betsy Posted March 4, 2017 Report Share Posted March 4, 2017 Just now, hot enough said: Thank you for your scientific comments, Betsy, and scientific emoticons. They are very helpful. No refutations? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 5, 2017 Report Share Posted March 5, 2017 6 hours ago, hot enough said: Thank you, Rue. Wilber said nothing in three sentences. You, on the other hand take hundreds of sentences to say nothing. You say nothing in pages. "Falsely accused hijackers" ? Explain that little gem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2017 5 minutes ago, Wilber said: You say nothing in pages. "Falsely accused hijackers" ? Explain that little gem. Where have you been, Wilber, with all of your way off topic posts? It was all explained in the first post of this thread. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/26612-why-all-the-worldwide-turmoil/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 5, 2017 Report Share Posted March 5, 2017 4 minutes ago, hot enough said: Where have you been, Wilber, with all of your way off topic posts? It was all explained in the first post of this thread. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/26612-why-all-the-worldwide-turmoil/ Doesn't explain a damn thing. So, who were the hijackers and why were they necessary at all? Al Queda had already tried to bomb the towers in 1993. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2017 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Wilber said: Doesn't explain a damn thing. So, who were the hijackers and why were they necessary at all? Al Queda had already tried to bomb the towers in 1993. Sure it does. Stay with the science. Molten metals means the alleged hijackers didn't cause the collapse of WTCs 1, 2 & 7. WTC7 fell at free fall speed. How did the alleged hijackers manage that when they didn't come within 500 yards, give or take, of WTC7? Free fall also means the alleged hijackers didn't cause the collapse of WTCs 1, 2 & 7. Because WTC7 falling at free fall means it was a controlled demolition, which means the other two were also CDs. Accelerating collapse speeds for WTCs 1 & 2 also mean that the alleged hijackers didn't cause the collapse of WTCs 1, 2 & 7. A human being being explosively ejected from one of the twin towers at a high rate of speed means the alleged hijackers didn't cause the collapse of WTCs 1, 2 & 7. Why? Because NIST said there were no explosives but the video evidence doesn't lie. The molten steel or iron pouring out of WTC2 minutes before it was blown up also means the alleged hijackers didn't cause the collapse of WTCs 1, 2 & 7. There are myriad other solid reasons that illustrate the alleged hijackers didn't cause the collapse of WTCs 1, 2 & 7. An simple experiment performed by an engineer who does this kind of thing for a living shows perfectly that the motions on WTC 1 & 2 were not down and then out, they were out and then down. Edited March 5, 2017 by hot enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 5, 2017 Report Share Posted March 5, 2017 So what are you saying, the government had advance notice of the hijackings and set the buildings up for demolition at the same time as the aircraft were flown into the buildings? Where is your evidence of that and why should I believe it? You after all are the same person who maintains dumping 10,000 gallons of jet fuel on a burning building won't change the way it burns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2017 46 minutes ago, Wilber said: You after all are the same person who maintains dumping 10,000 gallons of jet fuel on a burning building won't change the way it burns. No, Wilber, it was you who made that assumption and then refused to discuss it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 5, 2017 Report Share Posted March 5, 2017 25 minutes ago, hot enough said: No, Wilber, it was you who made that assumption and then refused to discuss it. What other conclusion is there. Airplanes flew into buildings and buildings fell down. You say it was because they were already rigged with explosives. Either the actions were co-ordinated or it was the biggest coincidence in history. d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2017 Report Share Posted March 5, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Wilber said: So what are you saying, the government had advance notice of the hijackings and set the buildings up for demolition at the same time as the aircraft were flown into the buildings? Where is your evidence of that and why should I believe it? You after all are the same person who maintains dumping 10,000 gallons of jet fuel on a burning building won't change the way it burns. Alleged hijackings, Wilber. We still not sure there actually any hijackers, remember. And without hijackers, well, you know... Edited March 5, 2017 by bcsapper Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they are pretending to fly aeroplanes - Not Blaise Pascal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2017 35 minutes ago, bcsapper said: Alleged hijackings, Wilber. We still not sure there actually any hijackers, remember. And without hijackers, well, you know... Can you fellows even read? Go back and read what I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2017 38 minutes ago, Wilber said: What other conclusion is there. The rational one. You raised the 10,000 gallons story and then refused to discuss it; by your own admission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2017 Report Share Posted March 5, 2017 16 minutes ago, hot enough said: Can you fellows even read? Go back and read what I said. I did. You said alleged hijackers. I thought they were definitely hijackers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted March 5, 2017 Report Share Posted March 5, 2017 1 hour ago, hot enough said: The rational one. You raised the 10,000 gallons story and then refused to discuss it; by your own admission. Got any idea how fast those planes were going when they hit the buildings? Or are you just denying they did? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted March 5, 2017 Report Share Posted March 5, 2017 11 hours ago, Wilber said: You say nothing in pages. "Falsely accused hijackers" ? Explain that little gem. He didn't explain it. Good luck with that. I think he's saying the hijackers were the victims, alongside with the others. I'm waiting to hear if he's set up a belated vigil/commemoration for them....and if he's set up some fundraising, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 5, 2017 Report Share Posted March 5, 2017 17 hours ago, hot enough said: The rational one. You raised the 10,000 gallons story and then refused to discuss it; by your own admission. Rational people ask simple basic questions. You don't. Anything that could conflict with your preconceived conclusion must be ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 18 hours ago, Omni said: Got any idea how fast those planes were going when they hit the buildings? Or are you just denying they did? Yes, I do have a very good idea of what was reported, Omni, do you? But that has nothing to do with the central premise of this thread, the one that everyone is avoiding like the plague because your minds won't let you go there, to discuss the truth. It's the equivalent for you of finding out that each and everyone of you folks' mothers are axe murderers. But really, don't any of you you have any respect for the truth, for the American way of justice and fairness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 4 hours ago, Wilber said: Rational people ask simple basic questions. You don't. Anything that could conflict with your preconceived conclusion must be ignored. Wilber, it was your question. Why are you so afraid of your own question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 21 hours ago, bcsapper said: I did. You said alleged hijackers. I thought they were definitely hijackers. What you thought is of no consequence. You've illustrated that time and again with your inability to address anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 On 3/4/2017 at 1:24 PM, hot enough said: So you still have not been able to located Professor Hulsey giving a, roughly 45 minute to one hour talk on why NIST's report has a zero chance of being accurate. It seems that instead of publish or perish, the truthers are video to vanquish. I will wait until there is an actual release of results, something that has undergone peer review. The basic premise I get from Hulsey is that he doesn't think NIST has used as complete a finite analysis as possible. If you know anything about these programs, you would know that they scale exponentially along with the data set provided. Certainly computing power has increased (ie. become cheaper) in the decade since the NIST model was run so yes it is possible to do something more complete. One of his allegations is that NIST didn't model the entire building, but focused on the half with the greater damage and fires. His other allegation is that more detailed components of the structure should be included. We await his publication of results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 19 minutes ago, hot enough said: Wilber, it was your question. Why are you so afraid of your own question? You asked me how much fuel they were carrying and if it would all of it explode at once. I told you. I should have told you to take a hike and find out for yourself because clearly you did not care unless it would help your argument. To bad, so sad, it doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 48 minutes ago, hot enough said: What you thought is of no consequence. You've illustrated that time and again with your inability to address anything. Actually, what I think is the only thing of any consequence. I thought they hijacked the planes, and they did. What you think, on the other hand, is not only of no consequence, but also wrong. But, credit where it is due, fun too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 4 minutes ago, bcsapper said: Actually, what I think The force behind the motion of the twin towers was not "DOWN AND OUT", it was "OUT AND THEN DOWN". The explosive force that blew the human being out of one of the twin towers came from the same forces that created the "OUT AND THEN DOWN". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 Yelling doesn't make you any more convincing. Now back to those "alleged hijackers" which you won't explain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 45 minutes ago, ?Impact said: I Nothing at all, again. How can you pretend to be something you are not. Why are your research skills so bad that you can't even locate a video where Professor Hulsey went over the entire NIST versus his approach? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 Just now, hot enough said: The force behind the motion of the twin towers was not "DOWN AND OUT", it was "OUT AND THEN DOWN". The explosive force that blew the human being out of one of the twin towers came from the same forces that created the "OUT AND THEN DOWN". I see, and this alters the definition of hijackers how, exactly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.