as you have no real proof
speaking of clowns, you're Corny the brown nosed clown.

To show that I'm a nice guy and I mean well - a word of advice ...
(You might want to save yourself some embarrassment and delete that before someone actually reads it)

nothing I've said is embarrassing....to me or anyone who's not conspiracy obsessed or mentally unstable.
that leaves you out...
a twoofer giving advice......the irony!
still no proof I'm a fraud....

Obviously you are the one that's obsessed, you're on here as much as anyone "defending" the "official conspiracy theory" that you claim needs no defending against a truth movement that's "dead" -- or perhaps there's really something you're afraid of??

wow the classic IT'S you who's nuts and not me defense.
every psyco nut sack ever has used that ploy.
as to your oft used complete misrepresentation there is no official conspiracy..

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

For starters I never said "all the supports over 8 floors were severed at the same time." Obviously each floor could be 'removed' progressively, so long as they offered no resistance. Still, all I said was that it experienced a free fall through 8 stories.

As to you're point, and I didn't see the model so I am not conceding a .8 second non free fall period.
But if it's as you say, you're making the assumption that what caused the .8 second of non free fall movement is the same "event" that caused the 8 story free fall.
Put another way:
The roof starting it's descent isn't necessarily caused by the same thing as that which caused the 8 story free fall -- it could be the result of something that occurred first in a series of rapidly occurring 'events.'

But you already know that....

No it wasn't a different event.

The point on the roofline that was used to measure free-fall movement, from beginning (the non-free-fall past AND the free-fall part) to end, moved downward along with the REST of the roofline. Whatever event initiated the downward movement of the roofline affected the WHOLE roofline.

Do you not even understand what truthers are claiming? They say that the entirety of what remained of WT7 came down SYMMETRICALLY. That all vertical supports for eight floors were severed. That is why there was 2.25 seconds of free-fall. There cannot be different parts of the building falling at different times or speeds. That goes against everyting they are claiming.

Or are you disagreeing with what the other truthers believe?

What we see is ABSOLUTELY a building coming down SYMMETRICALLY.
NIST knew for this to occur it would require all the columns on any given floor to give way at precisely the same time and this would need to occur for every floor -an impossibility for an office fire. So they came up with the crazy story that as we watch the building with seemingly nothing happening it's actually collapsing in a haphazard Asymmetrical manner on the inside -with the outer building shell hiding this from view - then the shell collapses symmetrically.

Different events, like pistons firing in an engine are unique events -they may start slow and accelerate -the motion of the car however is one continuous flow

 

[daws101]

For starters I never said "all the supports over 8 floors were severed at the same time." Obviously each floor could be 'removed' progressively, so long as they offered no resistance. Still, all I said was that it experienced a free fall through 8 stories.

As to you're point, and I didn't see the model so I am not conceding a .8 second non free fall period.
But if it's as you say, you're making the assumption that what caused the .8 second of non free fall movement is the same "event" that caused the 8 story free fall.
Put another way:
The roof starting it's descent isn't necessarily caused by the same thing as that which caused the 8 story free fall -- it could be the result of something that occurred first in a series of rapidly occurring 'events.'

But you already know that....

No it wasn't a different event.

The point on the roofline that was used to measure free-fall movement, from beginning (the non-free-fall past AND the free-fall part) to end, moved downward along with the REST of the roofline. Whatever event initiated the downward movement of the roofline affected the WHOLE roofline.

Do you not even understand what truthers are claiming? They say that the entirety of what remained of WT7 came down SYMMETRICALLY. That all vertical supports for eight floors were severed. That is why there was 2.25 seconds of free-fall. There cannot be different parts of the building falling at different times or speeds. That goes against everyting they are claiming.

Or are you disagreeing with what the other truthers believe?

What we see is ABSOLUTELY a building coming down SYMMETRICALLY.
NIST knew for this to occur it would require all the columns on any given floor to give way at precisely the same time and this would need to occur for every floor -an impossibility for an office fire. So they came up with the crazy story that as we watch the building with seemingly nothing happening it's actually collapsing in a haphazard Asymmetrical manner on the inside -with the outer building shell hiding this from view - then the shell collapses symmetrically.

