What is INCREDIBLE is that someone with your seeming intelligence constantly denies the inside job obviousness.
SO FOR A BILLION DOLLARS, NOBODY WOULD TALK? Wow. They must have been really dedicated. |
|
|
|
However I do have a question for you on a subject dear to your heart.
If as you claimed it was true that the Evil Jew, Silverman, plotted to bring the towers down and collect billions from insurance companies.....
Why wasn't the plot uncovered? Insurance companies have pretty darn good investigators and they would have paid an informer $1B to save the 4B they paid out. Why wasn't the plot you claim existed uncovered? Is it because it wasn't there?
No, it's because there are many things that play into the picture, and we simply don't see what they are. Consider the following article, and realize that there are activities that are never publicly known entirely, but impact the public in many ways. ..... ..... No, now that makes no sense. Straight up now. Why wasn't the plot by the Evil Jew discovered? Why didn't someone leak it? They would have been able to negotiate a billion dollar fee. I like the part about, "Why didn't someone leak it?" If we knew the answer to this question, we could actually start to find the inside-job people.  EDIT: Actually though, the way you keep on bringing up the idea that the Jews did it, you look like you are trying to tell us that they did it, without being too obvious that you are saying such. No, that's your conspiracy theory. Silverman. So you don't have an answer then? Because I don't think it's credible that out of hundreds of people involved in some hypothetical plot on 911, that one or two wouldn't have turned informant for a cool billion dollars. Nope. Not credible at all. |
|
|
|
However I do have a question for you on a subject dear to your heart.
If as you claimed it was true that the Evil Jew, Silverman, plotted to bring the towers down and collect billions from insurance companies.....
Why wasn't the plot uncovered? Insurance companies have pretty darn good investigators and they would have paid an informer $1B to save the 4B they paid out. Why wasn't the plot you claim existed uncovered? Is it because it wasn't there?
No, it's because there are many things that play into the picture, and we simply don't see what they are. Consider the following article, and realize that there are activities that are never publicly known entirely, but impact the public in many ways. ..... ..... No, now that makes no sense. Straight up now. Why wasn't the plot by the Evil Jew discovered? Why didn't someone leak it? They would have been able to negotiate a billion dollar fee. |
|
|
|
https://www.rt.com/viral/342123-germany-no-muslim-friends/Why can’t we be friends? Most Germans don’t have any Muslim pals, new poll finds Almost two out of three non-Muslim Germans don’t have any Muslim friends, or even know anyone who practices Islam, although the younger generation is more integrated. This new poll falls in line with results from another survey that found the same proportion agree with the far-right, anti-Muslim party AfD that there is “no place for Islam in Germany.” Meanwhile, here's the latest ALLAH ACKBAR - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3598117/EgyptAir-flight-MS804-Paris-Cairo-goes-missing.htmlDebris from EgyptAir jet is discovered off Greek island after it is revealed the plane went into a 'sharp spin' and fell 22,000ft before vanishing from radar in what was 'almost certainly a terror attack' 66 people dead, Religion of Peace. Problem is that the average IQ of people in the Muslim countries in around 85 and below. People in those countries would not understand a rational explanation of logical fallacies in the Muslim ideology. They are offended if you just draw the main character from their fairy tale. Never mind the rest of the BS. These people cannot be reasoned with. Education is the key, but Islamic leaders go an extra mile to teach only from ONE book. If it is not in Quran, it is evil. Of course education is the key but it matters what kind of education, and there is another thing, let's say we were taught there are "many planets" How many have you seen with your own eyes? Probably you'll say .."there are prove", like the Moon landing? The IQ has nothing to do with violence, hate, aggressivity , IQ has nothing to do with human nature in those situations  ) lol.. Look at "highest countries IQ" there are most suicide cases!! Actually, IQ does have to do with violence, hate aggresive behavior. And yes, we went to the Moon. And it's easy to find planets with your own eyes. Then you can find more with telescopes. 1 Very wrong ...EQ is all abut emotions feelings sentiments things that make us to act! 2 Ok ...They were on Moon ..as I was there! Upss they lost the pictures...as I did .. 3 I'm not speaking about theories, please prove me that there are planets ( tangible evidence), I think you'll don't have how to do that only if you'll trust ( believe) someone else. So you believe in fairy tales. What disillusion !!! 1. Statistics say otherwise. What is average IQ of jailed violent criminals? 2. What exactly is the big deal about US pilots and scientists having been on the Moon? 3. Sure. Use geometry against the sky to establish that a light is orbiting the Sun, not a distant star. Then do sky sightings, then from 3 points figure the elliptical orbit. From that, calculate mass of the object. Nature of object as planet orbiting sun is then established. |
|
|
|
I can speak for myself, and I would appreciate it if you did not try to make my points for me Badecker. I Choose specific points and paths of discussion carefully in order to prevent diversion of the debate by this obvious shill, what you are doing is just giving him more endless unprovable topics to argue about in order to pretend his arguments have merit.
