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

Free Fall thread

Options
1…1112141617…19

Comments

  • Options
    #392
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    What incredible you ruling it out, and yet have not seen one roll of film to debunk it.

    lol

    Have you seen footage from pinewood studios that doesn't show them filming a fake moon landing, if not, then how can you rule it out?

    This is amazing, even for you!


  • Options
    #393
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,527 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    I've seen footage of them not filming the Loch Ness monster. Incredible people ruling it out.


  • Options
    #394
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    lol

    Have you seen footage from pinewood studios that doesn't show them filming a fake moon landing, if not, then how can you rule it out?

    This is amazing, even for you!

    Like I said, Freefall having taken place here during the collapse of seven, is what convinced me. Because of this i know debunkers are wrong.


  • Options
    #395
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,532 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    lol

    Have you seen footage from pinewood studios that doesn't show them filming a fake moon landing, if not, then how can you rule it out?

    This is amazing, even for you!

    If I don't have video footage 24/7 of the suspect beams proving that they weren't tampered with...

    Then that's proof that they were tampered with!?

    This is honestly a whole level of craziness above any CS has spun on any of his efforts to date.

    CS, as has been explained too you many times.
    The absence of evidence, is not evidence.

    In particular the absence of video of explosives not being planted,well that's must certainly not evidence.

    I mean this from a place of concern, not as trying to score points.
    Please!
    Please, seek professional help.


  • Options
    #396
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Like I said, Freefall having taken place here during the collapse of seven, is what convinced me. Because of this i know debunkers are wrong.

    Convinced you Nazi's blew all the towers up..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #397
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Official narrative about building seven collapse got torn apart in Aug 2008 when NIST admitted on tape here free fall was an impossibility (can't happen). They can't recover from that (the end!)



  • Options
    #398
    Ipso
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    No footage of UFOs, holograms, space lasers etc
    The list is endless. Is this line of reasoning really where we are in the 21st century?


  • Options
    #399
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Official narrative about building seven collapse got torn apart in Aug 2008 when NIST admitted on tape here free fall was an impossibility (can't happen). They can't recover from that (the end!)


    Here's an interesting read for you, and this isn't agreeing fully with the NIST's figures

    Bonus: he gets replies from Chandler

    https://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2019/01/did-wtc7-on-9-11-really-descend-in-free-fall-for-2-25-seconds-a-closer-look-at-the-nist-calculation/


  • Options
    #400
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    you personally don't believe fire brought WTC 7 down, correct?

    Following the evidence at hand I find that highly unlikely


  • Options
    #401
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Which demonstrates my point, you believe it was a controlled demolition by denial

    Wow



    LOL. The FEMA report, the NIST, the Weidlinger report, the ASCE, the AIA - these are not the same as pseudo-science pulp and whatology from a crank internet conspiracy group

    You seem like a logical, smart person, but why do you have such a dogmatic blind spot on this subject that you think people like Haritt, Gage, Jones, etc are even remotely close to proper science and investigation on this issue?

    Some of these people in that group believe there were no planes involved, Gage has suggested explosives were planted in the buildings when they were being built, Jones was caught manipulating a photo of 9/11 workers looking down at a light to suggest it was molten steel..

    Many of these lunatics have been on the Alex Jones show, multiple times, what does that tell you..



    Denialism and arguing against the use of evidence isn't a "fruitful discussion", it's a common trick used by faulty thinkers to validate illogical beliefs

    I think you are posting in the wrong forum

    All you do is engage in whinging at me in your reply .... Focus at the question at hand ... this thread is about free fall


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #402
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    I'm not insulting your intelligence. I'm just stating a fact.
    You don't actually understand what free fall is. That's something you've demonstrated when you claimed that the building "ramped up" to free fall acceleration.
    You are confusing terms and notions and you are not accepting the possibility that you are incorrect or you're misinterpreting things.

    I thought an object in motion is gaining speed when its falling down ?

