petgoat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-04-07 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
| 28. Significant structural damage would cause the period of |
| -Great video on the collapse of the towers |
I_like_chicken |
Feb-03-07 02:33 PM |
#0 |
 -
This is a link to 9/11 Mysteries |
boloboffin |
Feb-03-07 05:03 PM |
#1 |
| -
Oopps, sorry |
I_like_chicken |
Feb-04-07 01:40 AM |
#2 |
| -
Try this one instead, I_like_chicken |
Laurier |
Feb-04-07 01:48 AM |
#3 |
| -
"more accurate"? - surely you mean "promotes the Official Story" |
rman |
Feb-04-07 06:55 AM |
#4 |
| -
Yes, it's far more accurate |
William Seger |
Feb-04-07 09:42 AM |
#5 |
 -
Anything that doesn't fit the Official Story is bullshit according to OCT-ers |
rman |
Feb-04-07 10:38 AM |
#6 |
 -
Watch the video |
William Seger |
Feb-04-07 10:45 AM |
#7 |
| -
I did |
rman |
Feb-04-07 10:58 AM |
#8 |
| -
1) Your criticism missed the point being made, and |
William Seger |
Feb-04-07 12:06 PM |
#12 |
| -
I'm at 1:55 and already pissed off by both 9/11 Mysteries and Screw 9/11 Mysteries. |
petgoat |
Feb-04-07 11:28 AM |
#10 |
| -
At 1:56 I'm pissed off again at Screw. |
petgoat |
Feb-04-07 11:50 AM |
#11 |
| -
Huh? Why would you expect ALL buildings to react the SAME way? |
William Seger |
Feb-04-07 12:12 PM |
#14 |
| -
I don't, and I'm starting to suspect your mischaracterizations are deliberate. nt |
petgoat |
Feb-04-07 01:26 PM |
#31 |
| -
Well, just what is your argument? |
William Seger |
Feb-04-07 02:12 PM |
#42 |
| -
The issue is the dishonest statement in Screw 9/11 Mysteries. |
petgoat |
Feb-04-07 02:56 PM |
#49 |
| -
Baloney |
William Seger |
Feb-04-07 03:45 PM |
#53 |
| -
The total collapse of three buildings due to fire is a mystery |
petgoat |
Feb-04-07 03:53 PM |
#54 |
| -
And you'll NEVER solve the mystery |
William Seger |
Feb-06-07 09:02 AM |
#113 |
| -
I'm not trying to solve the mystery. I'm trying to get a legitimate |
petgoat |
Feb-06-07 12:16 PM |
#118 |
| -
Again I find myself pointing out... |
AZCat |
Feb-04-07 01:55 PM |
#35 |
| -
"absolutely illegitimate appeal to authority" |
William Seger |
Feb-04-07 12:10 PM |
#13 |
| -
The authority never studied the issue, so his opinion cannot be authoritative |
petgoat |
Feb-04-07 12:17 PM |
#16 |
| -
You're projecting your own ignorance on Firmage |
William Seger |
Feb-04-07 12:19 PM |
#17 |
| -
I'm comparing my limited knowledge to Dr. Firmage's ignorance. |
petgoat |
Feb-04-07 12:48 PM |
#21 |
| -
Again, the conclusion at issue is about JONES' paper, not the NIST report |
William Seger |
Feb-04-07 01:10 PM |
#27 |
| -
The issue is the authority of Dr. Firmage's conclusion that |
petgoat |
Feb-04-07 01:25 PM |
#30 |
| -
Look, this is not semantics here. |
boloboffin |
Feb-04-07 01:52 PM |
#34 |
| -
I had a very good professor that frequently illustrated your point "b". |
AZCat |
Feb-04-07 01:57 PM |
#37 |
| -
"Firmage doesn't have to read the FEMA or NIST reports " |
petgoat |
Feb-04-07 02:44 PM |
#45 |
| -
Oh, I see |
William Seger |
Feb-04-07 03:01 PM |
#50 |
| -
He could not know, without reading the reports, how reasonable |
petgoat |
Feb-04-07 03:25 PM |
#51 |
| -
And again, you're judging Firmage's remarks in the "light" of your own ignorance |
William Seger |
Feb-04-07 03:56 PM |
#55 |
| -
You are framing the issue dishonestly or incompetently. |
petgoat |
Feb-04-07 04:06 PM |
#57 |
| -
No, YOU are |
William Seger |
Feb-05-07 10:42 AM |
#77 |
| -
You seem to be unable to distinguish between fact and opinion. nt |
petgoat |
Feb-06-07 01:14 AM |
#104 |
| -
Of course I can |
William Seger |
Feb-06-07 09:53 AM |
#114 |
| -
NO, HE DOES NOT. |
boloboffin |
Feb-04-07 05:35 PM |
#60 |
| -
Firmage does have to study the question before concluding |
petgoat |
Feb-04-07 05:56 PM |
#62 |
| -
You have fun whacking that straw man of yours. |
boloboffin |
Feb-04-07 07:38 PM |
#66 |
