"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
Once again ..... WRONG .... he was on the 78th floor

www.youtube.com...

Yes. In the South Tower, the plane impacted from 78-82:

911review.com...

So, they were on the lowest impacted floor. BOOM!

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


Nuclear explosion? Are you expecting to be taken seriously?

I'm perfectly fine with the picture. I'll ask you the same question as I asked the other poster-

Are you saying the towers achieved a state of free fall as they collapsed?

reply to post by PhotonEffect


very close to free fall yes ...... i`ll say it again ... watch it and time it.

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

very close to free fall yes ...... i`ll say it again ... watch it and time it.

I recall it being timed at approximately 66% percent freefall, or 2/3. That is not freefall, but resistance.

reply to post by Varemia


no , the lowest VISIBLE impacted floor , from outside of the tower, that thing burst floors open and set floors and floors on fire right ? so im guessing it wasnt easy getting up to 78 , infact didnt he have to repair 2 elevators to get up there ? correct me if im wrong on that one ( you will )

reply to post by Varemia


Ok , you point out where the resistance is in those towers and i`ll give you a pot smoking unicorn *sigh*

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by anoncoholic

 

Borders on lunacy? Come on man.

Originally posted by anoncoholic

A C130 was seen climbing in altitude at the Pentagon and what is a C130 but a cargo carrier and why would it be climbing (unless the Pentagon were a landing/takeoff strip) if not to drop off cargo and in this case speculating it was plane parts seems more logical than all the jumbo-jets pieces turning to vapor.

What really borders on lunacy is your sense of logic if you can sit there with a straight face and suggest that the cargo plane was making an air drop of plane parts to be planted at the site. In broad daylight. With witnesses all around. None of whom reported seeing such a spectacle.

Please think about what you're saying. Please.

so a jet was there? Aside from the supposed one that hit the Pentagon that is? Then perhaps you can explain why witnesses said it was seen climbing and the only reason a C130 would climb is takeoff or cargo drop out the back door.

Then by any means, show us all the path in the grass that the jetwash had left behind which you can't as no trail was left in the grass hence no jet. But lets not quibble over such a small thing as a jumbo jet that disappeared into a small hole, stranger things have happened and there are even magic bullets in government theories so anything is possible in their flavor of truth.

Focus instead on my repeated asking for the explanation of why the need to lie if all is as told?

Face it, truth is self evident and it is the lies that people need to keep repeating. Nothing any of you have said makes a bit of sense in the overall picture and hardly explains away the facts like foreknowledge of the attack, profiteering from the attack, preparation for the attack, lies to confuse and outright blame others for the attack and last but not least, an entire community of liars to keep the lies alive and feasible rather than recognized.

You are either with us or against us and there is no middle ground on cold-blooded, calculated murder. If you believed in God you would have that morality and wouldn't need to be told.

now, address my same questions that I keep repeating in every post, why the need to lie? I know you will never answer neither will anyone else because truth can't be explained away so get off trying to justify mass murder. I can't help but wonder, how many people have you killed that you could be so cavalier over 3000 dead on that day alone?

No conscience whatsoever?

Perhaps you aren't even human but a program that is set with the standard replies and it does seem like you lot are automated just by viewing the front pages of forums when a truth gets posted and exposes your pack of lies. The typical response is to flood the front page to bury the post if the poster can't be intimidated into a pissing contest.

Guess what, I not only piss for distance I also have aim and the only thing coming from you lot is circular arguments rather than facing the evidence.

Confuse the issue with conjectures and half-truths as facts is hardly worthy of intellect when a simple fact continually is ignored.

Answer my question, why the need to lie?

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by Varemia

 

no , the lowest VISIBLE impacted floor , from outside of the tower, that thing burst floors open and set floors and floors on fire right ? so im guessing it wasnt easy getting up to 78 , infact didnt he have to repair 2 elevators to get up there ? correct me if im wrong on that one ( you will

)

So, obviously the fireman was not where the fires were at their hottest. How isn't that clear?

Also, regarding the free-fall, it is well known and accepted that it was not free-fall. Only someone new to the game claims that it was free-fall. Just ask any of the resident Truthers. They will agree that it was not free-fall (though they will try to use the word near-free-fall if you ask them. Gotta say "close enough" if you end up being wrong).

reply to post by Varemia


Exactly. It was actually closer to twice the free fall rate

reply to post by Varemia


Haha , where the fire was hottest , it was the same fuel burning on each floor you muppet, and i said it was close to free fall , i want to see where this resistance is , because im trying and i cant see those towers stopping one floor from collapsing ..... show me ... with your amazing white arrows and one liners..... show me the resistance.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by anoncoholic

so a jet was there?