    You question my intelligence and as a result you are not prepare to discuss this .. You can also refrain from replying at all
    King Mob wrote: »
    But it has been shown to be impossible.
    You guys have been telling us that the only way to produce a free fall is to instantly cut all of the supports.

    That is correct ... If you have another explanation as to how free fall can occur ..be my guest ...


  • Options
    #403
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    already anwsered post ...can be deleted


  • Options
    #404
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    Soooooooooo

    Anyone having a go at the NIST evidence ? ...Their computer model, their free fall cock up ... Instead of the whinging and off topic comments ?


  • Options
    #405
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    I thought an object in motion is gaining speed when its falling down ?
    But that's not the correct definition of what free fall is.
    This kinda proves my point.
    weisses wrote: »
    You question my intelligence and as a result you are not prepare to discuss this .. You can also refrain from replying at all
    But I've tried discussing this with you many times. You are not open to the possibility that you've misunderstood something even when you can't actually give the correct definition and you give an incorrect definition like you did above.

    How can I answer your question when you don't understand, or refuse to try and understand the basis of the answer?
    weisses wrote: »
    That is correct ...
    If you have another explanation as to how free fall can occur ..be my guest ...
    Sure and we can get to that when you stop dodging and accept that the conspiracy explanations suggested cannot explain free fall.
    We know that nanothermite cannot cut things instantly.
    We know that explosives can't have been used because we can't hear them.

    So both are impossible, right?


  • Options
    #406
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    Following the evidence at hand I find that highly unlikely

    Why do you think other separate investigations have come to the same conclusion? why have these findings have been so overwhelmingly accepted by recognised groups of experts around the world?

    Why have findings been incorporated into national building codes?

    Why is there no other credible theory?


  • Options
    #407
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    But that's not the correct definition of what free fall is.
    This kinda proves my point.

    All I said that if something falls down its gaining speed ... how fast it falls determines if free fall acceleration is occurring

    King Mob wrote: »
    Sure and we can get to that when you stop dodging and accept that the conspiracy explanations suggested cannot explain free fall.
    We know that nanothermite cannot cut things instantly.
    We know that explosives can't have been used because we can't hear them.

    So both are impossible, right?

    What does it matter if Im dodging what other people say caused the collapse, It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand
    I presented flaws in the NIST version of the event Or have questions about their hypothesis .... Thats what this discussion is about


  • Options
    #408
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    this thread is about free fall

    This thread is really about you and Cheerful's personal interpretations and denial of an event.

    One of whom thinks secret Nazi's pulled it off, the other has no theory


  • Options
    #409
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Why do you think other separate investigations have come to the same conclusion? why have these findings have been so overwhelmingly accepted by recognised groups of experts around the world?

    Why have findings been incorporated into national building codes?

    Why is there no other credible theory?


    You can go on and on and on ...It still doesn't addresses the questions I asked.


  • Options
    #410
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    This thread is really about you and Cheerful's personal interpretations and denial of an event.

    One of whom thinks secret Nazi's pulled it off, the other has no theory

    I provided valid questions with examples regarding NIST

    If you are unable to discuss this then say so... But stop these nonsensical replies, its embarrassing

    I checked again ...And yes, its the free fall thread


  • Options
    #411
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    You can go on and on and on ...It still doesn't addresses the questions I asked.

    Yes it does.

    it's already been explained many times. You can just keep subjectively rejecting it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #412
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    I provided valid questions with examples regarding NIST

    Yup, they are addressed, you personally reject the answers

    That's circular..


  • Options
    #413
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    All I said that if something falls down its gaining speed ... how fast it falls determines if free fall acceleration is reached
    Again, no. That's very incorrect. It's incorrect in almost every way.

    Again, this proves my point.
    I think the issue here is that you don't understand the difference between acceleration, speed and velocity.
    weisses wrote: »
    What does it matter if Im dodging what other people say caused the collapse, It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand
    Then why not just say that you argee that they are impossible?
    Why dodge the question at all?
    weisses wrote: »
    I presented flaws in the NIST version of the event Or have questions about their hypothesis .... Thats what this discussion is about
    Sure, and we can get to that when we've established a baseline.

