Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

Russel, where have I implied that you are my opponent, and where have I emotionalized or antagonized you? Thanks.
 
Dazed said:
Cool.
I seem to find myself differentiating between 'sagging' and 'collapsing,' especially with regard to explosion-like sounds that would be produced.
Click to expand...
The space between the floor and the (suspended) ceiling below is usually full of mechanicals - pipes, conduits, ducts, etc. Those will come crashing down as the floor trusses fail.
 
Dazed said:
Russel, where have I implied that you are my opponent, and where have I emotionalized or antagonized you? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Dazed said:
Come on, that's just stupid. If you want to believe in 911 conspiracies, just post your evidence and discuss it. Attacking the other team is pointless and makes you look childish, and in this particular case, paranoid..
Click to expand...

It was a general observation that you tend to direct these sort of attacks at people.
 
Russell Pickering said:
Predictibility makes me sleepy. I am going to take a nap.
Click to expand...

Remember this one Russel?

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Example: Do a Robert Vesco and retire to the Caribbean. If you don't, somebody in your organization may choose to vanish you the way of Vince Foster or Ron Brown.

Proper response: You will likely not have a means to attack this method, except to focus on the vanishing in hopes of uncovering it was by foul play as part of a deliberate cover up.
Click to expand...
 
Russell Pickering said:
It was a general observation that you tend to direct these sort of attacks at people.
Click to expand...

This "attack" was a response to Jessica accusing everyone on the board of being CIA agents... :\

And if I were asked to categorize it, I would call it friendly advice.
 
Last edited:
Russell Pickering said:
every counter-factual claim implies a factual claim. The claim that “the time is 5 PM” implies the claim that “the time is not 4:59 PM”; likewise, the claim that “the time is not 5 PM” implies the claim that “the time is something other than 5 PM”.

"9/11 is not a conspiracy" implies the claim that "9/11 is something other than a conspiracy".

Are direct statements more real than implications?
Click to expand...

Now who's waxing philosophical?

The link that you provided is very clear: there are positive claims and negative claims. It's pretty obvious what they mean by those definitions. Of course, you're trying to wriggle out of your mistake by claiming that because a negative claim implies a positive claim it is actually a positive claim.

Nice try.

Get in the lotus position and ask yourself what the hell kind of evidence is your philosophical rhetoric providing for any claim no matter how you twist it.
Click to expand...

No evidence at all. This all started because I laughed at your original statement that "9/11 is not a conspracy" is a positive claim. Since then I (and others) have watched you flounder, evade, and use semantic jumping jacks to try to prove your point. Of course, you have failed miserabley, and even your link has proved you wrong.

The only evidence I have uncovered is that even when presented with overwhelming evidence you are unable to admit that you are wrong. I think most people have known that all along, but it's nice to such things develop so clearly.

But it is a great diversion for those interested in such things.
Click to expand...

By "such things" I can only assume you are speaking of your inability to admit when you make an error.

Pat yourself on the back since you feel you are the "winner".
Click to expand...

It's never about winning or losing. It's about learning, and being able to admit when you've made a mistake.
 
WildCat said:
Why don't you ask Bloomberg about it?

Michael R Bloomberg
17 E 79th St
New York, NY 10021-0101
212-772-1081

Yes, that is his home address and phone #. From what I hear, he often will answer his phone if he is home. Might be worth a shot...
Click to expand...
I wasn't joking about that really being Bloomberg's home address and phone, how cool is it that such a public figure actually has a listed phone number? Mayor Daley sure doesn't!

For a 9/11 conspirator he sure doesn't know how to lay low!
 
Russell Pickering said:
Please read the thread. This is what US was referring to. It was Gravy who resorted to this.
Click to expand...

But Russell, you couldn't possibly have taken offense at this, could you?
After all:
Russell Pickering said:
1) "I consider" is a right and a prerogative.
Click to expand...
So surely it is also Gravy's "right and prerogative" to consider you to be whatever it comes into his head to announce to the world? And evidence -- even weak evidence -- should not be a requirement.
 
Dazed said:
Cool.
I seem to find myself differentiating between 'sagging' and 'collapsing,' especially with regard to explosion-like sounds that would be produced.
Click to expand...

The floors sag under load. This pulls the columns "out of column". As long as the columns are "in column" (straight), the loads will be purely compressive.
As they are pulled to the side, the bending leaves one side of the column in compression, and puts the other side in tension. Most materials have a lower yield point in tension than in compression. So the column material yields, allowing more of a bend, which causes more tension, which causes more bend...
Once the column starts to bend, it's a positive-feedback situation, and can fail very quickly. Quickly enough that when it hits the next floor there would be a helluva bang.

So assuming the energy coupled into the lower floor by the sudden addition of load wasn't quite enough to make it break, the load is still suddenly a lot higher than it used to be, and it sags... rinse and repeat.