You betcha

Aside from the supposed one that hit the Pentagon that is?

Nope. Just the one. AA77

.....and the only reason a C130 would climb is takeoff or cargo drop out the back door.

Says who?

Face it, truth is self evident and it is the lies that people need to keep repeating. Nothing any of you have said makes a bit of sense in the overall picture and hardly explains away the facts like foreknowledge of the attack, profiteering from the attack, preparation for the attack, lies to confuse and outright blame others for the attack and last but not least, an entire community of liars to keep the lies alive and feasible rather than recognized.

You are either with us or against us and there is no middle ground on cold-blooded, calculated murder. If you believed in God you would have that morality and wouldn't need to be told.

now, address my same questions that I keep repeating in every post, why the need to lie? I know you will never answer neither will anyone else because truth can't be explained away so get off trying to justify mass murder. I can't help but wonder, how many people have you killed that you could be so cavalier over 3000 dead on that day alone?

No conscience whatsoever?

Perhaps you aren't even human but a program that is set with the standard replies and it does seem like you lot are automated just by viewing the front pages of forums when a truth gets posted and exposes your pack of lies. The typical response is to flood the front page to bury the post if the poster can't be intimidated into a pissing contest.

Guess what, I not only piss for distance I also have aim and the only thing coming from you lot is circular arguments rather than facing the evidence.

Confuse the issue with conjectures and half-truths as facts is hardly worthy of intellect when a simple fact continually is ignored.

Answer my question, why the need to lie?

Holy smokes man!!

That was some diatribe! This is a first- you managed to call me a liar, a murderer, an atheist, and a non-human all in one lucid post.

You have exposed yourself as a complete wack-adoo in my book. Man, I love ATS!

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by anoncoholic

so a jet was there?

You betcha

Aside from the supposed one that hit the Pentagon that is?

Nope. Just the one. AA77

.....and the only reason a C130 would climb is takeoff or cargo drop out the back door.

Says who?

Face it, truth is self evident and it is the lies that people need to keep repeating. Nothing any of you have said makes a bit of sense in the overall picture and hardly explains away the facts like foreknowledge of the attack, profiteering from the attack, preparation for the attack, lies to confuse and outright blame others for the attack and last but not least, an entire community of liars to keep the lies alive and feasible rather than recognized.

You are either with us or against us and there is no middle ground on cold-blooded, calculated murder. If you believed in God you would have that morality and wouldn't need to be told.

now, address my same questions that I keep repeating in every post, why the need to lie? I know you will never answer neither will anyone else because truth can't be explained away so get off trying to justify mass murder. I can't help but wonder, how many people have you killed that you could be so cavalier over 3000 dead on that day alone?

No conscience whatsoever?

Perhaps you aren't even human but a program that is set with the standard replies and it does seem like you lot are automated just by viewing the front pages of forums when a truth gets posted and exposes your pack of lies. The typical response is to flood the front page to bury the post if the poster can't be intimidated into a pissing contest.

Guess what, I not only piss for distance I also have aim and the only thing coming from you lot is circular arguments rather than facing the evidence.

Confuse the issue with conjectures and half-truths as facts is hardly worthy of intellect when a simple fact continually is ignored.

Answer my question, why the need to lie?

Holy smokes man!!

That was some diatribe! This is a first- you managed to call me a liar, a murderer, an atheist, and a non-human all in one lucid post.

You have exposed yourself as a complete wack-adoo in my book. Man, I love ATS!

edit on 18-10-2011 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)

and that is how liars answer. Rather than confront the evidence you choose to make it all about me whereas I am stating facts. If the shoe fits...

The question still goes unanswered, why the need to lie if there was any veracity to the claim?

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by Varemia

 

Haha , where the fire was hottest , it was the same fuel burning on each floor you muppet, and i said it was close to free fall , i want to see where this resistance is , because im trying and i cant see those towers stopping one floor from collapsing ..... show me ... with your amazing white arrows and one liners..... show me the resistance.

www.youtube.com...

I'm going to assume you're just joking at this point. Fuel distribution and set fires will not be uniform.

The resistance isn't great enough to greatly slow the momentum of the collapsing tower, but it is enough to make the tower collapse at less than freefall. Your proof is evident by the debris falling faster than the collapsing floors.

reply to post by Varemia


What ... you mean the debris that were blown from the top hit the ground before the rest of the tower ? "well ... slap my thigh"

And why did you even mention this resistance if your not going to back it up ... point it out , isnt this information enough to knock it all on the head ? if there was resistance theres no need for me to say it was controlled demolition.... dont you think ?

Infact , didnt those debris hit other buildings ?

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by Varemia

 

What ... you mean the debris that were blown from the top hit the ground before the rest of the tower ?