    All you have to do is accept that:
    1. you're not entirely sure what is meant by freefall (This has been demonstrated by your attempts to define it.)
    and
    2. The conspiracy explanations are impossible and can't explain freefall.

    Once you do, we can go ahead and discuss the issue of freefall without tangents.


  • Options
    #414
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Sure, and we can get to that when we've established a baseline.

    You can also stop wasting my time

    You are not the one who sets the rules for this .... you can either address the point I make or you don't ..


  • Options
    #415
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Yup, they are addressed, you personally reject the answers

    That's circular..

    Strangely enough they are not ... point to the posts where aand I will take it from there

    Apologies if I missed them


  • Options
    #416
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    You can also stop wasting my time

    You are not the one who sets the rules for this .... you can either address the point I make or you don't ..
    Ok, but I have addressed your point.

    You don't understand what freefall is.

    Again, I can elaborate further, but experience tells me that you aren't actually willing to discuss it like an adult.


  • Options
    #417
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    weisses wrote: »
    Strangely enough they are not ... point to the posts where aand I will take it from there

    Apologies if I missed them

    You have a history of coming to this forum asking for "explanations" of the NIST/how WTC 7 fell, and then rejecting or not understanding them

    Is that true or false?


  • Options
    #418
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    So many red flags
    • Not grasping the technicalities of some event, therefore it didn't happen
    • Not seeking proper information or answers from experts
    • Rejecting consensus on the issue
    • Seeking information from known conspiracy theorists
    • No interest or effort in explaining an alternative
    • Going to a conspiracy theory forum to debate the subject
    • Using the "just asking questions" act
    • Denial is not just part of the argument, it's the entire argument
    weisses wrote: »
    You can also stop wasting my time

    You aren't a new user. You are coming into a conspiracy forum asking the same "simple questions" over and over for years. Explanations are provided. You reject the explanations.

    Posters have been extremely patient with you (and these antics) over the years.


  • Options
    #419
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You have a history of coming to this forum asking for "explanations" of the NIST/how WTC 7 fell, and then rejecting or not understanding them

    Is that true or false?

    I reject the NIST investigation.

    FYI .. there are a lot more people smarter then you or me who also d'ont understand it

    As its provably false, I gave the examples and ask for an opinion in regards to that, The only one who tried was overheal but that reply wasn't very convincing ...as of yet no one came up with a counter argument.

    I asked to provide a link to posts just in case I missed them .... haven't seen anything


  • Options
    #420
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    I reject the NIST investigation.

    FYI .. there are a lot more people smarter then you or me who also d'ont understand it

    As its provably false, I gave the examples and ask for an opinion in regards to that, The only one who tried was overheal but that reply wasn't very convincing ...as of yet no one came up with a counter argument.

    I asked to provide a link to posts just in case I missed them .... haven't seen anything
    Post 2.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111204248&postcount=2

    Tldr: You haven't shown it's provably false, you and other conspiracy theorists are just misrepresenting things. In your case because you don't understand them. In AE9/11's case because they're being dishonest.

    The people who are "smarter" than you also believe that WTC7 and the Twin Towers were demolished with nanothermite and/or explosives. Both of which have been proven to be impossible and inadequate explanations.

    There are also far more "smarter" people who belong to a lot of different organisations who all accept and endorse the NIST report.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #421
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    I have never seen a conspiracy theorist explain how the presence of free fall indicates a conspiracy or a controlled demolition.

    Just focussing on one of your points

    This will be discussed in dohnjoes thread also i guess

    I have never seen NIST explain how the presence of fires Mainly focused on one side of the building can lead to a building coming down in free fall.

    When you look at wtc7's collapse does it look like CD or a building coming down due to fire ?

    Plus you did not ask for a reply ... Your post has nothing to do with the discussion I am trying to have so no its not a post I missed in that regard


Advertisement