No we don't need to look at sheer and tensile strengths of materials, because under the conditions and speed of the fall, it would appear that there is ZERO sheer strength and ZERO strength of the materials, because the building falls through them WITHOUT RESISTANCE. The ONLY WAY that happens is if they are BLOWN out of the way with explosives before the falling sections make contact. There is nothing more to debate about it. This is check and mate. Your desire to discuss tertiary engineering issues of which none of us including you are experts is simply an act of distraction from this very salient and damning point to your bullshit narrative.
Note how Spendulus like to have it two ways. First, the potential energy due gravity was responsible for the launching upwards and outwards of multi-ton steel members, the pulverization of steel reinforced concrete, etc, etc. Second, he does not believe that the transfer of energy would arrest the acceleration of the collapse. But, ya know...eight grade physics... That's not quite accurate. I noted four ways PE could transfer, and I noted by the final of the collapse, PE would be zero, all of it having been transferred. I don't think either Tecshare or myself has ever mentioned "upwards and outwards," only "outwards." As for "arresting the acceleration of the collapse," I'm only trying to get it clear what the claim is as to the extent of arresting, before applying some formulas to it. |
|
|
|
if dont hate moslems but as i saw in my last holydas in India the parts where moslems live is only dirty and full of rubish.
but the other parts with hindus,Budistics,chistinas are clean .
why? |
|
|
|
Here is how splendulus "science" works. Could it explains that most of his opinions smell like shit?  Oh and I know it's hard to imagine but not all French are parisian  May be but only a Parisian faux intellectual could even dream of the word... "Plutoid." Oh another non argument. Seems like you got only that kind of reasoning though ; ) What, can't take a joke? Think about it. There isn't even any "science" to naming stuff. That's what the IAU does. |
|
|
|
Russian ATC controllers had to divert the course of 2 European passenger liners over the Sea of Japan. The reason for this was an unidentified flying object travelling at 11.000 meters with its transponder turned off and not responding to the controllers' calls. The liners that were diverted to avoid collision were first KLM flight and then a Swiss flight. The pilot of the Swiss flight also reported about a visual contact with this unidentified object, which turned out to be a heavy 4-engine liner. It is suspected that it was a reconnaissance plane (my guess is: an American one). https://rns.online/transport/Neopoznannii-samolet-priblizilsya-k-dvum-passazhirskim-laineram-nad-Yaponskim-morem-2016-05-22/?8478374Diversion of aircraft is done long, long before there is any actual danger of collision. Radar will show where the mystery plane landed and from that everything about it can be known. |
|
|
|
....
No we don't need to look at sheer and tensile strengths of materials, because under the conditions and speed of the fall, it would appear that there is ZERO sheer strength and ZERO strength of the materials, because the building falls through them WITHOUT RESISTANCE. The ONLY WAY that happens is if they are BLOWN out of the way with explosives before the falling sections make contact. There is nothing more to debate about it. This is check and mate. Your desire to discuss tertiary engineering issues of which none of us including you are experts is simply an act of distraction from this very salient and damning point to your bullshit narrative.