Take, for example, a soda can. When I recycle 'em, I just mash 'em with a sledge.
But a fun thing to show the Cub Scouts is to balance on one, then poke the sides in. When the sides go past a certain point, they crunch down just like you'd hit them with the sledge.

I suspect that at some point the failure mode became more related to the "sledgehammer squishing mode" than the "poke the sides in" mode, but that's just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Russell Pickering said:
Basically I don't feel if CD was used it was a civilian company. Also in regards to the towers it was not conventional in the sense of being from the bottom up.
Click to expand...

Russell, so if this controlled demolition wasn't a conventional CD, then how can you say that it looks like one?

1)What is a conventional controlled demolition?

2)How does the alledged WTC demolition differ from 1)?

3)How were you able to determine that the WTC was brought down by CD since it is not a conventional CD?

I'd like to see your research about controlled demolitions for that.

Thanks
 
Pardalis said:
Russell, so if this controlled demolition wasn't a conventional CD, then how can you say that it looks like one?

1)What is a conventional controlled demolition?

2)How does the alledged WTC demolition differ from 1)?

3)How were you able to determine that the WTC was brought down by CD since it is not a conventional CD?

I'd like to see your research about controlled demolitions for that.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Just a synopsis by somebody else:


The destruction of each of the Twin Towers differs from a conventional demolition in several respects:
  • The destruction proceeded from the top down rather than from the bottom up.
  • The time to complete destruction was about 50% longer than free-fall time.
  • The destruction was hidden behind a descending mushrooming cloud of pulverized materials and metal pieces.
  • The rubble pile was spread out, the vast majority of the fallout lying outside the towers' footprints.
  • The destruction produced a cloud of dust that continued to grow after the last piece of steel hit the ground, when it was already twice the volume of the building.
If the destruction of Building 7 is explainable as a conventional demolition, then perhaps the different features of the Twin Towers' destruction are explainable as modified controlled demolitions, in which far greater quantities of explosives are used, and the charges are set off in a top-down instead of bottom-up sequence in order to simulate "progressive collapse" from the crash zones.

http://www.911review.com/means/demolition/index.html
Click to expand...

Here is another computerized demolition product.
http://hiex.bc.ca/products.html
 
So, I went to the trouble of researching the statute and the relevant sections of the US Code and writing a lengthy and thoughtful response. But coming back to the thread and going back through the past several pages to catch up, it's apparent that the thread has become just a morass of tinhat BS, unworthy of the standards of this site.

Russell appears to have dropped all pretence at being an objective or legitimate researcher and has outed himself as a heavy gauge tinhatter, in addition to proving himself incapable of comprehending context and perspective - which are absolutely and fundamentally necessary to any legitimate researcher.

A couple of other heavy gauge tinhatters who lack any analytical skills whatsoever and who have not exhibited even the most basic skills required to conduct a conversation, let alone a legitimate discussion or debate, have posted hundreds of posts each over the past two days without any content of value or any evidence of intelligence. These hundreds of posts amount to nothing but juvenile, unsubstantiated and downright ridiculous nonsense, without even a scintilla of evidence that they have even the most tenuous grasp on reality.

So, screw it. I'm not going to bother posting the results of my research on this thread at this time since I have to sleep soon and I won't be around to read any responses to it until tomorrow night at earliest, and by then the thread will likely be buried in another avalanche of meaningless posts by tinhatters, which I'd rather not have to wade through.

Good night, folks.
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
So, I went to the trouble of researching the statute and the relevant sections of the US Code and writing a lengthy and thoughtful response. But coming back to the thread and going back through the past several pages to catch up, it's apparent that the thread has become just a morass of tinhat BS, unworthy of the standards of this site.

Russell appears to have dropped all pretence at being an objective or legitimate researcher and has outed himself as a heavy gauge tinhatter, in addition to proving himself incapable of comprehending context and perspective - which are absolutely and fundamentally necessary to any legitimate researcher.

A couple of other heavy gauge tinhatters who lack any analytical skills whatsoever and who have not exhibited even the most basic skills required to conduct a conversation, let alone a legitimate discussion or debate, have posted hundreds of posts each over the past two days without any content of value or any evdence of intelligence. These hundreds of posts amount to nothing but juvenile, unsubstantiated and downright ridiculous nonsense, without even a scintilla of evidence that they have even the most tenuous grasp on reality.

So, screw it. I'm not going to bother posting the results of my research on this thread at this time since I have to sleep soon and I won't be around to read any responses to it until tomorrow night at earliest, and by then the thread will likely be buried in another avalanche of meaningless posts by tinhatters, which I'd rather not have to wade through.
Click to expand...

All of which could have easily been condensed down to the sentence "russell I cannoy refute your point"
 
jessicarabbit said:
All of which could have easily been condensed down to the sentence "russell I cannoy refute your point"
Click to expand...

You wish, "hun".

Unlike you, I actually back up what I say, and my research skills are second to none.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom