RE: There was a plane! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 1:58:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


original: real0ne
Anyway freefall = demolition by NISTs definition.

Anyway, not. This is a blatant and willfully fashioned lie.


NISTs definition of free-fall is exactly and only the definition originated about 1919 and releted to parachuting, and handy shorthand for describing acceleration to terminal velocity under the phenomenon of gravitation.





quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

LEAD NIST INVESTIGATOR Shuntar:

Freefall;  "WOULD BE A FALLING OBJECT THAT HAS NO ah... STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT" (video 3)


Shuntar lied in the above statement.

yes or no.



No. Not whatsoever, thank you for playing but you are unable to cogitate.




Ok so shuntar did not lie, that is correct.


Is this a correct graphical approximation of a freefalling object

yes or no


[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/nistfreefalla002a.jpg[/image]





yes




too late you already agreed that shuntar did not lie in the definition they applied to the towers.

In fact I even agree with him.

That leaves you all with the problematic issue of how supporting structure magically fails, globally, causing freefall.

Now I know for a fact that demolition will cause supporting structure to effortless buckle, or even vaporize on a global scale.

In fact that is the purpose for using demolition it to get global failure and support structure failure.

Now do you know any other way that this can occur?  (short of dropping a nuke, well I guess that would be demolition LOL



mnottertail -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 2:08:48 PM)

Yup, you got your stupidity to fall back on.

I did not say that was the NIST definition of free fall. He did not say that was the NIST definition of free fall.

That leaves you all with the problematic issue of how supporting structure magically fails, globally, causing freefall.

Explain using magic, since that is the only option open to you, (not to me) how someone sitting in a chair can have it collapse under him. Or prove it cannot, except by demolition.


Once more for the fucking retards, to review:
there was no problematic issue
there was no magic
there was no globally.

The free fall being a single transient component of a confluence of of a multitude of events and variables has been repeatedly explained to you. Asked and answered counsellor.

You have to explain the magic of the chair, asked repeatedly, never answered.


I will also need to see your accreditation and experts qualification in the following:
physics
magic
x-ray vision
prophecy
demolition
(and there will be more.......)



Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 3:06:42 PM)



well I am not going to try to straighten out every mischaracterization you can come up with to try and get out of perjuring yourself.

you agreed that shuntar did not lie in his definition.

that said there was no support for 2+ seconds of the fall which is typical demolition practice.

You fail to show any other way it leaves only demolition.

good luck get creative, I like a good bullshit story :)




mnottertail -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 3:11:58 PM)

you agreed that shuntar did not lie in his definition

I agree that he did not.

You are a perjoror. Not me.

original: real0ne
Anyway freefall = demolition by NISTs definition.

There is your perjory.

You have to explain the magic of the chair, asked repeatedly, never answered.

Your case can not go forward. Answer the question or admit your fraud and lies.




Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 3:14:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:


Anyway freefall = demolition by NISTs definition.

Watch the ankle biter is going to come on here and nip at my shoe strings with: but the columns buckled!   Yep thats exactly what demolition does.  Causes the columns to buckle!  DUH!


Explosives essentially blow the columns out in demolitions. DUH!



See everyone they know. 

Want to burn that candle from both ends at the same time.

cant have it both ways LOL



mnottertail -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 3:17:26 PM)

There is no having it both ways, you are arguing a false dilemma.

There are a multitude of ways.

You are done until you answer the chair.

You are in contempt for perjory at the moment.



Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 3:19:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

you agreed that shuntar did not lie in his definition

I agree that he did not.

You are a perjoror. Not me.

original: real0ne
Anyway freefall = demolition by NISTs definition.

There is your perjory.

You have to explain the magic of the chair, asked repeatedly, never answered.

Your case can not go forward. Answer the question or admit your fraud and lies.




nope there is no evidence to the contrary, hence no other possible explanation as you are ALL FAILING to give ANY other method that can cause completely loss of structural support which is required to obtain "freefall".

[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/sleep.gif[/image]



Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 3:26:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

There is no having it both ways, you are arguing a false dilemma.

There are a multitude of ways.

You are done until you answer the chair.

You are in contempt for perjory at the moment.


both which ways.

multiple ways?  well you have not listed a damn one!  So I disagree.

My statements and position have not changed, no perjure nice try.

see my above post






mnottertail -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 3:27:09 PM)

further lies, further perjory. Further avoidance, further asswipe, shithouse nothingness.

