Bobby likes to cherry pick quotes to try and be funny and/or try and change the meaning of people's quotes.
You made the statement about the energy being diverted laterally. I happen to agree with that point, and have for years. I asked an honest question regarding your statement, and you prefer not to discuss your own damn statement. Dishonest posts go with the territory of defending the official narrative. Old news.
He blurts out the obvious then refuses to explain his "mysterious" comment. He'd rather pretend we don't know what he's talking about. Sure Gam, the energy went laterally but the towers "collapsed" straight down in seconds. There are thousands of possible meanings to that. I just "cherry picked" the only possible one. The oxymoron is inescapable and you well know it, so does he. No one with at least a high school education is that physics challenged, not even the self proclaimed resident "engineer".
when you guys realize that I am talking about the foundations of the towers and where the energy went, please get back to me ... this has nothing to do with the "OCT" and demolition vs natural collapse ... reading comprehension is important boys ...
Here I am talking about a problem I have with the NIST report but truthers have such tunnel vision that they can't see that nor the point I am trying to make ... I'm sure psikey knows what I am trying to get at ...
Ok so all you had to do was say so in the first place instead of playing games. So is writing comprehension. In your post you did not directly correlate the energy going lateral with the foundations but you did correlate the energy with the compromise of the surrounding structures. Hence my response. Go back and read your own post for comprehension. When you thought I wasn't being clear I rephrased my post. You could just as easily have done the same instead of playing games. Could it be because the NIST report on the "collapse" of the twin towers is relegated to 1 footnote that says they didn't bother to investigate it and publicly claimed it was "inevitable"? 4. NIST does not investigate or explain the global collapse which occurred after the collapse initiation was supposedly initiated by the column failures in the impact zone. NIST simply states, “global collapse ensued”. (1:12) If that's the only problem you're having with the NIST report you're either extremely slow or you don't read or watch what you don't want to read or watch. The problems with all the NIST reports are enormous. Watch the above video and/or read the thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/ No one can when you're not being clear.
Reading comprehension is directly related to the ability of the writer to construct a coherent statement based upon a coherent thought. If the shoe fits, you must wear it. The shoe fits.
I believe I was perfectly clear in said post ... did I not mention the foundations and the mass of the towers crashing into them? ... now do either of you know enough about physics to understand the predominate direction of that energy? ...
Interesting. Are you aware the Danny Jowenko said the twin towers collapse were not caused by demolition?
You said the energy went lateral and I totally agree. The video of the destruction of the North Tower makes it very obvious.
Yep and how does that change his comments about WTC7? It's your response that's garbage. Ok, flew, propelled, I stand corrected on the "highly technical" verbiage, it makes such a huge difference.
Just making sure that you and others are aware that an "expert" you use to support your claims also supports my claims that the twin towers were not demolished. It is highly technical Bobby because the context of your comments can have multiple meanings. Example. Do you believe these 4 ton components were propelled laterally at great speed due to explosions of some kind?
And? They're not YOUR claims BTW, you're merely parroting OCT claims (as in going along with the program). If you say so. I disagree. That's not an example, it's a question. Of course, why else would that happen? Fire? Damage? Gravity? All 3? No I'm being quite straightforward and realistic. You're the one playing games. It's part of your hobby, right? A lot, certainly not the energy from a gravitational collapse. You used the singular, it was plural (as in several objects), not to mention those embedded into adjacent buildings.
Answer a question Bobby. If I had a 16 pound bowling ball 1000 feet in the air and another one 20 feet in the air directly below the first, would the same amount of energy be needed to get both bowling balls to travel 600 feet laterally through the air?
You? So many people (except posers operatives and pundits of course) are on to the gubmints criminal scams it would be genocide to kill everyone, give the atheists a few more years of destroying the constitution so they can do it nice and legal, like stalin.
Hi Gammy! Sure, when you see shock waves and instantaneous lateral movement and those bright flashes that are caused by fairy sprinkles you just know with out a doubt its an incontrovertibly a proven natural collapse! Its a fact fairy sprinkles brought the towers down! But Gammy, why would anyone be foolish enough to believe the twins were not demolished when we know for a fact 7 was demolished and then they lied to us about it? It only takes 30 seconds to tape cutter charges to columns and radio dets dont need to be wired. How about those bombs bursting in air that were late to the party Gam? Tell me what makes columns burst into flames AFTER they are airborne? Natural collapses always have shock waves that rip out the sides of buildings aint that right? So you think people are so gullible that after the gubmint has been proven to lie to us about everything else they ****ed up and didnt lie to us about the twins? I mean seriously Gammy whats up with that? Talk to me Gam lets discuss this.
That's dumb, they don't need to kill them all, just the ones who write the books, and get on the internet. Hell, they already killed countless thousands, all they need now is a handful Then everyone else will shut up. And killing atheists won't do anything. Just kill a few troofers.
I'm an atheist and a strict constitutionalist. IMO if anything religious cults are more inclined to try to destroy the Constitution. I'm also a realist and understand the Constitution has its flaws and Trojan Horses. This is why I suggested several Amendments to hopefully fix the flaws. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/proposed-constitutional-amendments.507699/
If you fully agree with the first, we have no argument, if you disagree with any part of the first, then we have a huge argument, and I am an agnostic, and I argee 200% with every jot and dittle of the first. yeh I have to laugh, a high school physics teacher roasted NISTs ass forcing them to change a couple of their lies in their false report. this is the side of the building msm didnt bother to show anyone. Posers love it because it shows the explosions and shock waves ahead of the collapse wave that you couldnt see from the sunny side. Thats just another one of those odd and clever coincidences on 911. Oh and when this one starts coming down.......look over at the other one, you will see something velly velly intewesting!
I agree with the entire Bill of Rights. Having said that, the 9th by itself would have taken care of the first 8. The 10th has to do with powers, not rights.
