zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.

Learn More · Register Now
Welcome to Loose Change Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


Pages: (10) « First ... 6 7 [8] 9 10  ( Go to first unread post )

 Louder Than Words Radio, NOW FIVE NIGHTS A WEEK
dylan avery
Posted: Oct 15 2007, 12:58 PM


I am whatever you say I am


Group: Admin
Posts: 2,811
Member No.: 2
Joined: 17-October 06



QUOTE (valuesize @ Oct 15 2007, 05:55 PM)
I've not researched either of those topics as substantially as I have the major claims of the truth movement (Controlled Demolition, molten steel, faked phone calls, hani hanjoor's pilot skills, etc).

Sibel Edmonds/Pakistani ISI seem like somewhat "fringe" issues compared to the central claims of the truth movement.

I think if we can find some common ground that we're both knowledgeable on it would make for some compelling radio.

:lol:

Clearly you haven't researched the movement at ALL.

The Pakistani connection and Sibel Edmonds' case are two of the front-runners when it comes to unimpeachable proof of government complicity/cover-up. I recommend you do a lot more research before coming to the table for a debate.

Faked phone calls is hardly what I'd consider a "major claim" of the movement.
Top
Runner70
Posted: Oct 15 2007, 01:07 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 170
Member No.: 676
Joined: 25-October 06



QUOTE (dylan avery @ Oct 15 2007, 05:58 PM)
QUOTE (valuesize @ Oct 15 2007, 05:55 PM)
I've not researched either of those topics as substantially as I have the major claims of the truth movement (Controlled Demolition, molten steel, faked phone calls, hani hanjoor's pilot skills, etc).

Sibel Edmonds/Pakistani ISI seem like somewhat "fringe" issues compared to the central claims of the truth movement.

I think if we can find some common ground that we're both knowledgeable on it would make for some compelling radio.

:lol:

Clearly you haven't researched the movement at ALL.

The Pakistani connection and Sibel Edmonds' case are two of the front-runners when it comes to unimpeachable proof of government complicity/cover-up. I recommend you do a lot more research before coming to the table for a debate.

Faked phone calls is hardly what I'd consider a "major claim" of the movement.

Dylan,

How do you view Musharraf, given the ISI-Al Qaeda connection. Its my understanding that Mahmoud Ahmad led the coup that put Musharraf into power...

What do you say to people who claim that "Pakistan's politics are complex... and certainly top level ISI have supported the Taliban/Al Qaeda, but Musharraf is doing the best he can - walking a thin line, in a very volatile situation."
Top
valuesize
Posted: Oct 15 2007, 01:51 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 363
Member No.: 7,609
Joined: 10-October 07



QUOTE (dylan avery @ Oct 15 2007, 12:58 PM)
QUOTE (valuesize @ Oct 15 2007, 05:55 PM)
I've not researched either of those topics as substantially as I have the major claims of the truth movement (Controlled Demolition, molten steel, faked phone calls, hani hanjoor's pilot skills, etc).

Sibel Edmonds/Pakistani ISI seem like somewhat "fringe" issues compared to the central claims of the truth movement.

I think if we can find some common ground that we're both knowledgeable on it would make for some compelling radio.

:lol:

Clearly you haven't researched the movement at ALL.

The Pakistani connection and Sibel Edmonds' case are two of the front-runners when it comes to unimpeachable proof of government complicity/cover-up. I recommend you do a lot more research before coming to the table for a debate.

Faked phone calls is hardly what I'd consider a "major claim" of the movement.

If you want me on your show, we can discuss a topic that I have sufficiently researched, or you can debate with someone else. Your choice.

The Controlled Demolition theory is probably the most widely-held claims of the Truth Movement. I would be more than happy to discuss this with you on your show.
Top
Roxdog
Posted: Oct 15 2007, 01:53 PM


Why is Al Gore's House Bigger Than Everyone Else's?


Group: Members
Posts: 5,428
Member No.: 34
Joined: 18-October 06



"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse". - NIST
Top
look-up
Posted: Oct 15 2007, 02:13 PM


A WTC 7 No-Planer


Group: Members
Posts: 5,768
Member No.: 654
Joined: 25-October 06



QUOTE (Roxdog @ Oct 15 2007, 06:53 PM)
"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse". - NIST

I'd say there's a good topic for tonight's show then!
Top
dylan avery
Posted: Oct 15 2007, 02:40 PM


I am whatever you say I am


Group: Admin
Posts: 2,811
Member No.: 2
Joined: 17-October 06



QUOTE (look-up @ Oct 15 2007, 07:13 PM)
QUOTE (Roxdog @ Oct 15 2007, 06:53 PM)
"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse". - NIST

I'd say there's a good topic for tonight's show then!

Hopefully valuesize can call in and provide a full explanation.
Top
look-up
Posted: Oct 15 2007, 02:41 PM


A WTC 7 No-Planer


Group: Members
Posts: 5,768
Member No.: 654
Joined: 25-October 06



QUOTE (dylan avery @ Oct 15 2007, 07:40 PM)
QUOTE (look-up @ Oct 15 2007, 07:13 PM)
QUOTE (Roxdog @ Oct 15 2007, 06:53 PM)
"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse". - NIST

I'd say there's a good topic for tonight's show then!

Hopefully valuesize can call in and provide a full explanation.

he/she is attempting to do just that in the other thread... not working too well though.
Top
dylan avery
Posted: Oct 15 2007, 02:44 PM


I am whatever you say I am


Group: Admin
Posts: 2,811
Member No.: 2
Joined: 17-October 06



QUOTE (look-up @ Oct 15 2007, 07:41 PM)
QUOTE (dylan avery @ Oct 15 2007, 07:40 PM)
QUOTE (look-up @ Oct 15 2007, 07:13 PM)
QUOTE (Roxdog @ Oct 15 2007, 06:53 PM)
"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse". - NIST

I'd say there's a good topic for tonight's show then!

Hopefully valuesize can call in and provide a full explanation.

he/she is attempting to do just that in the other thread... not working too well though.

C'mon, look-up. The video evidence is rather clear; it was not stopped by the floors below. There was no calculation that NIST did to demonstrate that which is clear from the videos...

Must be great to work at NIST. If someone asks me to explain gravity I show them footage of an apple falling from a tree.
Top
mynameis
Posted: Oct 15 2007, 02:51 PM


If you're a troll, you get dead air from me.


Group: Members
Posts: 4,823
Member No.: 856
Joined: 4-November 06



QUOTE (dylan avery @ Oct 15 2007, 07:44 PM)
Must be great to work at NIST. If someone asks me to explain gravity I show them footage of an apple falling from a tree.

Yessuh, I shor wuld luv workin fer meh massah. Ser.
Top
look-up
Posted: Oct 15 2007, 02:51 PM


A WTC 7 No-Planer


Group: Members
Posts: 5,768
Member No.: 654
Joined: 25-October 06



I know, the way they and the debunkers seem to work is within the realm of trying to analyze all of this as if there is no alternative explanation. As if, "well hey, it fell right? So it must have failed due to fire. Cuz see, it fell!" But there is a very viable alternative theory, but they just don't want to consider it with an open-mind.

The way they answer questions or refuse to answer them, shows they do not really see any alternative for consideration in the first place.


I still say that newton's third law of motion makes the total collapse impossible. Basically, if the upper section were to impose a load and thus a destructive force onto the lower section, than the lower section, being more solidly constructed, without damage (presumably) would have destroyed the upper section, not the other way around. Instead, we see the smaller object completely destroying the larger one.
Top
thehighwaymanq
Posted: Oct 15 2007, 02:57 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,673
Member No.: 1,048
Joined: 26-November 06



How am I going to get anything done when there's 2 hours of LTW Radio a day? :P
Top
valuesize
Posted: Oct 15 2007, 03:03 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 363
Member No.: 7,609
Joined: 10-October 07



QUOTE (look-up @ Oct 15 2007, 02:51 PM)
I know, the way they and the debunkers seem to work is within the realm of trying to analyze all of this as if there is no alternative explanation.  As if, "well hey, it fell right?  So it must have failed due to fire.  Cuz see, it fell!"  But there is a very viable alternative theory, but they just don't want to consider it with an open-mind.

The way they answer questions or refuse to answer them, shows they do not really see any alternative for consideration in the first place.


I still say that newton's third law of motion makes the total collapse impossible.  Basically, if the upper section were to impose a load and thus a destructive force onto the lower section, than the lower section, being more solidly constructed, without damage (presumably) would have destroyed the upper section, not the other way around.  Instead, we see the smaller object completely destroying the larger one.


look-up - nevermind, I see you responded to my post in another thread.

Dylan - want to discuss CD?
Top
dylan avery
Posted: Oct 15 2007, 03:05 PM


I am whatever you say I am


Group: Admin
Posts: 2,811
Member No.: 2
Joined: 17-October 06



QUOTE (thehighwaymanq @ Oct 15 2007, 07:57 PM)
How am I going to get anything done when there's 2 hours of LTW Radio a day? :P

How do you think I feel? :lol:

valuesize, you're free to call in discuss whatever you want. We only cut callers when they swear. Troy's almost a regular at this point.
Top
look-up
Posted: Oct 15 2007, 03:07 PM


A WTC 7 No-Planer


Group: Members
Posts: 5,768
Member No.: 654
Joined: 25-October 06



I already replied to the other thread...

an equal or lesser amount of damage. It's analogous to taking a cinder block and dropping it onto three cinder blocks, and having the one smash all three... that would not happen in real life. Only in NIST-WORLD.

