Investigative journalist details israel's involvement in 9/11 (Page 6): Professors teach. Shills lie. Which are you?

payne1000

missinglink wrote:

Professor my ass . He is a teacher . You do know the difference do you not ??

Professors teach.
Shills lie.
Which are you?

missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore

You are a buffoon . You can not answer to my statement concerning your
referencing a high school teacher . He is not a professor . Got it ????
Calling me a lying shill is total comedy . Maybe not in your country but it
certainly is in mine !! Thanks for the laugh dip shit .

payne1000 wrote:

Professors teach.
Shills lie.
Which are you?

Thanks for the laugh .
Thanks for the laugh ....

A little something for you to take with you .

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

payne1000 wrote:

Why don't you attempt to refute Professor Boldwyn's equation?

We have refuted Boldwyn's equation. Just looking at what he bases this on is proof enough that he has no clue WTF he is doing.

The following is the Equation that proves that the 911 Twin Towers could not possibly have collapsed due to exploding plane crashes and extremely widespread and intense fires.

CL(95) = 20*LL(95)
= 20*[5*DL(95)]
= 100*DL(95)
= 100*(95/15)DL(15)
= 100*6.33*DL(15)
= 633*DL(15)
= 633 Force Units of upward support
where,
CL = Collapse Load for 100% & Total Collapse
LL = Live Load = Occupied & Furnished Weight
DL = Dead Load = Unoccupied, Unfurnished
110 = 110 Floor Steel WTC
95 = 95 Floor Steel Block (Lower Block)
15 = 15 Floor Steel Block (Top Block)
20 = Collapse Load Factor of John Skilling
5 = Live Load Factor of Ronald Hamburger
of NIST

Therefore, it required the Force of Weight of 633 15-Floor-Blocks pressing down on one 95-Floor-Steel-Block before the possibility of total collapse could possibly occur.

I am using the NIST and Mass Medias own published and or announced at 911 tour presentations data to make this scientific proof that one 15-Floor-Block could not, even in ones wildest dreams totally collapse the 95-Floor-Steel-Block below."

First of all that is the most poorly conceived "equation" I've ever seen. WTF is "633 Force Units of upward support"? Boldwyn must have fashioned that one out of whole cloth. It makes no mathematical sense whatsoever.

The most glaring error is Boldwyn's assumption that the upper 15 collapsing floors and the lower static 95 floors are "STEEL BLOCKS". Nothing could be further from the truth.

The following statement is illogical, incoherent, and absurd.

"Force of Weight of 633 15-Floor-Blocks pressing down on one 95-Floor-Steel-Block before the possibility of total collapse could possibly occur."

emarine

payne1000 wrote:

There are idiots who claim the massive center core remained standing longer than the outer wall structure.

really putz... that's all you've got... a small section of ground floor outer framework leaning on WTC 6... nothing like being a nit picking piss ant in a argument you cant prove... you argued that WTC 6 was blown up with a bomb and denied it was destroyed by the falling tower debris... you also denied the lower tower framework in your photo wasn't leaning on WTC 6... let's look again from the top... this is why you're the putz... putz

payne1000

missinglink wrote:

You are a buffoon . You can not answer to my statement concerning your
referencing a high school teacher . He is not a professor . Got it ????
Calling me a lying shill is total comedy . Maybe not in your country but it
certainly is in mine !! Thanks for the laugh dip shit .

Nothing in your country is the least bit funny.
Here's your flag to use as your avatar:

payne1000

emarine wrote:

really putz... that's all you've got... a small section of ground floor outer framework leaning on WTC 6... nothing like being a nit picking piss ant in a argument you cant prove... you argued that WTC 6 was blown up with a bomb and denied it was destroyed by the falling tower debris... you also denied the lower tower framework in your photo wasn't leaning on WTC 6... let's look again from the top... this is why you're the putz... putz

The intelligent question to ask is, why did the heavy steel from the towers fall outward onto WTC6 and WTC7 instead of falling straight down and totally crushing the wall section which is still standing?
You claim the debris from the North Tower damaged WTC7 enough to cause it to collapse. WTC7 is over 300 ft from the North Tower. Wouldn't it have taken a lot of explosive power to move the hundreds of tons of steel debris that far from the base where a sizable section of the outer wall remained standing. How could that much of the outer wall structure survive while all of the massive center core has been cut into a thousand pieces?

missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore

Now you two have done it . You will both be called Zionist Shills very shortly .

payne1000

Blade_Runner wrote:

We have refuted Boldwyn's equation. Just looking a... (show quote)

Do this simple experiment and you'll see why his equation works in real life:

missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore

payne1000 wrote:

Nothing in your country is the least bit funny.
Here's your flag to use as your avatar:

payne1000

@ missinglink:

missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore

You fixated pea brain little Nazi boy , have canned digs that only someone from outside
the U S could come up with . Even the grammar used in your meme's appear to be produced
by some third world 4th ranked hack . You are not getting over anyone on OPP . Other than
one or two other conspiracy nuts that pipe in very occasionally . You masquerading as some
great knowledgeable locator of Zionist is pure and simple bullshit . You are nothing more than
an everyday Jew hater attempting to get over Americans . Not happening .

Good bye . It's been entertaining . I can't waist any more time on you little man .
Go ahead. Take your normal non associated ridiculous final shot .

payne1000 wrote:

@ missinglink:

emarine

payne1000 wrote:

The intelligent question to ask is, why did the he... (show quote)

Your section that remained was lucky putz... looks like it was hit but had nowhere to go but lean over... it would have fallen if wtc 6 wasn't holding it up...
The outer walls peeled outward... some large sections landed 600' away & were 500' long... half the right side of the building in your smoking stupid photo peeled & landed over 600' away from the foot print... there were no explosives hurling anything putz...just gravity & a long way to fall...

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

payne1000 wrote:

Do this simple experiment and you'll see why his equation works in real life:

That's a brick you are dropping there, pain. Don't you understand that the WTC towers were not bricks?

EconomistDon

payne1000 wrote:

Are you like the other shills who hide behind gutless anonymity in order to post lies and insults?
Are you the coward you appear to be, EconomistDon?

Nope, you are the coward terrorist posting lies and insults hiding behind gutless anonymity. Give it up dummy. We all know that Muslim terrorists committed the crimes. We know who they were and where they got their flight training. Nobody is going to fall for your fairy tale.

It is obvious that you are a terrorist with one goal -- to infiltrate social media, spreading your lies. We don't see you on any other subject threads; only this one. You entire contribution on OPP is spreading lies about 9-11. You post reams of garbage, and when anybody contradicts you, your response is laced with insults.

Pain, you are an irritant on OPP; go back home to your Muslim country. Have sex with your goat.

payne1000

missinglink wrote:

You fixated pea brain little Nazi boy , have canne... (show quote)

You can't "waist" anymore time on me?

Your mental equivalent . . .
Your mental equivalent . . ....