| -
Well, if that's the issue |
William Seger |
Feb-04-07 02:05 PM |
#41 |
| -
"he would understand immediately the nature of the collapse" |
petgoat |
Feb-04-07 02:52 PM |
#46 |
| -
Dr. Jones's paper, which is a physics paper, |
LARED |
Feb-04-07 02:54 PM |
#48 |
| -
PG the reality of Jone's paper is that most |
LARED |
Feb-04-07 02:12 PM |
#43 |
| -
Dr. Jones's paper raises a number of questions about the |
petgoat |
Feb-04-07 02:54 PM |
#47 |
| -
And ... |
William Seger |
Feb-04-07 04:03 PM |
#56 |
| -
Dr. Jones presented no such theory |
petgoat |
Feb-04-07 04:17 PM |
#58 |
| -
Another example highlighting your failure... |
AZCat |
Feb-04-07 05:37 PM |
#61 |
| -
Of course I see the difference. You are just trying to play |
petgoat |
Feb-05-07 12:43 AM |
#67 |
| -
Immaterial? |
AZCat |
Feb-05-07 06:26 AM |
#73 |
| -
I posted the pictures as an example of buildings that topple, |
petgoat |
Feb-06-07 01:27 AM |
#109 |
| -
Your post (and included image) is what I call... |
AZCat |
Feb-06-07 08:17 AM |
#111 |
| -
Tell me something I don't know. You want to argue about |
petgoat |
Feb-06-07 12:11 PM |
#116 |
| -
Well, better luck next time |
William Seger |
Feb-06-07 08:03 PM |
#121 |
| -
No, I want to point out your flawed argument. |
AZCat |
Feb-06-07 08:07 PM |
#122 |
| -
I will note he has still not answered the question. Is it his position |
petgoat |
Feb-06-07 08:36 PM |
#123 |
| -
It's the same position that I've had every other time that we've argued about the same point |
William Seger |
Feb-06-07 10:08 PM |
#127 |
| -
Jones uses the fact that it's difficult to make buildings land in |
petgoat |
Feb-06-07 10:26 PM |
#128 |
| -
re: Firmage |
tenseconds |
Feb-05-07 06:07 PM |
#82 |
| -
Firmage is a PhD Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering at BYU |
William Seger |
Feb-05-07 09:48 PM |
#97 |
| -
Firmage is a clown who concludes his so-called "refutation" |
petgoat |
Feb-06-07 01:16 AM |
#105 |
| -
It wasn't a "refutation" |
William Seger |
Feb-06-07 08:58 AM |
#112 |
| -
You're absolutely correct. That's why I called it a "so-called refutation" |
petgoat |
Feb-06-07 12:09 PM |
#115 |
| -
Care to provide any specific criticisms of 9/11 Mysteries? |
petgoat |
Feb-04-07 11:17 AM |
#9 |
| -
The closest 9/11 mysteries ever gets to the truth |
William Seger |
Feb-04-07 12:15 PM |
#15 |
| -
"They completely dismiss the damage done to the towers by the planes" |
petgoat |
Feb-04-07 12:28 PM |
#18 |
| -
"And they're right to do so." |
William Seger |
Feb-04-07 12:39 PM |
#19 |
| -
This statement really peaks my curiosity |
LARED |
Feb-04-07 12:41 PM |
#20 |
| -
The period of oscillation and redundancy are related in that both |
petgoat |
Feb-04-07 12:58 PM |
#22 |
| -
Gee, how come only one guy made it down from above the collapse? |
William Seger |
Feb-04-07 01:01 PM |
#23 |
| -
There were four. Brian Clark, Stanley Praimnath, Ron Defrencesco, |
petgoat |
Feb-04-07 01:09 PM |
#26 |
| -
Oh, sorry, there were FOUR of them? That changes everything |
William Seger |
Feb-04-07 01:14 PM |
#29 |
| -
Asphyxiation will do that to a person. You've never tried that? |
petgoat |
Feb-04-07 01:28 PM |
#32 |
| -
One stairway |
William Seger |
Feb-05-07 09:41 PM |
#96 |
| -
"there was no core damage" is a stupid straw man. nt |
petgoat |
Feb-06-07 01:17 AM |
#106 |
| -
4-0 ...you lose... |
tenseconds |
Feb-05-07 06:16 PM |
#84 |
| -
Uh, no it isn't |
William Seger |
Feb-05-07 09:50 PM |
#98 |
| -
Can you name these witnesses? Did anybody try to get down |
petgoat |
Feb-06-07 01:19 AM |
#107 |
| -
Yes |
William Seger |
Feb-06-07 07:51 PM |
#119 |
| -
I never said "no core damage because the stairs weren't blocked." |
petgoat |
Feb-06-07 08:55 PM |
#124 |
| -
No, genius |
William Seger |
Feb-06-07 09:44 PM |
#126 |
| -
According to Brian Clark, the stairwell he used was blocked |
petgoat |
Feb-07-07 09:38 AM |
#130 |
| -
