• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A good day to celebrate the lunacy of the USGOCT

mike2810 said:
From camlocks post 13 where he quoted my post and added comment in red.

"You are being very unclear as to what it is that is actually "From Corbett's own web site", mike. That isn't how science should approach these things"

"The video illustrates clearly why there is no need to "present an alternative explanation". Corbett's video illustrates that the US government story is so patently ludicrous"

You are being unclear camlock. If what you post is based in science, I suggest you go back or stay in school and learn.

Please inform AE911T (Gage, et. al). there is no need for further investigation of an alternative explanation. The reason you believe Carbett's vid proves there is not need. This just keeps getting better camlok.

Bet you have no questions regarding Hensley's latest report on WTC7?
Funny how he gave his conclusion a month before the analysis was concluded.
Ever wonder why the damaged portion of the WTC7 floors was not included in the computer model run? Or how about only looking at fire on two floors.

No modeling, including NIST has been conducted that represented the real world collapse of WTC7. Assumptions were made of fuel load, fire behavior, structural damage, etc. Sorry, AE911T paid for analysis failed to prove anything.
Click to expand...


Another, even more full than the usual posts from you, mike, that is still devoid of anything remotely approaching evidence/proof for the USGOCT.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Recall, each of the Twin Towers was 1/3 mile tall
Click to expand...

Excellent videos. CA. I believe the second one was an example of the French verinage, which uses hydraulics to tip the midsection.

The twin towers were actually around 1/4 mile tall.

WTC1 - 1,368'/5,280' = 25.9

WTC2 - 1,362'/5,280' = 25.79

Here's a very good short video that compares how the twin towers and controlled demolitions are very much alike. Which should be any surprise because the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolitions.

Controlled Demolition vs. WTC Collapse




Jonathon Cole, an engineer who has done a lot of great 911 experiments, [experiments NIST certainly could have and should have done - they didn't do said experiments because these simple experiments would have shown NIST and NIST lies were cover ups for the USGOCT] did a conclusive experiment showing that the towers, which came down in a manner following the principles of Newtonian physics, were brought down by CDs.

Gravity collapses cannot do what was seen to have happened to the twin towers, fall at accelerating speeds, with no jolts.

9/11 Experiments: The Force Behind the Motion

 
camlok said:
The truth scares you folks silly. That is why your posts here were such a shamble, a confused mess of rambles.

You still go on with the silly notions. Your "questions" are always just distractions, aimed at hiding the truth.
Click to expand...

Why was it a "A good day to celebrate the lunacy of the USGOCT" for you when you made the OP?
 
camlok said:
Another, even more full than the usual posts from you, mike, that is still devoid of anything remotely approaching evidence/proof for the USGOCT.
Click to expand...

There is a good reason which must be beyond your grasp. I am not discussing what you call USGOCT.

So you have no questions regarding Hensley's latest report. You must believe it without question. What are you scared of?

No response from you on why Hensley's modeling is any better than NIST. I bet it is because Hensley's report conclusion is what you wanted to read. Go figure, a report funded by AE911T with Tony Sz assumptions used comes up with NIST was wrong. AE911T has you fooled for 16 years.
 
camlok said:
Another posting completely devoid of evidence/proof/logic.

With world class liars like GW Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the other Class A war criminals/terrorists, you have some gall pointing fingers.

Did you watch the short video about Rummy's "underground fortresses"? I mean, come on, this was on US national TV and it was absorbed and swallowed by large numbers of American sheeple.
Click to expand...

Considering that every single one of your posts is devoid of all three, you have no room to whine at others.

With the world class war criminals like the Taliban you love so much, you have no room to talk falsely accusing others of war crimes.

Did you watch the video about delusional CTeds making idiotic claims? I thought that one was particularly hilarious.

You average "sheeple" has more brains in their little finger than a CTer has in their whole body.
 
mike2810 said:
There is a good reason which must be beyond your grasp. I am not discussing what you call USGOCT.

You don't have to tell me you aren't/don't discuss the US government official conspiracy theory.
You never have, you never will because you know that it is totally bogus.

So you have no questions regarding Hensley's latest report. You must believe it without question. What are you scared of?

No response from you on why Hensley's modeling is any better than NIST. I bet it is because Hensley's report conclusion is what you wanted to read. Go figure, a report funded by AE911T with Tony Sz assumptions used comes up with NIST was wrong. AE911T has you fooled for 16 years.
Click to expand...

Again, without fail, zero evidence for anything, just this disjointed rambling, mike. Why don't you, why haven't you addressed Captain Adverse's comments?

