The 9/11 Attacks: Pardon Me But This Is Just Absolute Comedy!

Discussion in '9/11' started by Quantumhead, Dec 18, 2013.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,742
    Likes Received:
    1,804
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yeh if you talking about cjnewtons you tube channel?
    I would get a better education about 911 watching paint dry.
     
  2. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,917
    Likes Received:
    27,433
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It wasn't fires alone, even with WTC7.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. EggKiller

    EggKiller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    6,650
    Likes Received:
    483
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yes, ones a cartoon and the other is Hollywood special effects. Thanks for the test.
     
  4. EggKiller

    EggKiller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    6,650
    Likes Received:
    483
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yes there were people with supposed credentials offering evidence. Why were there no experts with credentials receiving it?
     
  5. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Any moment of freefall in a global collapse of a building is only possible by removing the key vertical support structures within seconds of each other. Fire can not do that even to a damaged building. Newton's third law of motion is elementary.
     
  6. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,742
    Likes Received:
    1,804
    Trophy Points:
    113

    well then these dablunderers are gonna be very disappointed in you because truthers arent allowed to be experts in 911 discussions only those pushing dablunderer sites are allowed to be experts! You should ask sergeant lefty to tell you his ever growing list of expert qualifications.
     
  7. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because of the big picture. 9/11 was an inside job. Read the report or don't. I could not care less. The truth is on the side of the truthers.
     
  8. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why did they include theologians with reading comprehension problems like that drooling moron MacQueen?
     
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,742
    Likes Received:
    1,804
    Trophy Points:
    113

    so you expect that if your house has a couple broken windows that the whole thing will simply cave right in huh?

    what deblonder site did you get that one from?

    That wants us to believe purely superficial meaningless damage would make a building fall directly in its own foot print?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Now that I would like to see, a theologian with reading comprehension problems. you got a citation for that

    so all you got in your egg basket is calling real experts names and nothing to substantiate it?

    sounds pretty political to me.
     
  10. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,742
    Likes Received:
    1,804
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it took someone who is nothing less that a true saint to explain to one of the debunkers complete with a huge set of pictorials the concept of freefall and after 500 posts the debunker still didnt get it.

    does that tell you something? (think it dont put it in text, they will report you) LOL
     
  11. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,464
    Likes Received:
    14,677
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "couple broken windows"

    lol!!!!!!!!!! you 9-11 Deniers make me giggle. :) :roflol:

    - - - Updated - - -

    no, 9-11 Truth is all about lies, bigotry, and Fascism.
     
  12. EggKiller

    EggKiller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    6,650
    Likes Received:
    483
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I have no idea who any of those panelists are. Just like to use common sense. Filling a panel concerning an investigation requiring engineering skills with shrinks and anthropologists doesn't make sense to me. I could spout enough crap about construction to make any housewife believe me. Doesn't make I or the housewife an expert on building engineering.
    Either it was a colossal blunder or they already knew what result they wanted.
     
  13. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,742
    Likes Received:
    1,804
    Trophy Points:
    113

    wow you are doing pretty good for someone who admits you are only a layman and not qualified in any area to do forensic analysis.

    [video=youtube;ZHng42BpHDc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHng42BpHDc[/video]

    however nist did in fact say they have no evidence of pancaking.

    and since you want to get into this why not tell us how trusses that can no longer support their designed loads can possibly have the strength to pull in the outer section of the building after they are weakened when they could not pull it in when they were at full strength?

    I wanted an explanation from the OSH's on the board but they close their eyes and ears and run like hell instead.

    [​IMG]



    oh since you most likely dont know the above is a stress model, blue means very little red means overloaded. I posted this before but the experts didnt seem get it.
     
  14. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, they do. What retarded SOB told you they do not? An airplane broke some of the floors before the fires even started, so some of them were already over-loaded with debris when the fire started. Have I gone over your head yet? When the load upon a floor exceeds the capacity of the floor to support it, it falls down and goes BOOM. Now, do any of you kids have some kind of arresting mechanism to offer that will stop that next floor from falling down and going BOOM on the next floor?
    It is called "REALITY." Come visit some time. Try not to touch anything that you do not understand, though. We don't need you people shorting it out.