I can say this with great confidence |
LARED |
Feb-04-07 02:05 PM |
#40 |
| -
Please explain how the "period of oscillation" |
William Seger |
Feb-04-07 01:03 PM |
#24 |
| -
Significant structural damage would cause the period of |
petgoat |
Feb-04-07 01:12 PM |
#28 |
| -
You have no idea what you are talking about. |
AZCat |
Feb-04-07 01:50 PM |
#33 |
| -
The liberty bell is not an analogy for the towers. It's a dramatic |
petgoat |
Feb-04-07 03:32 PM |
#52 |
| -
Obviously? |
AZCat |
Feb-04-07 05:33 PM |
#59 |
| -
If the tower is not a reed, what is it? nt |
petgoat |
Feb-04-07 05:57 PM |
#63 |
| -
It's a complex structure... |
AZCat |
Feb-04-07 06:00 PM |
#64 |
| -
I've got a secret for you: So is a reed. |
petgoat |
Feb-04-07 06:39 PM |
#65 |
| -
Congratulations - you can use google. |
AZCat |
Feb-05-07 06:28 AM |
#75 |
| -
get on it... |
tenseconds |
Feb-05-07 06:21 PM |
#85 |
| -
First why don't you correct the information in your post? |
AZCat |
Feb-05-07 06:29 PM |
#88 |
| -
step to the plate |
tenseconds |
Feb-05-07 06:37 PM |
#89 |
| -
I already passed all my exams. |
AZCat |
Feb-05-07 06:38 PM |
#90 |
| -
ignore |
tenseconds |
Feb-05-07 06:50 PM |
#91 |
| -
Okay. |
AZCat |
Feb-05-07 07:09 PM |
#92 |
| -
So you're claiming that it didn't? |
William Seger |
Feb-04-07 01:57 PM |
#36 |
| -
"What was the period of oscillation before and after the crashes" |
petgoat |
Feb-05-07 12:49 AM |
#68 |
| -
I have read it |
William Seger |
Feb-05-07 10:38 AM |
#76 |
| -
I take back what I said |
LARED |
Feb-04-07 01:59 PM |
#39 |
| -
"How much do you think it could change?" |
petgoat |
Feb-05-07 12:51 AM |
#69 |
| -
Petgoat - haven't you learned by now to stop trying... |
AZCat |
Feb-04-07 01:04 PM |
#25 |
| -
Poof poof poof poof poof. nt |
petgoat |
Feb-05-07 12:52 AM |
#70 |
| -
I guess that means... |
AZCat |
Feb-05-07 06:27 AM |
#74 |
| -
That last drawing is a crock, petgoat. |
boloboffin |
Feb-04-07 01:58 PM |
#38 |
| -
"the wings were loaded with fuel." |
petgoat |
Feb-05-07 12:53 AM |
#71 |
| -
Why not just admit |
LARED |
Feb-05-07 12:34 PM |
#78 |
| -
It certainly seems that way. |
AZCat |
Feb-05-07 03:05 PM |
#79 |
| -
It must be a conspiracy theorist thing |
LARED |
Feb-05-07 04:09 PM |
#80 |
| -
Hah! |
AZCat |
Feb-05-07 05:03 PM |
#81 |
| -
So did the fuel sever the columns, or didn't it ? |
petgoat |
Feb-06-07 01:12 AM |
#103 |
| -
How 'bout we talk about resonance instead? |
AZCat |
Feb-06-07 08:11 AM |
#110 |
| -
How bout we stick to the core discussion? Does anyone here |
petgoat |
Feb-06-07 12:15 PM |
#117 |
| -
I can always count on you to exaggerate. |
AZCat |
Feb-06-07 08:03 PM |
#120 |
| -
A simple experiment for you to try. |
boloboffin |
Feb-06-07 09:33 PM |
#125 |
| -
I'll do that right after you kick me to the kerb. |
petgoat |
Feb-06-07 10:39 PM |
#129 |
| -
because...blahblahblah |
tenseconds |
Feb-05-07 06:27 PM |
#87 |
| -
Can I get on your ignore list? |
LARED |
Feb-05-07 07:20 PM |
#93 |
| -
No way, man! |
AZCat |
Feb-05-07 07:21 PM |
#94 |
| -
Dang, I am honored |
LARED |
Feb-05-07 08:01 PM |
#95 |
| -
Go get some sleep, LARED! |
William Seger |
Feb-05-07 10:09 PM |
#102 |
| -
Do your "funny papers" come in a Zig-Zag pack? |
William Seger |
Feb-05-07 09:56 PM |
#101 |
| -
By the way, forgot to mention this one: |
William Seger |
Feb-04-07 02:26 PM |
#44 |
| -
"Is this explanation just too complicated " |
petgoat |
Feb-05-07 12:57 AM |
#72 |
| -
why? |
tenseconds |
Feb-05-07 06:13 PM |
#83 |
| -
Did the 9/11 commission even mention the core column? |
LARED |
Feb-05-07 06:22 PM |
#86 |
| -
I think "ten seconds" is the amount of research he's done |
William Seger |
Feb-05-07 09:51 PM |
#99 |
| -
That's the point. They didn't. They said the core was |
petgoat |
Feb-06-07 01:22 AM |
#108 |
| -
Do you mean NIST? |
William Seger |
Feb-05-07 09:54 PM |
#100 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