I would disagree with that. Yes some materials can fall through others virtually without resistence under the right conditions. Depends on several factors. For example, if I put a 1/4" piece of steel between two vices, and hit it with a heavy axe, there is negligible slowdown of the axe going through the material because it is sheared. If every floor individually buckled and warped and collapsed individually, that would mean that shear point had not been reached. Possibly the first floor to collapse was a buckling and bending motion, then all subsequent floors' structural members sheared apart. Shearing is fast; bending and buckling is slow. Which was it? Well, in the videos do we see slow bending and buckling? No? Then structural members were sheared. But the question is how. Explosives would have sheered them, so could have the immense weight from above falling down. However, if the momentum of the falling structure was insufficient to create the shearing forces, then it's necessary to look for another cause. That's why I asked if you are good with 10 seconds plus or minus 0.8. I'm not arguing or agreeing with some report, so there's no reason for me to go look at it. I asked what your number was. Give me that and I'll look at it. |
|
|
|
Shear and tensile strength is the itty bitty start. The buildings sat there for years without a problem. Testing the buildings for shear and tensile strength at the time of the collapse is impossible. But it is necessary because of the many factors that might have contributed to the change in shear and tensile strength. The Towers stood there for years. Putting a non-uniform hole in the side of each doesn't necessarily produce uniform pancake action. If you say it did, because that is the way the Towers came down, you are using circular referencing. Crash factors alone were not enough to bring the buildings down. The buildings were built to take that kind of stress. The next option is jet fuel. The amounts of fuel burned, and the amounts of fuel boiled away are unknowns. Even the amounts of fuel that the planes were carrying at the times of the crashes are estimations. In addition, it is almost near guesswork suggesting that the tower structures provided the "wind" necessary to burn the part of fuel that DID burned, with enough heat to cause any structural damage at all. Why? Because the Towers were designed to keep this kind of wind turbulence from happening. Another option, explosives, makes the whole Tower destruction operation a sure thing. Why? Because it is used in demolition of buildings all over the place. Experience shows that we can almost produce any crash effect we want with demolition. The major point against non-demolition of the Towers, is the uniformity of the crashes. With the sides of the buildings weakened as they were, there should have been more topple effect. Yet there was almost none, and the little there was magically corrected itself. Let's go where the sure answer is - demolition - rather than seeking to guess that the way nature works in chemistry, math, and physics was the thing that produced the Tower crashes, especially in the light of the fact that we don't know which of these applies and to what extent. Not one bit of what you have said is true. What is true is what the math analysis says of each factor. It is used as well to determine what a proposed demolition will and will not do. These problems cannot be solved with glib words in sentences, they must be calculated. However I do have a question for you on a subject dear to your heart. If as you claimed it was true that the Evil Jew, Silverman, plotted to bring the towers down and collect billions from insurance companies..... Why wasn't the plot uncovered? Insurance companies have pretty darn good investigators and they would have paid an informer $1B to save the 4B they paid out. Why wasn't the plot you claim existed uncovered? Is it because it wasn't there? |
|
|
|
...
" WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO THINK YOU KNOW BETTER WHY HE IS DOING WHAT HE DOES? Are you someone who is smarter? Better educated? More sophisticated? Been around the world more, seen more cultures?"
Well.. Let's admit there are no levels, but you consider that religious people are stupid ( atheism ideas) Upss .. Logic?
That is what you (and atheists as you) don't understand. .....
"" WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO THINK YOU KNOW BETTER WHY HE IS DOING WHAT HE DOES? "
Your tone represent verbal violence ( aggressive )
The war has no religion. Atheism has no GOD.
