Discussion in '9/11' started by Shinebox, Jun 20, 2018.
Kind of what psikeyhackr did eh Bobby?
Just a little tidbit of information for you since you think psikeyhackr's experiment is "brilliant" Below is a quote from below the video in it's description.
Can you tell me why psikeyhackr "rigged" his experiment to NOT collapse by putting paper "supports" BETWEEN the floors instead of replicating the floors by using side connection to the perimeter and core columns?
Not interested in what you claim you "thought". Anything can be fully destroyed if it's rigged to be fully destroyed and it works according to plan. That's why when a controlled demolition is planned properly, no matter how it's rigged, it is fully destroyed because that's the planned goal (as shown on video, including Mick West's). When the planning goes awry, it won't be fully destroyed (as shown in the videos of failed CDs). The logic is so simple even a simpleton should be able to understand it. The trick is to get a structure to be fully destroyed that is not planned to be fully destroyed. And that has never happened and can't be shown by experiment or computer model (which might prove it could happen). And if it can't be shown by experiment it either can't happen or it's strictly theoretical and unsupported.
Exactly. He showed that a structure can't be fully destroyed simply by the collapsing material and that the collapsing material could only be made to fall vertically downward when it's rigged to do so, otherwise it would fall to the side and still not be able to fully destroy the structure (because there wouldn't be any material left to destroy the remaining structure).
My question to you is just who are you trying to convince?
Yet another fail for you. Read below from psikeyhackr. Self supporting. That what Mick's model is.
It's not what I thought. It's what psikeyhackr claims. It's what his model is supposed to show. Tell me something Bob.
Yeah I'm sure you'd like that to be true, unfortunately just because you keep on saying it means caca.
I don't need to, his model and Mick's speak for themselves no matter what anyone says, especially you.
And therein lies the real fail. It's not what anyone "thinks" or claims, it's what it is as well explained to you.
But the converse is not true or never proven to be true.
The logic you try to peddle is strictly faith based, just like the OCT. Real world operates on real logic. The sky is ALWAYS blue on a clear day anywhere on the planet, no one needs to hear what a meteorologist thinks or claims to know that (except you).
Tell me something Bob, since you seem to understand psikeyhackr's model what he was trying to showing with it.
Psikeyhackr references Newton's Laws and how his model supports them. Can you tell me how Mick's model defies Newton's laws? How does Newton's Laws now the difference between "rigged connections" contained in a mass and "non-rigged connections"?
I mean Mick's model fits psikeyhackr's criteria to a tee. Self supporting. Dropped a smaller section of the entire onto the lower section. Yet Mick's collapsed and pskiey's didn't. How come? How did Mick's structure violate both your and psikey's supposed understanding of Newton's Laws?
But Bobby, both models demonstrate Newton's Laws. How did both models come up with different results?
How is that quantified in Newton's Laws Bob? Truthers keep using Newton's Laws to claim that the tower's collapse should have been arrested. Here you are supporting a model (that you claim to be 'brilliant") that supposedly supports Newton's Laws. Explain why Mick's dosen't.
CLEAR blue sky Bob. Key word "CLEAR". Why do you keep lying?
Why? I already told you plenty. What is it you didn't understand about what I told you? (that's rhetorical, I don't care nor am I trying to convince you as I said umpteen times).
Already explained. I'm not interested in teaching you physics, apply for a class.
Yes you're right, I lied, the sky is always red, white, green and yellow on a CLEAR day. Everyone knows that.
Please go peddle your bullshit pretenses to someone who cares. I'm interested in discussing 9/11 issues, not your idiotic nonsense. You won't even answer a very simple question.
So why should I answer any of yours?
You explained how Newton's Laws quantify "connections being rigged" in a mass? You came no where NEAR explaining that. Nice try though.
Bob. Let's go through this one more time. CLEAR blue sky. Why would I trust you to tell me it's CLEAR? I'm going to verify that. C'mon now. You're being ignorant.
You believe you can quantify "rigged" or "weak connections" within Newton's Laws to explain why Mick's model collapsed and why psikeyhackr's didn't? Please explain how that works. I bet you give us another excuse.
Keep dancing Bobby...
Nope, I never said I did and I have no reason to. Did you sign up for Physics 101 yet? Better hurry before the class fills up so you can ask your teacher.
Look up the word rigged, here let me help you (see #5):
What a phony, I never asked you to trust me if the sky is clear. But please go verify if the sky is blue on a clear day. While you're at it, chase your tail and see if you can catch it.
I'm not you cha-cha-cha.
That's a complete lie.
I asked you how a structure being rigged is quantified in Newton's Laws and you said you already explained it.
Is this how you "discuss' things Bobby? With lies to try and weasel out of things. Seems to be a pattern.
Doesn't matter if you asked. below is your statement.
I'm not trusting that you say the sky was clear to begin with. I would verify that. That was my point. Sorry, but you can't change what my statement meant Bobby.
No lie fake one. I never said I answered your question I clearly said I already explained it to you and that I certainly did.
Nope that’s YOUR pattern. Just because YOU have reading comprehension issues and YOU constantly twist what I post to suit your ridiculous agenda doesn’t mean I’m lying. Your next post is yet more evidence of your incessant shenanigans.
Exactly my point. I never asked you to trust me if the sky is clear, you are once again playing your FOS twist games. I asked you to source that the sky is blue on a clear day, something that is always true on a clear day. You refuse to acknowledge the simplest fact just because I posted it.
still waiting ... zzzz ...
Another missed deadline. I wonder why? This was posted on September 10, 2018.
Why do you care? I doubt anything Hulsey will publish and be accepted on peer review will change your world view in any way. From the last interview I heard Hulsey claims he will be publishing his findings outside of the US because he doesn't believe any American publication will publish his work. So either he's still working on finalizing his report or he's working on finding the appropriate publisher. NIST took 7 years to publish their fantasy likely because they ran into huge credibility problems trying to make it sound sensible. In the end they failed miserably anyway. Patience grasshopper, you will get your chance trying to attack and contradict his work soon enough. That is after all what you're really waiting for, isn't it?
I already know the outcome (in general) from his preliminary work. I believe it should take about 6-8 weeks for the peer review process following publication and perhaps another 6-8 weeks for the final accepted version. Then it will be filed as part of the volume of expert evidence in the grand jury case (see Daubert test). That process could take a year or more. It has been over 17 years since the 9/11 fairy tale was first propagandized so it stands to reason that to right the ship of fools is going be a lengthy process. I'm not as impatient as you are, I've known for almost 15 years that the OCT is a crock of cow manure designed for the gullible. Hulsey's work will only confirm what has long been scientifically established.
Separate names with a comma.