1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Hacker group releases '9/11 Papers', says future leaks will 'burn down' US deep state

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Minusorange, Jan 4, 2019.

  1. Angilion

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Dec 5, 2003

    Posts: 15,176

    Location: Just to the left of my PC

    No it wasn't and no they didn't.

    You have faith, so it doesn't matter what it said or written.

    Anyone else, please read the NIST report. Either one - they don't contradict each other. Quick summary - the collapse of the building was not in free fall. 2 seconds of the collapse of one part of the building was in free fall. Not a contradiction. Not an admission of being wrong. Claims that the faithful are making about the NIST reports are false.
     
  2. Beansprout

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Jan 31, 2004

    Posts: 16,208

    Location: Plymouth

    Every time I read CT rubbish I think of the positives - that the UK and US must not be running out of qualified engineers! :)
     
  3. deuse

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 17, 2007

    Posts: 18,603

    Location: Solihull-Florida


    How many times can you get it wrong?

    At first NIST said there was no free fall. You can see the video of them saying that.
    Then a teacher asked a question about the free fall. In the final draft, NIST admitted they got it wrong and there was free fall.
    And if you do the math yourself(you have haven't you?) you will see they got it wrong.

    You did watch NIST say that it was impossible to have free fall......didn't you?



    You anti CTs are even madder... Talk about a bubble world!
     
  4. Angilion

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Dec 5, 2003

    Posts: 15,176

    Location: Just to the left of my PC

    I'm just going to cut and paste the same text as many times as is necessary. No point retyping it.

    Please read the NIST report. Either one - they don't contradict each other.

    Quick summary - the collapse of the building was not in free fall. 2 seconds of the collapse of one part of the building was in free fall. Not a contradiction. Not an admission of being wrong. Claims that the faithful are making about the NIST reports are false.
     
  5. deuse

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 17, 2007

    Posts: 18,603

    Location: Solihull-Florida


    WHAT!

    You are worse then the CT nutters.
    Mine and others tax dollars paid for the report that you didn't even read.

    "
    • Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
    • Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
    • Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity"
    https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

    NIST can't even make up there minds what the free fall time was. Lets see your evidence.

    I would hate to live in your bubble world.
     
  6. Dis86

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 23, 2011

    Posts: 18,127

    Location: Northern England

    Lol. 4 - 1.75 = 2.25.

    Rounded that is 2 seconds. You're agreeing with him.
     
  7. Murphy

    Associate

    Joined: Sep 16, 2018

    Posts: 61

    Don't go confusing the conspiracy theorists with facts. ;)
     
  8. Angilion

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Dec 5, 2003

    Posts: 15,176

    Location: Just to the left of my PC

    I see that it's time to cut and paste again:

    I'm just going to cut and paste the same text as many times as is necessary. No point retyping it.

    Please read the NIST report. Either one - they don't contradict each other.

    Quick summary - the collapse of the building was not in free fall. 2 seconds of the collapse of one part of the building was in free fall. Not a contradiction. Not an admission of being wrong. Claims that the faithful are making about the NIST reports are false.



    I suggest you read that report you're referring to, because it does not say what you're claiming it says. It does not say that the building collapsed in free fall at all, ever, not even for 2 seconds. It says that part of the building collapsed in free fall for 2 seconds. Part of the PC I am using is made of copper. Do you think that means all PCs are made entirely of copper and nothing else?

    When support completely fails on an object, it falls under gravity until it hits something else. This isn't a bizarre statement. It isn't proof of alien destruction rays or invisible and undetectable explosives that don't explode but do explode but don't explode. It's gravity.

    You know you have no evidence, so you're grasping at any old bit of straw and claiming it's a sturdy mountain.
     
  9. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 36,485

    Rather than quibbling over whether there was any free fall or whether there was but it was 2 seconds or 2.25 seconds... why not just explain what the issue is? So what if there was free fall for 2.25 seconds? Why is that controversial?
     