I've posed a serious question. You have attempted to move it to the subject of atheism. The question remains UNANSWERED. |
|
|
|
Here is how splendulus "science" works. Could it explains that most of his opinions smell like shit? Oh and I know it's hard to imagine but not all French are parisian May be but only a Parisian faux intellectual could even dream of the word... "Plutoid." |
|
|
|
https://www.rt.com/viral/342123-germany-no-muslim-friends/Why can’t we be friends? Most Germans don’t have any Muslim pals, new poll finds Almost two out of three non-Muslim Germans don’t have any Muslim friends, or even know anyone who practices Islam, although the younger generation is more integrated. This new poll falls in line with results from another survey that found the same proportion agree with the far-right, anti-Muslim party AfD that there is “no place for Islam in Germany.” Meanwhile, here's the latest ALLAH ACKBAR - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3598117/EgyptAir-flight-MS804-Paris-Cairo-goes-missing.htmlDebris from EgyptAir jet is discovered off Greek island after it is revealed the plane went into a 'sharp spin' and fell 22,000ft before vanishing from radar in what was 'almost certainly a terror attack' 66 people dead, Religion of Peace. Problem is that the average IQ of people in the Muslim countries in around 85 and below. People in those countries would not understand a rational explanation of logical fallacies in the Muslim ideology. They are offended if you just draw the main character from their fairy tale. Never mind the rest of the BS. These people cannot be reasoned with. Education is the key, but Islamic leaders go an extra mile to teach only from ONE book. If it is not in Quran, it is evil. Of course education is the key but it matters what kind of education, and there is another thing, let's say we were taught there are "many planets" How many have you seen with your own eyes? Probably you'll say .."there are prove", like the Moon landing? The IQ has nothing to do with violence, hate, aggressivity , IQ has nothing to do with human nature in those situations ) lol.. Look at "highest countries IQ" there are most suicide cases!! Actually, IQ does have to do with violence, hate aggresive behavior. And yes, we went to the Moon. And it's easy to find planets with your own eyes. Then you can find more with telescopes. |
|
|
|
Well, you said you speak for yourself, so there is no way for me to figure out what your argument is except just to ask, right?
For a number of reasons I like a seismic record better than the video. I stated my inability to accurately calculate the fall time from the video given the huge amounts of smoke and dust, whatever. Actually, an acoustic record would also be interesting.
So the premise then is a 10 second fall plus or minus 0.8 seconds? Then you would argue that these numbers are impossible without explosives being added to the PE of the buildings? (by the way, I don't see any reason to segue into WTC 7, very different dynamics there.)
So this issue is concerned strictly with events AFTER the collapse beings. Let's say 1 second after some unknown type of structural failure.
I would argue is that these premises do not NECESSARILY lead to the conclusion that explosives caused the subsequent events, and that the immense potential energy of the structure is SUFFICIENT to explain the fall rates, after some reasonable consideration for air resistance and a range of resistance or slowing-down from the floors below.
That sound fair? If not, changes?
There you go, shifting the goal posts again. So the OFFICIAL RECORDS aren't good enough for you? Very convenient you don't even wish to comment on WTC 7, why talk about a subject you have no counter argument to? Why not just refuse to address any facts about these events when they don't fit your narrative bias? You can argue until you are blue in the face, but you are arguing against THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. Explosives are required to reach free fall speeds with a building coming down, this is A FACT. There is nothing to debate about it. Wake the fuck up, stop your flailing, you are wrong. Deal with it. I eagerly await for your new goal posts as well as your next disingenuous verbal gymnastic performance. Just don't forget to stretch, you wouldn't want to strain yourself with the massive amounts of bullshit you are spouting. I have no idea what you are talking about. The simple question posted is whether this is the argument you'd like to to defeat and that you believe or want to defend. I have no idea what "OFFICIAL RECORDS" say. So the premise then is a 10 second fall plus or minus 0.8 seconds? Then you would argue that these numbers are impossible without explosives being added to the PE of the buildings? I invited you to change it if it did not reflect what you believe. If explosives are required to reach free fall speeds, we'll establish that. Or not. The fall speed has to do with how connected the parts were. The question revolves around connected beams and girders vs. disconnected beams and girders. Would there be any difference in fall speed if the beams and girders were disconnected ahead of time by explosives vs. if they became disconnected by a pancake "crash?" Seems logical that there would be a difference. If there would be this difference, how do we calculate how big the difference might be? There's likely a classical problem in engineering to be seen here. It's an issue where the cause and effect you are seeking to find is much smaller than the errors in measurement. For example if you are looking for a difference of 0.1 second, and the error in measurement is + or - 0.8 seconds, then you cannot make a statement about the 0.1. If on the other hand the cause and effect is 2.0 seconds or 3.0, then regardless of the 0.8 second measurement, you can make a statement. I'm picking those numbers strictly out of the air to answer your question. Also, note that the above formulation does not address the "initial cause." I refer there to the initial cause of collapse. We are (as I understand it) discussing the presence or absence of a continuing string of explosives used to create a higher than natural fall speed of the tower. If I happened to be talking about that at all, it was by accident. No initial cause necessary. Simply the difference in near free fall speed with a collapse pancake style vs. a collapse after an explosive dismemberment. Do we really have a pancake example? There must be examples in demolition where dismemberment has been used. If the only pancake examples we have are the Towers, we don't have enough information other than hypothesis and theory. Totally unscientific to suggest that the pancake without demolition was what happened, unless we can find other examples of it happening to other buildings in a very similar way. TECSHARE was simply saying this, but using more words. If Tecshare was saying the same thing you said, that's like saying a stopped clock is right twice a day, but without glasses you don't know what it says. He can speak for himself. No, we don't need to look at examples. We can simply look at shear and tensile strengths of materials, and use standard engineering formulas. |
|
|
|
Well, you said you speak for yourself, so there is no way for me to figure out what your argument is except just to ask, right?