You havent a shred of proof that it was demolished. Hence, with no evidence to the contrary, it fell on its own accord due to damage.

Answer the chair question.



mnottertail -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 3:28:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

both which ways.

multiple ways?  well you have not listed a damn one!  So I disagree.

My statements and position have not changed, no perjure nice try.



I have listed a multitude of ways. Further perjory and shithouse asswipe.

Answer the chair question.





Termyn8or -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 3:33:51 PM)

Goddammit RealO. I am going to put it right out. You keep on about this gravitational constant, if I had my scanner drivers loaded I would draw it out for you, but I will use words instead.

Fuck your graph and your metric sysem. The constant is 32 feet per second per second. That means once you are falling for one second you are doing 32 feet per second. When you are falling for two seconds you are doing 64 feet per second. When you are falling for three seconds you are doing 96 feet per second. When you are falling for four seconds you are doing 128 feet per second.

Now get a piece of graph paper and delineate seconds on one axis, use perhaps five divisions for seconds and then put feet on the other axis, and on that axis I would suggest using perhaps eight feet per division. Make dots, and then connect the dots. Then smooth out the line, it is not straight is it ?

Of course this only works in a vacuum. It also only applies at one G, the gravitational constant of Earth.

We all know this shit was not explained properly, for whatever reasons, but that does not mean it is a basis with which to prove a coverup. Common sense trumps that hands down.

And why now ? I think from what I've heard of NYC they would VERY MUCH appreciate a multilevel parking lot in that spot. Some people like cars, but there you can't drive and you can't park. They need a break, either that or for a bunch of people to leave. Damn, just how good could life be there that it makes it worth it to put up with all those people ?

T^T



mnottertail -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 3:34:20 PM)

original: real0ne
Anyway freefall = demolition by NISTs definition.

My statements and position have not changed, no perjure nice try.

/end

Perjury, prima facie. Even an imbicilic shithouse lawyer without an ounce of legal acumen such as yourself can look up the meaning of perjury, and it does not require a change. You can materially lie at the outset.

Answer the chair question.



Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 3:41:48 PM)

you havent a shred of proof it was not.

If this suit was taken to court and the crooked fucking courts woud allow discovery YOU (NIST) would have to come up with the data to demonstrate a building can freefall of natural causes.  (sundar exaplined that it cant!)  That means without demolition.

and you (NIST), your software does not even allow such a thing!  LMAO


Sundar said; freefall is when there is no structural support

demolition creates a condition of no structual support.

you already admitted it freefell, you pal admitted it freefell

you have no alternative explation for how that can heppen but demolition.  Therefore without an alternative method for creating a freefall condition I am force to conclude demolition.

Do you want another chance?  50 more chances?  10000 maybe?  How many?  LOL

[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/emot7.gif[/image]



hardcybermaster -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 3:42:45 PM)

mn, conspiracy is ro's fetish. you are his conspiracy prostitute.
Is he paying you for this work? If not you have been conned



Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 3:43:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

original: real0ne
Anyway freefall = demolition by NISTs definition.

My statements and position have not changed, no perjure nice try.

Answer the chair question.


I have explained it many MANY fucking times.



Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 3:44:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hardcybermaster

mn, conspiracy is ro's fetish. you are his conspiracy prostitute.
Is he paying you for this work? If not you have been conned


actually its the rogue gubafias fetish I am just a reporter reporting the news. 



hardcybermaster -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 3:46:02 PM)

your twisted version 10 years too late
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: hardcybermaster

mn, conspiracy is ro's fetish. you are his conspiracy prostitute.
Is he paying you for this work? If not you have been conned


actually its the rogue gubafias fetish I am just a reporter reporting the news. 





mnottertail -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 3:48:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

original: real0ne
Anyway freefall = demolition by NISTs definition.

My statements and position have not changed, no perjure nice try.

Answer the chair question.


I have explained it many MANY fucking times.



You have indeed explained that you out and out willfully lied, yes.

We are in agreement on that.



Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 3:49:06 PM)

You might wish to listen to the 3 clips with sundar inthem before you talk shit ya think?  I am quoting the agencies you all believe in and worship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hardcybermaster

your twisted version 10 years too late





Real0ne -> RE: There was a plane! (8/18/2011 3:51:29 PM)

wtf are you talking about?  I didnt lie? about what?  That fucking statement?  You arent that hard up are you?

Its not my fault you picked the losing side of the argument



Page: <<   < prev  27 28 [29] 30 31   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875