In real life, you'd have a smaller amount of damage done to the larger section of bricks, and the smaller brick would be damaged more siginificantly...
Top
Runner70
Posted: Oct 15 2007, 03:07 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 170
Member No.: 676
Joined: 25-October 06



QUOTE (valuesize @ Oct 15 2007, 08:03 PM)
QUOTE (look-up @ Oct 15 2007, 02:51 PM)
I know, the way they and the debunkers seem to work is within the realm of trying to analyze all of this as if there is no alternative explanation.  As if, "well hey, it fell right?  So it must have failed due to fire.  Cuz see, it fell!"  But there is a very viable alternative theory, but they just don't want to consider it with an open-mind.

The way they answer questions or refuse to answer them, shows they do not really see any alternative for consideration in the first place.


I still say that newton's third law of motion makes the total collapse impossible.  Basically, if the upper section were to impose a load and thus a destructive force onto the lower section, than the lower section, being more solidly constructed, without damage (presumably) would have destroyed the upper section, not the other way around.  Instead, we see the smaller object completely destroying the larger one.


look-up - nevermind, I see you responded to my post in another thread.

Dylan - want to discuss CD?

They pretty much discus anything that callers bring up... remember to be cordial despite your differences - you'll get more time.

good luck, you will need it.
Top
dylan avery
Posted: Oct 15 2007, 03:08 PM


I am whatever you say I am


Group: Admin
Posts: 2,811
Member No.: 2
Joined: 17-October 06



QUOTE (look-up @ Oct 15 2007, 08:07 PM)
Only in NIST-WORLD.

BIZARRO!
Top
valuesize
Posted: Oct 15 2007, 03:12 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 363
Member No.: 7,609
Joined: 10-October 07



QUOTE (dylan avery @ Oct 15 2007, 03:05 PM)
QUOTE (thehighwaymanq @ Oct 15 2007, 07:57 PM)
How am I going to get anything done when there's 2 hours of LTW Radio a day?  :P

How do you think I feel? :lol:

valuesize, you're free to call in discuss whatever you want. We only cut callers when they swear.

Can I quote you on that? :)

QUOTE (runner70)
They pretty much discuss anything that callers bring up... remember to be cordial despite your differences - you'll get more time.


Indeed.
I treat others with respect and I expect the same.
There are too many people on both sides of this debate who act like children, it's ridiculous.
Top
look-up
Posted: Oct 15 2007, 03:14 PM


A WTC 7 No-Planer


Group: Members
Posts: 5,768
Member No.: 654
Joined: 25-October 06



well value if you can continue to NOT act like a troll, I guess I can apologize for calling you one earlier... ;)
Top
Runner70
Posted: Oct 15 2007, 03:19 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Members
Posts: 170
Member No.: 676
Joined: 25-October 06



QUOTE (look-up @ Oct 15 2007, 08:07 PM)
I already replied to the other thread...

an equal or lesser amount of damage.  It's analogous to taking a cinder block and dropping it onto three cinder blocks, and having the one smash all three... that would not happen in real life.  Only in NIST-WORLD.

In real life, you'd have a smaller amount of damage done to the larger section of bricks, and the smaller brick would be damaged more siginificantly...



look up,

I'm with you in general.. on CD etc. but the higher you drop that block, the more velocity it creates, potentially resulting in a force able to crush the blocks below...

Fgrav = m * g

where:

g = acceleration of gravity = 9.8 m/s2 (on Earth)
m = mass (in kg)

(Caution: do not confuse weight with mass.)


as far as wc 1,2,7 are concerned (initial) velocity should have been very low in a progressive collapse... obviously explosive devices could have helped to increase velocity.
Top
valuesize
Posted: Oct 15 2007, 03:22 PM


Advanced Member


Group: Gone
Posts: 363
Member No.: 7,609
Joined: 10-October 07



QUOTE (look-up @ Oct 15 2007, 03:14 PM)
well value if you can continue to NOT act like a troll, I guess I can apologize for calling you one earlier... ;)

Accepted :) It's not my intention to troll.
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | The Lounge | Next Newest »
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic OptionsPages: (10) « First ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.0674 seconds · Archive