You simply do not want to face up to the fact that the USGOCT has nothing to support it, which is why you have been engaged in such a diligent fashion with doing all you can to create tangents away from the USGOCT, which you pretend you don't know what it means.

What about Jon Cole's experiment. Why are you ignoring it? You didn't even watch it, we know you didn't because the solid science implications scare the bejabbers out of you. What Jon Cole describes is the Newtonian physics that make the USGOCT a farce, something that could not have happened as NIST didn't even try to describe.

It too, clearly shows that the USGOCT is nonsense. The motion of the twin towers is not the USGOCT/Bazant nonsense of "down and out", ie. the top of the towers collapsing and forcing the below floors to blow out. Cole's earlier experiments showed that smaller weaker sections of anything can not crush stronger, more massive sections.

Those experiments agree completely with Newton's Laws of Physics while the USGOCT/NIST's conclusions most certainly do not.
 
[double posting]
 
Last edited:
camlok said:
Again, without fail, zero evidence for anything, just this disjointed rambling, mike. Why don't you, why haven't you addressed Captain Adverse's comments?

You simply do not want to face up to the fact that the USGOCT has nothing to support it, which is why you have been engaged in such a diligent fashion with doing all you can to create tangents away from the USGOCT, which you pretend you don't know what it means.

What about Jon Cole's experiment. Why are you ignoring it? You didn't even watch it, we know you didn't because the solid science implications scare the bejabbers out of you. What Jon Cole describes is the Newtonian physics that make the USGOCT a farce, something that could not have happened as NIST didn't even try to describe.

It too, clearly shows that the USGOCT is nonsense. The motion of the twin towers is not the USGOCT/Bazant nonsense of "down and out", ie. the top of the towers collapsing and forcing the below floors to blow out. Cole's earlier experiments showed that smaller weaker sections of anything can not crush stronger, more massive sections.

Those experiments agree completely with Newton's Laws of Physics while the USGOCT/NIST's conclusions most certainly do not.
Click to expand...


It really interesting how you avoided answering the question of why you felt it was "A good day to celebrate the lunacy of the USGOCT".
Pretty disrespectful to those who died on that day.

You seem to not follow along, I was asking you about Hensley, you bring up Cole. Might ask why you ignore the work done by Purdue University regarding the WTC. Your ramble is just a way to avoid answering questions.

Like other threads , you have ruined this one with your failure to engage in a meaningful way. Have a good one.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
To answer the second question first, not always.

Top-Down Demolition has been used, and is a process suggested to deal with skyscrapers in built up areas. For your consideration:

http://global.ctbuh.org/resources/p...tem-for-skyscrapers-controlled-demolition.pdf

Here are three examples:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVQaVgJne6c

Regarding your first comment, the following is my "speculation" about this issue.

One of the major fears when dealing with high-rise buildings is that if (or when) a catastrophic event the likes of 9/11 happens, how do you control the fall of such tall building so they don't threaten the lives and property within the surrounding area.

Recall, each of the Twin Towers was 1/3 mile tall and if they fell north, south, or eastward they would cause a domino effect damaging/destroying other buildings and risking thousands of additional lives.

If westward, they would create a river hazard.

In the event of damage, it would be a good plan to set up a design allowing for tall buildings to collapse into their own footprint as much as possible.

So my view is that either such a structural design was intentionally built into the World Trade Center plan; or demolitions allowing for such a possibility were pre-positioned at some point well before this attack occurred.

NOT in anticipation of such an attack, but rather as a hidden design for any eventuality.
Click to expand...

Regarding your last sentence, consider the writings of Dimitri Khalezov.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_154.htm
 
Thoreau72 said:
Regarding your last sentence, consider the writings of Dimitri Khalezov.

9/11 Nuclear Demolition of The WTC - by Dimitri Khalezov
Click to expand...

So now you support Khalezov and the basement nuke instead of Prager and the mini neutron bombs planted on some of the top floors Also please explain why a nuke would need assistance from nanothermite to bring the building down?

Explain how the basement nuke would not have caused the lower floor windows to blow out. Watching the vids it is pretty clear that the collapse started at the upper sections of WTC1,2, and 7.
 
mike2810 said:
So now you support Khalezov and the basement nuke instead of Prager and the mini neutron bombs planted on some of the top floors Also please explain why a nuke would need assistance from nanothermite to bring the building down?

Explain how the basement nuke would not have caused the lower floor windows to blow out. Watching the vids it is pretty clear that the collapse started at the upper sections of WTC1,2, and 7.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the missing tell-tale mushroom cloud and a large area of New York being vaporized.
 
zyzygy said:
Not to mention the missing tell-tale mushroom cloud and a large area of New York being vaporized.
Click to expand...