  10. Housey

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Feb 21, 2006

    Posts: 26,183

    Location: England

    Typical CT. You see you believe yourself to be right even when there is vast VAST evidence to show most CT is fantasy. Baseless conjecture or at best, badly formed conjecture that is so one sided and sourced from people like you perpetuating it and oblivious to the VAST contrary evidence. You grasp a point, badly, to call the non believers in your wrongness, nutters. You have snippets and seek to make a case like all CT. You post those snippets over and over and are blind when they are refuted...like all CT.

    Cultish behaviours and like all cults the members need to see the light, you can’t tell em. Most will, we have some in this thread but some need time to realise how daft they are, for they are. You are not the ones who are right, you are virtually always wrong and you were not calling the earth round when the world said it was flat. You were the ones calling it a rhombus made out of butter.
     
  11. Angilion

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Dec 5, 2003

    Posts: 15,176

    Location: Just to the left of my PC

    Apparently it "proves" that large parts of the building were disintegrated into nothingness by...something unexplained. I'm not being hyperbolic when I talk about alien destruction rays - that is one of the possibilities suggested by conspiracy believers. It's internally consistent for those who also believe that the secret world government is working with the aliens and/or has captured alien technology from crashed alien spaceships. It also (in its own bizarre way) makes more sense than using human technology because we don't have a way to do a controlled demolition of a building that size without anyone noticing. It's a big job to do a controlled demoliton with explosives - no way is that going to happen in an occupied building with nobody noticing. Although I suppose an utterly psychopathic secret world government might be content with just filling the basement with explosives and relying on the building design to result in a mostly straight downward collapse. Or not care how it fell - if they were intent on killing as many of their own civilians as possible then they wouldn't care what happened. But it was probably aliens. It's always aliens. But hey, aliens built the pyramids so they're not all bad. Unless the pyramids are secret mind control devices, of course.
     
  12. deuse

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 17, 2007

    Posts: 18,603

    Location: Solihull-Florida


    You do know that is from NIST where it says "Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)"

    So NIST doesn't even know if the free fall was 1.75 sec or 4.0 seconds.
    But at least you read that they did get it wrong and put it right in the final draft. :)
     
  13. deuse

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 17, 2007

    Posts: 18,603

    Location: Solihull-Florida


    In the links to NIST live TV at the time.
    They said that free fall was impossible. But after a teacher gave NIST the math. NIST all of a sudden(well years and $10 mil of my tax dollars)
    say there was after all free fall. If you watch the first video, the teacher show you how to do the math.

    It's not CT thing. I and many others want to know how they got it so wrong.
    Or to put it another way. If that teacher never asked that question, we would never know that NIST got it wrong.
     
  14. Em3bbs

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 26, 2011

    Posts: 4,044

    Location: City of London

    What are you on about? Each stage clearly lasts a precise number of seconds. Stage 2 lasts from 1.75 to 4.0 seconds, which is 2.25 seconds as has already been pointed out to you. If you can't understand something as basic as a time range then it just shows you aren't worth discussing the subject with.
     
  15. deuse

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 17, 2007

    Posts: 18,603

    Location: Solihull-Florida


    Read the links and find out.
    I even linked a NIST video.....
     
  16. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 36,485

    It sounds like you’re making a big deal about nothing then. Someone talking on a video wasn’t particularly precise... so what?
     
  17. Murphy

    Associate

    Joined: Sep 16, 2018

    Posts: 61

    I want to know why it matter if they got it wrong?
     
  18. Dis86

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 23, 2011

    Posts: 18,127

    Location: Northern England

    He genuinely doesn't get that it's a range! This is brilliant.
     
  19. Freebird101

    Associate

    Joined: Jan 6, 2012

    Posts: 90

    This is absolute gold :D
     
  20. Em3bbs

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 26, 2011

    Posts: 4,044

    Location: City of London

    I don't think he even gets it now, despite me explaining the stages and time ranges.