Different events, like pistons firing in an engine are unique events -they may start slow and accelerate -the motion of the car however is one continuous flow

that's not the best bullshit I read all day ,but it's close.

before you use a word know what it means..
Definition of symmetrical (adj)
Bing Dictionary

• sym·met·ri·cal
• [ si méttrik'l ]

1. exhibiting symmetry: in which parts on either side of a central dividing line correspond to each other or are identical to each other
2. balanced: relating to or having balanced proportions, especially in two halves of a whole
3. with pairs of points: describes two points that can be joined by a line bisected by a specific point or perpendicular, or a shape that has such pairs of points

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

The roof starting it's descent isn't necessarily caused by the same thing as that which caused the 8 story free fall -- it could be the result of something that occurred first in a series of rapidly occurring 'events.

Then what was it? Couldn't have been explosives because that would have generated immediate free-fall.

Consider this also. The graph that shows free-fall is an AVERAGE of data points taken at various times during the roofline descent. An AVERAGE based on points HIGHER and LOWER than free-fall speeds. How do you explain those data points?

How about you explain to me how the columns throughout the entire horizontal plane of the building collapse at precisely the same time for every floor? - and how it happens on 8 separate floors in a manner that they offer no resistance?

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

For starters I never said "all the supports over 8 floors were severed at the same time." Obviously each floor could be 'removed' progressively, so long as they offered no resistance. Still, all I said was that it experienced a free fall through 8 stories.

As to you're point, and I didn't see the model so I am not conceding a .8 second non free fall period.
But if it's as you say, you're making the assumption that what caused the .8 second of non free fall movement is the same "event" that caused the 8 story free fall.
Put another way:
The roof starting it's descent isn't necessarily caused by the same thing as that which caused the 8 story free fall -- it could be the result of something that occurred first in a series of rapidly occurring 'events.'

But you already know that....

No it wasn't a different event.

The point on the roofline that was used to measure free-fall movement, from beginning (the non-free-fall past AND the free-fall part) to end, moved downward along with the REST of the roofline. Whatever event initiated the downward movement of the roofline affected the WHOLE roofline.

Do you not even understand what truthers are claiming? They say that the entirety of what remained of WT7 came down SYMMETRICALLY. That all vertical supports for eight floors were severed. That is why there was 2.25 seconds of free-fall. There cannot be different parts of the building falling at different times or speeds. That goes against everyting they are claiming.

Or are you disagreeing with what the other truthers believe?

What we see is ABSOLUTELY a building coming down SYMMETRICALLY.
NIST knew for this to occur it would require all the columns on any given floor to give way at precisely the same time and this would need to occur for every floor -an impossibility for an office fire. So they came up with the crazy story that as we watch the building with seemingly nothing happening it's actually collapsing in a haphazard Asymmetrical manner on the inside -with the outer building shell hiding this from view - then the shell collapses symmetrically.

Different events, like pistons firing in an engine are unique events -they may start slow and accelerate -the motion of the car however is one continuous flow

that's not the best bullshit I read all day ,but it's close.

before you use a word know what it means..
Definition of symmetrical (adj)
Bing Dictionary

• sym·met·ri·cal
• [ si méttrik'l ]

1. exhibiting symmetry: in which parts on either side of a central dividing line correspond to each other or are identical to each other
2. balanced: relating to or having balanced proportions, especially in two halves of a whole
3. with pairs of points: describes two points that can be joined by a line bisected by a specific point or perpendicular, or a shape that has such pairs of points

Speaking of shit, shouldn't you be shoveling elephant dung at the circus right about now?

 

[daws101]

The roof starting it's descent isn't necessarily caused by the same thing as that which caused the 8 story free fall -- it could be the result of something that occurred first in a series of rapidly occurring 'events.

Then what was it? Couldn't have been explosives because that would have generated immediate free-fall.

Consider this also. The graph that shows free-fall is an AVERAGE of data points taken at various times during the roofline descent. An AVERAGE based on points HIGHER and LOWER than free-fall speeds. How do you explain those data points?

How about you explain to me how the columns throughout the entire horizontal plane of the building collapse at precisely the same time for every floor? - and how it happens on 8 separate floors in a manner that they offer no resistance?

they did not! end of explanation.

 

[daws101]

 

[daws101]