"well ... slap my thigh"

And why did you even mention this resistance if your not going to back it up ... point it out , isnt this information enough to knock it all on the head ? if there was resistance theres no need for me to say it was controlled demolition.... dont you think ?

Do you even understand what you're saying? You're saying that the material was launched, freaking launched away from the tower by an explosive. That would require an extremely large charge! Do you even grasp the amount of energy needed to do that?

What happened is that the debris (mostly exterior panels) fell away with parabolic motion, being pushed mostly by air pressure and the inward collapsing debris within the tower.

reply to post by Varemia


Aaaaah , so burning plastic and air preassure , blows massive steel structures into DUST dude , get a grip.

And yes... i know what im saying .... yes ... youd need some grade A explosives to do that wouldnt you ? shock horror

I`m guessing you beleive the squibs were air blowing out of the buildings too right ? , if so , can you explain why theyre not coming out of every window on each floor ? and why they were isolated squibs , not big old dust clouds blowing out of 5 - 6 windows at a time ? let me guess .... most of the doors were closed

And the distance those chunks of debri were travelling ... were talking like 500 - 600 feet .... plastic , carpets and air preassure c`mon what`s next ? chuck norris punched the foundations ?



.............yeah.......... just ignore me and hope i go away then ....... i`m a busy man , but i`ll be back

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by Varemia

 

Aaaaah , so burning plastic and air preassure , blows massive steel structures into DUST

dude , get a grip.

And yes... i know what im saying .... yes ... youd need some grade A explosives to do that wouldnt you ?

shock horror

I`m guessing you beleive the squibs were air blowing out of the buildings too right ? , if so , can you explain why theyre not coming out of every window on each floor ? and why they were isolated squibs , not big old dust clouds blowing out of 5 - 6 windows at a time ? let me guess .... most of the doors were closed

And the distance those chunks of debri were travelling ... were talking like 500 - 600 feet ....

plastic , carpets and air preassure

c`mon what`s next ? chuck norris punched the foundations ?

edit on 18-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)

I don't even know how to respond to this. Your information is just so... wrong. We'd have to begin with the absolute basics of everything. I honestly don't have the motivation to give a full response.

The squibs were air blowing out. They were "isolated" because that's where the glass broke first, and energy likes the path of least resistance.

I don't have the exact details on the horizontal parabolic motion of the falling debris, so I can't really tell you exact numbers. You're being awfully presumptuous by saying you think it had to have been caused by a massive explosion.

Originally posted by anoncoholic

and that is how liars answer. Rather than confront the evidence you choose to make it all about me whereas I am stating facts. If the shoe fits...

The question still goes unanswered, why the need to lie if there was any veracity to the claim?

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

I haven't lied about anything.

And what evidence am I dodging? If you're talking about the C-130 witnesses claim to have seen supposedly increasing altitude after the crash, then I really don't know what more you want from me. I've addressed it...

You seem to think it's because it was making a drop off of plane parts. And I tend to think that is absolutely absurd and unworthy of any more of my time and consideration.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Originally posted by anoncoholic

Holy smokes man!!

That was some diatribe! This is a first- you managed to call me a liar, a murderer, an atheist, and a non-human all in one lucid post.

You have exposed yourself as a complete wack-adoo in my book. Man, I love ATS! :up

LOL! It was impressive wasn't it?

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by anoncoholic

and that is how liars answer. Rather than confront the evidence you choose to make it all about me whereas I am stating facts. If the shoe fits...

The question still goes unanswered, why the need to lie if there was any veracity to the claim?

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

I haven't lied about anything.

And what evidence am I dodging? If you're talking about the C-130 witnesses claim to have seen supposedly increasing altitude after the crash, then I really don't know what more you want from me. I've addressed it...

You seem to think it's because it was making a drop off of plane parts. And I tend to think that is absolutely absurd and unworthy of any more of my time and consideration.

yes that was the point of my bringing up the C130 but was NOT what I was talking about and I still find it hard to believe that you in your apparent wisdom haven't a clue as to what I am talking about when I point to MY SIGGY in every post and have also included the clip in numerous pastes across numerous threads to which you now claim invisibility?

I understand your need to troll and blow smoke but apparently my simple questions elude your simple answers... in fact they seem to have suspended all logic from you and you now claim ignorance as to what the question has been? Which thread exactly are you reading or do you even bother to read and just dive into excuses?

Here, I will paste it again for you to listen to and there will be no mistaking exactly what I am talking about. The truth, nothing but the truth ...

Google Video Link

and once you listen to it, pay particular attention to how Davin Coburn deals with the truth being exposed. Almost identical to your response, word for word.

why am I not surprised?