Canadian 9/11 Petition for Parliament
- Thread starter darkbeaver
- Start date
Insults too? Come now.
You've offered explainations of why they fell not how they fell and especially how they fell without toppling.
NIST says no pancaking occured so how did it not topple and what pulverized 425,000 cubic yards of concrete? A Tonka truck?
Oh grow a set! Bouncing around your head is a common figure of speech. And it was chosen as a comical reply to your ludicrous suggestion that things don't bounce in my world.
And it is crack pot.
- Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
- Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
- Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
- Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.
Yep, that's what I said :roll:
If you want to be mature, start with explaining your reason for invoking Newton's third law.
That's because it wasn't symmetrical. I've seen multiple angles. The falling section tilts. Gravity still pulls down though...and the carnage was not symmetrical to the buildings adjacent to the WTC.
Now you are still missing the point, yes the building was built with steel beams, and concrete floors, walls were just hung from the beams, tacked to them so to speak. The buildings were not designed to survive the impact of a fully loaded airliner. If the Empire State building were hit by a plane of that size it would survive, damaged but upright. (You can do the comparing of the differences in construction youself)
Yeah a crackpot. A crackpot with balls who isn't too ashamed to say something about the ****ing obvious.
911 is like buying paint with the wife. You can't tell the difference between lilac and mauve but in your head you are confident you are going home with purple paint without any dirty looks on the way home and that is all that matters because you don't want to look like you're an idiot or weren't paying attention.
911 is like buying paint with the wife. You can't tell the difference between lilac and mauve but in your head you are confident you are going home with purple paint without any dirty looks on the way home and that is all that matters because you don't want to look like you're an idiot or weren't paying attention.
All the data exists to model the event and I am certain every country in the world knows the model cannot reproduce the event.
Shriveled little balls that still won't put forth a cogent explanation of Newton's Third Law, and how it proves the buildings weren't brought down by planes, fuel, and fire.
Getting a straight answer from you is like herding cats.
One simile wasn't enough? It's difficult, too much flux. Imagine a room flooded with water, the drain is the high spot in the room, and all you have to get the water off the floor is a squeegee. It could equally apply to getting a straight answer from you.
**** Face. What did fuel have to do with anything? How did fuel knock down a building?
That's right honey, it's lilac and not mauve.
Not even close to purple.
You get straight simple answers all day, it's your perspective fooling you. You have been educated to resist common sense.
The buildings were designed to survive fully fueled aircraft collision. Kerosene is just lamp fuel.
Fire requires fuel you dumbass. Even kids who eat dirt and earthworms, who stick knives in electrical sockets, who lick frozen cold lamp posts, and eat glue realize that.
Not sure what your excuse is.
Ahh, and human engineers have a perfect track record, right? The Titanic was supposed to be unsinkable. That must have been a conspiracy too according to the Beaver school of common sense.
Not only that, it didn't burn, it exploded. There was nothing left to burn. The black smoke indicated a lack of oxygen in the area of the fires. Too cold to melt steel or cause collapse. The fires were at the peripherals of the building and not at the core. And the guy who engineered the buildings did say they were designed to withstand an aircraft collision.
But it seems that this debate will never go anywhere, with both sides declaring that they have all the proof they need to support their position and calling the other point of view idiotic. It seems that the debate cannot be held without it deteriorating into a pissing match and childish name calling.
It was office furnture that went up in the fireball and the purple jet fuel sat there and ignited the carpet the plane was tangled up in?
Funny how they resort to the ridiculous when all the BS has been burned....
Apparently tube construction has a fatal flaw in the design. How many other similarly constructed towers are there?
Apparently tube construction has a fatal flaw in the design. How many other similarly constructed towers are there?
Nevermind that there wasn't a P Wave jolt from the top portion hitting the bottom portion and that energy rattling the Manhattan granite bedrock (Newton's 3rd) but not one single change has been in the composition of firbeall producing office furniture or building code but you and I can't smoke within 5 miles of an airport or send a nasty email that cuts down mauve (lilac?) coloured people.
I see why you didn't want to explain this...you're invoking voodoo. Crackpot.
According to Newton's third law, the force exerted on the Manhatten bedrock would be equal to the force of the falling building.
F=ma
Let's see your math's now. How is the F different if explosives are used to cut support columns versus the F if the structures fail due to uneven loading and thermal stresses from fire.
Using physics properly helps to settle the debate.
Support is definitely growing for the new petition:
Toronto Truth Seekers Gets Behind the Petition | Canadian 9/11 Petition
Support is definitely growing for the new petition:
Toronto Truth Seekers Gets Behind the Petition | Canadian 9/11 Petition