Maybe it was a shape charged nuke? You know, they could direct all the energy up to the top of the building. Then melting the steel on the way back down.

The type of nuke Khalezov suggests would have left a radiation signature and a seismic record different that what is known.

Even AE911T states their research proves no nukes were used. The CD people can't agree. Each searching for their piece of the pie from those who send them money.
 
mike2810 said:
Maybe it was a shape charged nuke? You know, they could direct all the energy up to the top of the building. Then melting the steel on the way back down.
Click to expand...

Ah, the ones that don't exist.
 
mike2810 said:
So now you support Khalezov and the basement nuke instead of Prager and the mini neutron bombs planted on some of the top floors Also please explain why a nuke would need assistance from nanothermite to bring the building down?

Explain how the basement nuke would not have caused the lower floor windows to blow out. Watching the vids it is pretty clear that the collapse started at the upper sections of WTC1,2, and 7.
Click to expand...
I love the nukes in the basement caused the buildings to collapse starting many stories above ground claims.
Truthers just dont comprehend how ludicrous their own claims are because they dont know squat about physics and dont want to know
 
zyzygy said:
Not to mention the missing tell-tale mushroom cloud and a large area of New York being vaporized.
Click to expand...

Or the radiation or seismic event or anything else approaching what actually happened that day
 
mike2810 said:
It really interesting how you avoided answering the question of why you felt it was "A good day to celebrate the lunacy of the USGOCT".
Pretty disrespectful to those who died on that day.

You USGOCT supporters are the ones who are disrespectful to both those that died on 911 and all the families, plus all the millions of Iraqis/Afghans/Libyans/Syrians that your war criminal/terrorist governments have murdered.

You seem to not follow along, I was asking you about Hensley, you bring up Cole. Might ask why you ignore the work done by Purdue University regarding the WTC. Your ramble is just a way to avoid answering questions.

Like other threads , you have ruined this one with your failure to engage in a meaningful way.
Click to expand...

You have NEVER brought up Purdue/Hensley before yet here you are, yet again, trotting out another of your famous crazy, inane distractions.

You ask about all manner of inane, disjointed, wacky, off topic things. Notice how you three guys just engage each other, never any evidence, never any proof, just the usual science denying maundering.

Don't have a good one! Wallow in your immoral/amoral support for the gigantic lies, the war crimes, the terrorism, the baby killing that you folks have engendered, that you folks support, that you folks seemingly thrill to.
 
camlok said:
You have NEVER brought up Purdue/Hensley before yet here you are, yet again, trotting out another of your famous crazy, inane distractions.

You ask about all manner of inane, disjointed, wacky, off topic things. Notice how you three guys just engage each other, never any evidence, never any proof, just the usual science denying maundering.

Don't have a good one! Wallow in your immoral/amoral support for the gigantic lies, the war crimes, the terrorism, the baby killing that you folks have engendered, that you folks support, that you folks seemingly thrill to.
Click to expand...

Have a good one.
I don't stoop to your level of posting.
 
mike2810 said:
Have a good one.

Your typical phony behavior, mike.

I don't stoop to your level of posting.
Click to expand...

I know that, mike. Honesty is not at all you.
 
camlok said:
I know that, mike. Honesty is not at all you.
Click to expand...


Please provide evidence that I am dishonest. Your claim to prove.

Please prove that my posting behavior is "phony".
 
mike2810 said:
Please provide evidence that I am dishonest. Your claim to prove.

Please prove that my posting behavior is "phony".
Click to expand...

Why bother? We all know he has no evidence for any of his claims
 
Quag said:
Why bother? We all know he has no evidence for any of his claims
Click to expand...

Thought I would give him one more chance. It is evident he learned nothing from the time out.

Camlok posts are not worth the time anymore on this thread.
 
mike2810 said:
Thought I would give him one more chance. It is evident he learned nothing from the time out.
Click to expand...

There's a dandy example of your dishonesty, mike, you agreeing with Quag, who makes the ludicrous suggestion that I don't provide evidence.
 
In a time of universal deception, speaking the truth is a radical act.

When everyone is thinking the same, nobody is thinking.
 
mike2810 said:
Please provide evidence that I am dishonest. Your claim to prove.

Please prove that my posting behavior is "phony".
Click to expand...

Okay, I will, mike.

Here's some more of that evidence that you knee jerkingly agreed with quag I never provide.

The Official ReThink911 Video

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom