Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Darklord Hacker group is threatening to unleash 9/11 documents

Options
1234568

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 16,570 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    What causing the blowouts - if not the squibs. If you going to dismiss this have an alternative explanation handy:)

    You have claimed a squib is a blowout.
    It's not, you are wrong.
    Is this another symptom of English being your 2nd language?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »

    This is not an explantation- what causing the debris and air to be forced out laterally on floors below the collapsing dust clouds?


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,980 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    banie01 wrote: »
    You have claimed a squib is a blowout.
    It's not, you are wrong.
    Is this another symptom of English being your 2nd language?

    careful with that

    Can go as far as to say its a demonstrable lack of understanding of the fundamentals required to entertain this whackadoodle stuff.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,980 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    This is not an explantation- what causing the debris and air to be forced out laterally on floors below the collapsing dust clouds?

    air compression as a result of the floors/ceilings collapsing.
    air compression as a result of the floors/ceilings collapsing.
    air compression as a result of the floors/ceilings collapsing.
    air compression as a result of the floors/ceilings collapsing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    The explanation has been given: air compression as a result of the floors/ceilings collapsing.

    Air compression from what. The floors are intact and not damaged.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,570 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Air compression from what. The floors are intact and not damaged.

    Where do you think the air, glass and every other piece of compressible material goes in the event of a compression event?

    You do understand the basic precept that 2 objects cannot occupy the same space, at the same time?

    If you do, then surely you understand that ejection of material will occur via the path of least resistance?

    Where do you think that path lies?


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,570 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Overheal wrote: »
    careful with that

    Can go as far as to say its a demonstrable lack of understanding of the fundamentals required to entertain this whackadoodle stuff.

    I understand the reason for the mod comment and accept it.

    But I do feel the poster's lack of knowledge of context, idiom and syntax of English in common usage, let alone in a technical capacity goes a long way towards perpetuating the stances taken.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,980 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Air compression from what. The floors are intact and not damaged.

    That’s an extraordinary assumption. Do you have proof the floors were undamaged? Nope. In WTC 7’s collapse we see the penthouse cave in first and down into the structure; ergo it would be night impossible to claim the floors were intact.

    You’re also fundamentally forgetting the involvement of the elevator shafts, which would act as big compression tubes/pumps as elevator cars and debris crushed down upon them.

    Edit: pistons! That’s the word I was looking for


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    banie01 wrote: »
    Where do you think the air, glass and every other piece of compressible material goes in the event of a compression event?

    You do understand the basic precept that 2 objects cannot occupy the same space, at the same time?

    If you do, then surely you understand that ejection of material will occur via the path of least resistance?

    Where do you think that path lies?

    Use your brain for once. The blowouts are 10 floors or more beneath the collapse each time. The debris and air and energy from above has not reached this point yet.

    You can't accelerate when floors are undamaged there resistance there from another 80 floors. You don't understand physics or structural engineering.

    NIST avoided discussing this collapse for obvious reasons. Their entire study was based on the alleged failures, not the actual collapse.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    This is not an explantation- what causing the debris and air to be forced out laterally on floors below the collapsing dust clouds?

    Air compression


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Use your brain for once. The blowouts are 10 floors or more beneath the collapse each time. The debris and air and energy from above has not reached this point yet.

    You can't accelerate when floors are undamaged there resistance there from another 80 floors. You don't understand physics or structural engineering.

    NIST avoided discussing this collapse for obvious reasons. Their entire study was based on the alleged failures, not the actual collapse.

    It's air compression


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    We're straight back into the "explain that! No, I don't get it, therefore conspiracy"

    Over and over and over again, circular

    This is why we ask conspiracy theorists to explain their theory, because they take everyone on a hamster wheel of their very limited (and belligerent) understanding of the world


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,570 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Use your brain for once. The blowouts are 10 floors or more beneath the collapse each time. The debris and air and energy from above has not reached this point yet.

    You can't accelerate when floors are undamaged there resistance there from another 80 floors. You don't understand physics or structural engineering.

    NIST avoided discussing this collapse for obvious reasons. Their entire study was based on the alleged failures, not the actual collapse.

    Let's see if you can infer how this article
    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/1997/12/yosemites-supersonic-blast

    Demonstrates fairly clearly what you can't seem to grasp?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    banie01 wrote: »
    Let's see if you can infer how this article
    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/1997/12/yosemites-supersonic-blast

    Demonstrates fairly clearly what you can't seem to grasp?

    Grasping it = possibility there's no conspiracy

    Not grasping it = possibility there's a conspiracy

    Since they are in control of their choice, it's not unsurprising which is chosen every time. Incredible coincidence how every time a conspiracy theorists has a blind spot in terms of science or physics - it's always one that aids their conspiracy, never otherwise


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    banie01 wrote: »
    Let's see if you can infer how this article
    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/1997/12/yosemites-supersonic-blast

    Demonstrates fairly clearly what you can't seem to grasp?

    Your link explains the squibs and lack of resistance:) It does not and never will.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,570 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Your link explains the squibs and lack of resistance:) It does not and never will.

    It does?
    Or does not?


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,980 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Use your brain for once. The blowouts are 10 floors or more beneath the collapse each time. The debris and air and energy from above has not reached this point yet.

    You can't accelerate when floors are undamaged there resistance there from another 80 floors. You don't understand physics or structural engineering.

    NIST avoided discussing this collapse for obvious reasons. Their entire study was based on the alleged failures, not the actual collapse.

    Calm down

    It’s 10 or so floors beneath the exterior collapse. That’s well within the ability of the elevator shafts to deliver compressed air down to those lower floors as a result of the collapsing structure above.

    And that doesn’t mean the NIST study is wrong: NASA was more interested in WHY Columbia disintegrated on reentry than how many Cities and states the debris scattered across. It doesn’t mean their conclusions about the heat shielding was invalid.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    Calm down

    It’s 10 or so floors beneath the exterior collapse. That’s well within the ability of the elevator shafts to deliver compressed air down to those lower floors as a result of the collapsing structure above.

    And that doesn’t mean the NIST study is wrong: NASA was more interested in WHY Columbia disintegrated on reentry than how many Cities and states the debris scattered across. It doesn’t mean their conclusions about the heat shielding was invalid.

    NIST never touched the full collapse. Twin Tower study is only about the failures pre collapse.

    It's a theory still the squibs went laterally not downwards and air would be flowing downwards coming from above.

    The demolition theory made more sense, as it explains the lack of steel resistance on the way down and why the towers kept accelerating when falling


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    The demolition theory made more sense, as it explains the lack of steel resistance on the way down and why the towers kept accelerating.

    What demolition theory?

    Show us, on a page, in written form, this theory? where's it outlined, who did it involves, who were the witnesses, what's the supporting evidence?

    Otherwise you're just referring to some vague notion. Like a child believing the moon is made of cheese. And like a child, believing such a notion based entirely on the limits of their/your understanding

    It's impossible to debate with someone who repeatedly references a theory which doesn't exist - which is probably the reason you keep using it


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,980 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    NIST never touched the full collapse. Twin Tower study is only about the failures pre collapse.

    It's a theory still the squibs went laterally not downwards and air would be flowing downwards coming from above.

    The demolition theory made more sense, as it explains the lack of steel resistance on the way down and why the towers kept accelerating when falling

    Air flows downwards when you consider the elevator shafts yes- but not downwards out windows: it wouldn’t push out the window and then just take a 90 degree elbow?

    The demolition theory does not make sense, owing to the lack of supporting evidence for a controlled demolition - like the lack of positive tests for explosive residues. Things keep accelerating when they fall: if you fell out of a tree you would still encounter branches on the way down, and in between these branches you would fall in free fall acceleration.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 81,980 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Somehow yet unremarkably we’ve veered from the topic of insurance documents obtained by the Darklord hacker group


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    What demolition theory?

    Show us, on a page, in written form, this theory? where's it outlined, who did it involves, who were the witnesses, what's the supporting evidence?

    Otherwise you're just referring to some vague notion. Like a child believing the moon is made of cheese. And like a child, believing such a notion based entirely on the limits of their/your understanding

    It's impossible to debate with someone who repeatedly references a theory which doesn't exist - which is probably the reason you keep using it

    What's your theory? NIST has no historical precedent backing them up. Never ever had a steel beam high rise building fallen by fire and then you have to neck to demand evidence for demolition. What your evidence for fire?

    The anomalies and errors and NIST lying is evidence the fire explanation does not hold up to scrutiny.

    We have evidence demolition has brought down steel framed building in the past at freefall speeds. Fire no records.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,570 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    What's your theory? NIST has no historical precedent backing them up. Never ever had a steel beam high rise building fallen by fire and then you have to neck to demand evidence for demolition. What your evidence for fire?

    The anomalies and errors and NIST lying is evidence the fire explanation does hold up to scrutiny.

    We have evidence demolition has brought down steel framed building in the past at freefall speeds. Fire no records.

    Measuring theories has no bearing on this particular thread does it?
    I am impressed at the level of obfuscation you have brought to it again however.

    What in the insurance documents or other Darklord materials outlines the conspiracy theory?
    What in those documents supports any of the claims you repeatedly make?


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,980 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    you have to neck to demand evidence for demolition
    yet you have the neck to claim it
    What your evidence for fire?
    The undisputed presence of fire, for a start


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Overheal wrote: »
    yet you have the neck to claim itThe undisputed presence of fire, for a start

    Fires were involved here too and none of these steel framed building collapsed.

    Top two photos are very revealing and steel and supporting elements are not weak as debunkers try to claim

    475726.png


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    I don't know, I think this is a character, there's no way this is a lack of understanding after all this time and all the explanations. There's a very deliberate effort going on here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,980 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Fires were involved here too and none of these steel framed building collapsed.

    Top two photos are very revealing and steel and supporting elements are not weak as debunkers try to claim

    475726.png
    Which of them was engineered or constructed identically to the WTC buildings, which involved aluminum exoskeletons etc?

    And which of these is relevant to the Darklord files?!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I don't know, I think this is a character, there's no way this is a lack of understanding after all this time and all the explanations. There's a very deliberate effort going on here.

    Lack of understanding. Three of the buildings came down on 9/11 by fire and never happened in history previously.

    Overheal least showed some honesty and admitted the NIST model is not accurate. You guys have been claiming differently for years.

    He then discusses the root cause of the collapse. Overheal would you model a collapse and just ignore the construction drawings? Say you trying to replicate it? Would your university professor give you an A or E grade ( he might give you a few marks for writing your name?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Images and some footage of WTC 7 that truthers avoid

    maxresdefault.jpg
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXa5uATKrwY

    db_WTC7_smoke_a1.jpg

    db_Magnum21.jpg

    www.debunking911.com_wtcc.jpg


Advertisement