For a number of reasons I like a seismic record better than the video. I stated my inability to accurately calculate the fall time from the video given the huge amounts of smoke and dust, whatever. Actually, an acoustic record would also be interesting.
So the premise then is a 10 second fall plus or minus 0.8 seconds? Then you would argue that these numbers are impossible without explosives being added to the PE of the buildings? (by the way, I don't see any reason to segue into WTC 7, very different dynamics there.)
So this issue is concerned strictly with events AFTER the collapse beings. Let's say 1 second after some unknown type of structural failure.
I would argue is that these premises do not NECESSARILY lead to the conclusion that explosives caused the subsequent events, and that the immense potential energy of the structure is SUFFICIENT to explain the fall rates, after some reasonable consideration for air resistance and a range of resistance or slowing-down from the floors below.
That sound fair? If not, changes?
There you go, shifting the goal posts again. So the OFFICIAL RECORDS aren't good enough for you? Very convenient you don't even wish to comment on WTC 7, why talk about a subject you have no counter argument to? Why not just refuse to address any facts about these events when they don't fit your narrative bias? You can argue until you are blue in the face, but you are arguing against THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. Explosives are required to reach free fall speeds with a building coming down, this is A FACT. There is nothing to debate about it. Wake the fuck up, stop your flailing, you are wrong. Deal with it. I eagerly await for your new goal posts as well as your next disingenuous verbal gymnastic performance. Just don't forget to stretch, you wouldn't want to strain yourself with the massive amounts of bullshit you are spouting. I have no idea what you are talking about. The simple question posted is whether this is the argument you'd like to to defeat and that you believe or want to defend. I have no idea what "OFFICIAL RECORDS" say. So the premise then is a 10 second fall plus or minus 0.8 seconds? Then you would argue that these numbers are impossible without explosives being added to the PE of the buildings? I invited you to change it if it did not reflect what you believe. If explosives are required to reach free fall speeds, we'll establish that. Or not. The fall speed has to do with how connected the parts were. The question revolves around connected beams and girders vs. disconnected beams and girders. Would there be any difference in fall speed if the beams and girders were disconnected ahead of time by explosives vs. if they became disconnected by a pancake "crash?" Seems logical that there would be a difference. If there would be this difference, how do we calculate how big the difference might be? There's likely a classical problem in engineering to be seen here. It's an issue where the cause and effect you are seeking to find is much smaller than the errors in measurement. For example if you are looking for a difference of 0.1 second, and the error in measurement is + or - 0.8 seconds, then you cannot make a statement about the 0.1. If on the other hand the cause and effect is 2.0 seconds or 3.0, then regardless of the 0.8 second measurement, you can make a statement. I'm picking those numbers strictly out of the air to answer your question. Also, note that the above formulation does not address the "initial cause." I refer there to the initial cause of collapse. We are (as I understand it) discussing the presence or absence of a continuing string of explosives used to create a higher than natural fall speed of the tower. |
|
|
|
You should have a look at what's going on in Africa. There isn't a single nuclear power station there. Several countries would want one, but they just can't afford to subsidize the building of a station. Renewable energy one the other hand is booming in many places.
Africa is a continent. Now it's something to brag about, that there is no nuclear power. Wow... |
|
|
|
And Plutoid are just a sub category of dwarf planets! What do you find so disturbing about it?
Lol, I am just having fun ribbing you about it because it is so Parisian. |
|
|
|
Well, you said you speak for yourself, so there is no way for me to figure out what your argument is except just to ask, right?
For a number of reasons I like a seismic record better than the video. I stated my inability to accurately calculate the fall time from the video given the huge amounts of smoke and dust, whatever. Actually, an acoustic record would also be interesting.
So the premise then is a 10 second fall plus or minus 0.8 seconds? Then you would argue that these numbers are impossible without explosives being added to the PE of the buildings? (by the way, I don't see any reason to segue into WTC 7, very different dynamics there.)
So this issue is concerned strictly with events AFTER the collapse beings. Let's say 1 second after some unknown type of structural failure.
I would argue is that these premises do not NECESSARILY lead to the conclusion that explosives caused the subsequent events, and that the immense potential energy of the structure is SUFFICIENT to explain the fall rates, after some reasonable consideration for air resistance and a range of resistance or slowing-down from the floors below.
That sound fair? If not, changes?
There you go, shifting the goal posts again. So the OFFICIAL RECORDS aren't good enough for you? Very convenient you don't even wish to comment on WTC 7, why talk about a subject you have no counter argument to? Why not just refuse to address any facts about these events when they don't fit your narrative bias? You can argue until you are blue in the face, but you are arguing against THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. Explosives are required to reach free fall speeds with a building coming down, this is A FACT. There is nothing to debate about it. Wake the fuck up, stop your flailing, you are wrong. Deal with it. I eagerly await for your new goal posts as well as your next disingenuous verbal gymnastic performance. Just don't forget to stretch, you wouldn't want to strain yourself with the massive amounts of bullshit you are spouting. I have no idea what you are talking about. The simple question posted is whether this is the argument you'd like to to defeat and that you believe or want to defend. I have no idea what "OFFICIAL RECORDS" say. So the premise then is a 10 second fall plus or minus 0.8 seconds? Then you would argue that these numbers are impossible without explosives being added to the PE of the buildings? I invited you to change it if it did not reflect what you believe. If explosives are required to reach free fall speeds, we'll establish that. Or not. |
|
|
|
God probably chuckled at your joke that was slightly against Him. But we do not know this for sure. My response to your joke was meant to be a "propitiation" for your joke, so that if God became angry at you for joking foolishly about Him, He might not add it to your batch of sins for which you will be punished in Hell, if you go that direction... or for which you will lose glory in Heaven if you go that direction. So, thank me. That's one hell of a fantasy world, buddy. Here's a much better one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSGuBNopzBw |
|
|
|
I'm a Christian ( orthodox Christian) and my faith doesn't allow me to hate other people!
There was only war between humans even if they were (are) Christians Muslim Atheists Jew Pagan etc...
About atheists, how many people (most of them were Christians) were killed by Marxism ideas? Do you know?
About of those who are talking about ISIS terrorism etc, you ever read the Quran? Huh?
What about kamikaze pilots ? were they Muslims ? ( don't worry I know most everything about Bushido Code)
The People are talking before to think ...
BTW for those who don't know , the term of terrorism was born in France ( during French revolution)
Anybody knows what horrible things happened there? How many people were killed by revolutionaries? How many atrocities were committed?
The atheism, socialism, secularism was based on French Revolution and from there was inspired Marx. Freemasons ?
So don't try to blame any religions for war and crimes.
I'm so sad when I see how easily atheists are manipulated.
Well, that's a genuinely interesting set of random facts. It doesn't all together make a logical argument, but I get what you are trying to say. You'd like to separate the intent and actions of man from the religion. Unfortunately, that doesn't work very well. It leads to something like saying that "some CULTURES may be blamed, within them resides religion XYZ, but the RELIGION cannot be blamed." That can be deconstructed further by looking at the inter relationships of culture and religion. In a really practical sense, though, I have a problem with smooth talking, glib persons trying to misrepresent facts and actions. My question to you is very simple. If some person kills himself and a dozen others while shouting Allah Akbar, and making in his suicide video a profession of faith to Islam, and says explicitly he is doing this for Islam... WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO THINK YOU KNOW BETTER WHY HE IS DOING WHAT HE DOES? Are you someone who is smarter? Better educated? More sophisticated? Been around the world more, seen more cultures? Thanks. That's my question, and I would hope that you could answer it without the condescending tone. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
