Reply #103

In the discussion thread: What is the thing about 911 being a inside job that is the hardest to explain away? [View all]

Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #100)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 02:52 PM

zeemike (10,822 posts)

103. Well nothing is perfict.

Even when they try their best to make it that way....but the fall was uniform and that means that all the suporting structures failed at almost the same time to within a fraction of a second apart.thus allowing gravity to pull it down largly strait into it's footpint... And that has never happened before by anything but controled demoliton....and that is what I am doubting the official story....

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

150 replies	Author	Time	Post
What is the thing about 911 being a inside job that is the hardest to explain away? [View all]	Logical	Dec 2011	OP
No links for you but a documentry	zeemike	Dec 2011	#1
Clear?	pinqy	Dec 2011	#3
My answers and some questions to you.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#10
Not really an answer	pinqy	Dec 2011	#15
It would be even harder to convince that Osama hijacked a cruz missil don't you think?	zeemike	Dec 2011	#39
jesus!	wildbilln864	Dec 2011	#142
Flight 77 was itself the missile.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#148
I think you missed my point! nt	wildbilln864	Dec 2011	#149
I took a glance at the video "In Plane Sight"	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#5
Explain why there are no viedo of the plain hitting the Pentagon	zeemike	Dec 2011	#11
Explain what happened to the passengers of Flight 77.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#16
I asked you first.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#17
Did I know anyone personally on those planes? No, I didn't.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#20
The only power "they" have is the power you have fictiously ascribed to "them"	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#22
You don't have to be omnipotante to manipulate people and things.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#27
You're arguing in circles; question-begging	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#28
Well you understand the power of a straw man don't you?	zeemike	Dec 2011	#31
A straw man is when you assign a fallacious argument to someone that they did not make	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#33
You ,keep saying there is ZERRO evedence.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#44
it's ZERO evidence...and yes, you have none.	zappaman	Dec 2011	#45
So there we have it...we are at an impass	zeemike	Dec 2011	#51
Even the NIST had to finally admit freefall occured!	wildbilln864	Dec 2011	#143
And even Gage and Chandler had to admit ...	William Seger	Dec 2011	#147
You present assertions that have already been thoroughly debunked	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#46
Well that would be hard to do.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#50
Then there is no amount of evidence that can change your mind.	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#58
And no amount will change yours	zeemike	Dec 2011	#61
So what if it fell in "free fall"? I wouldn't expect otherwise.	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#48
The only way it could have fallen like that strait down is if ALL the suprot structures failed	zeemike	Dec 2011	#49
You really pin this entire idea on the notion that structural failures dont spontaneously occur?	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#52
Well the building could have collapsed from damage	zeemike	Dec 2011	#55
I regard your refusal to counter our evidence for a plane hitting the Pentagon as a concesion.	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#54
No you are wrong there	zeemike	Dec 2011	#99
you make me laugh when you say "our evidence"!	wildbilln864	Dec 2011	#144
I regard your refusal to counter our evidence for a plane hitting the Pentagon as a concesion.	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#146
There is one poor frame from one of their low speed cameras.	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#26
So they only have low speed cameras and only released 5 frames?	zeemike	Dec 2011	#29
You didn't address the evidence presented	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#32
Well I used WTC7 as my smoking gun	zeemike	Dec 2011	#37
Could I request that you please remove that link from your post(s)?	Make7	Dec 2011	#64
I didn't look at the site closely	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#87
Thank you. I did pretty much the same thing the last DU3 test period.	Make7	Dec 2011	#117
This post was hidden by jury decision.	Danchi	Dec 2011	#2
Oh, my God.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#6
Sory but I don't know what any of that means...	zeemike	Dec 2011	#12
It may be a reason to believe in God.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#13
Don't know what that means eather	zeemike	Dec 2011	#18
Where did the plane parts go that hit the pentagon?	liberal N proud	Dec 2011	#4
Here's more evidence for the plane that hit the Pentagon:	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#9
There are plenty of pictures of airplane parts in the Pentagon	hack89	Dec 2011	#21
All the competing theories	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#7
The truth is out there	zeemike	Dec 2011	#14
So the Truthers are part of the lies	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#19
no they are bieng manipulated.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#30
So which ones are bing manipulated?	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#34
oh my	zappaman	Dec 2011	#35
Well that is what Journalist used to do	zeemike	Dec 2011	#36
So what you're saying is	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#38
utter absence of genuine evidence?	zeemike	Dec 2011	#40
"I show you that there is plenty of it?"	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#41
So basicly you just want to run me round and round	zeemike	Dec 2011	#43
The only evidence in the videos is of a burning, wrecked building that collapses.	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#47
I guess that is true	zeemike	Dec 2011	#53
What laws are you referring to?	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#56
The law of gravity for one.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#57
Here's a brief video that shows WTC7 didn't all collapse at the same time	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#59
I have seen it and it is consistant whith what I said	zeemike	Dec 2011	#60
Thermal expansion and weakening of steel can explain the structural failure	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#62
Well what I don't believe is that this thermal expansion was distributed evenly	zeemike	Dec 2011	#65
It wasn't. No one claims that it was.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#66
i am not protesting anything...I am questioning the official story	zeemike	Dec 2011	#68
Protesting, questioning, whatever. You need to find out what the official story is.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#70