    What retarded djinn taught you that that model has anything to do with phenomena occurring within the WTC? There is no resemblance of any kind to the construction of the floors. THERE ARE NO CONCRETE SLABS. There are arresting structures within the structure. There were no arresting structures within the towers.

    That is a stupid thing to say. When floors fail, they go BOOM because of a sudden compression and release of air and the collisions between solid objects.

    When you detonate a demolitions charge, the noise is as audible as a howitzer blast all the way out to Hoboken.

    Nobody in Hoboken heard or recorded demolition blasts.

    No. I am saying that the connections FAILED due to heat and distortion which caused force to be applied along the wrong vectors, thus loading them to the failure point.
     
  15. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,464
    Likes Received:
    14,677
    Trophy Points:
    113
    dude, you're wasting your time with a No-Planer.
     
  16. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What retarded djinn told you that?
     
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,742
    Likes Received:
    1,804
    Trophy Points:
    113
    thats not my position. stop inventing garbage definitions.
    YOu know full well I am a "PROVE the planer"
    Oh thats right no one has been able to do that yet have they.
     
  18. EggKiller

    EggKiller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    6,650
    Likes Received:
    483
    Trophy Points:
    83
    [​IMG]



    oh since you most likely dont know the above is a stress model, blue means very little red means overloaded. I posted this before but the experts didnt seem get it.[/QUOTE]

    Maybe I can help. Your graph page 129. Notice the red part under great stress? That's a relatively thin rod under tension to keep the truss acting as a truss. Your graph shows it to be at 12,000+ lbs of tension. That's pull to you and I. There is no other direction those rods are designed to work besides pull. That's the pull you've been looking for. The part under the greatest stress is the tension rod which does nothin but pull.
     
  19. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,464
    Likes Received:
    14,677
    Trophy Points:
    113
    one tenth of a second of collapse at the speed of gravity, is evidence of a controlled demolition???

    lol!!!!!

    you surely have neither a bachelors nor associates degree in engineering or architecture.
     
  20. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,742
    Likes Received:
    1,804
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the tension on that rod is toward the connector the tension on the top if the truss is away from the connector, nist claims the walls were pulled in.

    - - - Updated - - -

    the tension on that rod is toward the connector the tension on the top if the truss is away from the connector, nist claims the walls were pulled in up to 5 feet. its the connector that holds the truss to the walls which did not break or they could not pull in the walls.

    pretty simple stuff really
     
  21. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Please provide evidence that such a thing existed.



    Oh it's quite easy. The buildings weighed half a million tons each, so divide that by 110. Now you just need to learn Newton's third law and you'll be all set to know what in the hell you're talking about. Resistance to gravity is accumulative, not singular. You don't calculate the weight of a compromised mass against each individual floor at a time because that contradicts the laws of physics. And the laws of maths, because it proposes that 93 x 1 (floors) < 1 x 93 (floors).[/QUOTE]Gobbeldygook. What did you think that that proved?
     
  22. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,742
    Likes Received:
    1,804
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gobbeldygook. What did you think that that proved?[/QUOTE]

    but the cement was pulverized mid air and went floating through the city where did all this weight come from that you think existed?

    [​IMG]


    you cant have it both ways at once why do you keep pushing that crap from those dabungler sites?



    the cement was turned to powder and floated away!
     
  23. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sir Isaac Newton
     
  24. EggKiller

    EggKiller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    6,650
    Likes Received:
    483
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Impossible. Those rods are of such a diameter they can only function in pull mode. If I'm reading you right your suggesting they were pushing. That's impossible. They would buckle immediately.
     
  25. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Postulating the existence of a non-existant substance is not a sign of rational thought, is it?

    The post was a proper response to those who postulate TH3.
     

Share This Page