Well sory to disapoint you but I have seen the official story	zeemike	Dec 2011	#72
No, you haven't, not with that straw man claim you made about thermal expansion.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#73
What a statement...	zeemike	Dec 2011	#75
I agree. Your post 75 is some statement, indeed.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#77
So I am hearing you say that because it is not part of the official story	zeemike	Dec 2011	#80
No, you are hearing me say, "Locate that phrase or that concept in the Final Report on Building 7."	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#81
So if it is not in the offical report then it does not exist.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#84
"we then have estalished that the collaps was not caused by thermal expansion" - No, we have not.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#86
Well then present it as evedence	zeemike	Dec 2011	#88
Here's a short presentation of the NIST report	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#94
Yep seen it.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#96
Seen it? And still you were here saying that the report claimed uniform thermal expansion was	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#97
Because it said that thermal expansion caused the iner part to fail	zeemike	Dec 2011	#101
Large massive objects don't behave like small light objects.	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#102
All good points....and demolition experts use these facts in their work.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#106
WTC7 didn't fall straight down	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#107
Are you saying that the shell was suported by the inside of the building?	zeemike	Dec 2011	#108
By the way here is a photo of the framework of WTC7	zeemike	Dec 2011	#110
I just showed you with the video of the collapse on comment 59 that there wasn't a uniform collapse.	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#82
So expalin where I am not telling the truth	zeemike	Dec 2011	#85
I am not saying that you are a liar. Not at all.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#91
Well I admit I have not read the report	zeemike	Dec 2011	#92
That's an engineering question	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#63
And Arcitects and Engineers have addtessed it	zeemike	Dec 2011	#67
In the latest holy book in their online store?	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#69
You can dismiss anthing can't you?	zeemike	Dec 2011	#71
I've dismissed the arguments of AE911Truth after nine years of examining 9/11 Truth arguments	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#74
Funy but after 9 years of doing the same thing I came to a diferent conclusion	zeemike	Dec 2011	#76
9 years of avoiding the actual statements of NIST?	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#78
Questioning is not avoiding.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#79
The way you are questioning is avoiding.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#83
That is just the same thing said in a deferent way	zeemike	Dec 2011	#89
But you are misrepresenting what the report says.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#90
If you then take the oposing view it is up to you	zeemike	Dec 2011	#93
You might have that backwards	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#95
And he is sayint that the "proper explanation" is the "official one"	zeemike	Dec 2011	#98
But neither Boffin or the report he cites claims the building fell straight down	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#100
Well nothing is perfict.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#103
Sorry, but the evidence presented by Boffin convinces me it was NOT uniform	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#104
Are you saying that all buildings should behave the same while collapsing?	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#105
not too suprising sense they were very close togather to beguin with	zeemike	Dec 2011	#109
"Only the outer shell collapsed at the same time. That was only after the internal structure collaps	wildbilln864	Dec 2011	#145
bombs in the bldgs. going off plus	ensho	Dec 2011	#8
For me, it was the spike in options trading in United and American airlines	coalition_unwilling	Dec 2011	#23
The willful destruction of the FAA recordings for that time.	kickysnana	Dec 2011	#24
MercutioATC explained that.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#25
There isn't one corner of the Government and media ...	T S Justly	Dec 2011	#42
No Black Boxes ever recovered	Cherchez la Femme	Dec 2011	#111
Not true.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#112
Good to know	Cherchez la Femme	Dec 2011	#113
In a movie theater, links will have to wait	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#114
Here, do some reading......	Logical	Dec 2011	#120
More BS, The Flight 93 flight data recorders were recovered. Also....	Logical	Dec 2011	#119
The attacker's passport that survived the explosion,	FourScore	Dec 2011	#115
Show us how you know	zappaman	Dec 2011	#116
Government protection of fraudulent workers in basement levels.	melonkali	Dec 2011	#118
firemen and policemen said wtc7 was going to come down	tiny elvis	Dec 2011	#121
But the reasons for fearing a collapse are on record.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#122
That's apples and oranges	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#123
someone with some authority said	tiny elvis	Dec 2011	#124
I have posted why firefights though the building would fall	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#125
Already asked and answered	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#126
nist said the collapse was unexpected and unexplained prior to nist's investigation	tiny elvis	Dec 2011	#127
Here's a real time video of a firefighter predicting WTC7's collapse	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#128
the national institute of standards and technology disagrees with you	tiny elvis	Dec 2011	#129
Clearly the collapse was "expected" the day of 9/11	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#130
Here's the link to the 2008 Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#132
i thought maybe you read it	tiny elvis	Dec 2011	#133
Obviously you don't know what you're talking about	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#139
Hmmm, I seriously doubt that claim	William Seger	Dec 2011	#131
Hmmmm...	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#141
Message deleted by the DU Administrators	Nathan_Hale	Dec 2011	#134
I don't think you've got that quote right.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#135
Yes, my recollection was.....	Nathan_Hale	Dec 2011	#136
No, not at all. There's enough intent AFTER seeing the towers attacked to document it.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#137
One can split hairs over....	Nathan_Hale	Dec 2011	#138
Actually, it is resolvable.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#140
just around 911 there was a story about stock trading for American Airlines	Whisp	Dec 2011	#150

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.