Posts for: payne1000
Nov 30, 2017 11:15:40 #
(Main)
amadjuster wrote:
You and Payne are both One Trick Ponies, in your own way. He will post the same old crap in he same old order like no one has ever seen it. Dementia?
You duck out on a last question to post your Freemason crap. All you have proven is they have a lot of money. At least we know that Cliven Bundy can't go there because he refused to leave jail. I guess he can't get the ankle monitor on over his alligator boots. He can afford those since he never pays his grazing fees.
You duck out on a last question to post your Freemason crap. All you have proven is they have a lot of money. At least we know that Cliven Bundy can't go there because he refused to leave jail. I guess he can't get the ankle monitor on over his alligator boots. He can afford those since he never pays his grazing fees.
Maybe you don't realize that new members are joining this forum at all times.
The truth I post should be available to everyone.
Much of the information I repeat is to expose the lies which are repeated so often on this forum.
Nov 30, 2017 11:11:56 #
Nov 30, 2017 10:38:06 #
(Main)
cold iron wrote:
And what is your real name Pain! And when did you stop posting lie's.
My name is Larry Payne.
I post the truth so I don't have to hide.
What is your name?
Nov 30, 2017 10:14:04 #
(Main)
S. Maturin wrote:
OK, let's trade: All that old garbage you listed and this *new*, current material of today as it is happening right now under our noses.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ (Borrowed from Peter, thanks, Pete)
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ (Borrowed from Peter, thanks, Pete)
Those who post hate on the site you linked don't identify themselves.
It's become apparent to me since I've been on this forum that those who refuse to identify themselves
hide behind anonymity because they're here to post lies.
S. Maturin is not a real name. What is your real name?
Nov 30, 2017 09:13:37 #
(Main)
Blade_Runner wrote:
Your linked article does not name the author. The entire site does not name the author.
You and Emarine hide your identities.
Why is it that everyone involved in the 9/11 cover-up operation has to remain anonymous?
Nov 30, 2017 09:09:24 #
(Main)
Blade_Runner wrote:
Nobody was picking up anything moments after the B... (show quote)
Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski was an eye witness at the Pentagon on 9/11.
Here's what she had to say:
"It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...
There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked (Pentagon} lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ...
I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.
The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ..."
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski
Nov 30, 2017 09:00:58 #
(Main)
Blade_Runner wrote:
I wonder how all these WTC columns and beams got so bent, twisted and mangled. Must have had something to do with a half million ton, 1300 foot, tower of concrete and steel collapsing.
A half million ton, 1300 foot, tower of concrete and steel doesn't collapse in less than 15 seconds from the same weight it had supported for over half a century . . . especially when most of the falling upper section has been exploded outward from the tower. The alleged pile-driver is suspiciously missing.
Nov 30, 2017 08:55:00 #
(Main)
emarine wrote:
The lighter upper core steel failed from non uniform weight distribution & lateral forces... the outer frame was simply forced outward... once the floor system failed the entire structure lost stability... unstable structures fall... the brick would hit wherever you wanted it to... build it & they will come... the center core was standing watch the video again...
Unstable structures fall over. Unstable structures do not crush themselves to earth in less than 15 seconds.
Nov 29, 2017 19:01:37 #
(Main)
emarine wrote:
you must modify your brick experiment to resemble ... (show quote)
In your ridiculous experiment, the brick would hit the center core and bounce off. If the center core were left out, the experiment would not be related to reality.
If the brick were shaped like a donut and missed the center core, the center core would remain standing. You fail logic in every respect.
Nov 29, 2017 18:56:25 #
(Main)
emarine wrote:
Still can't grasp the second law of motion...cuter charges cut steel not bend & twist it... that's mass in motion or F=ma + gravity every time... go ahead & ask me again tomorrow like usual...
You've cherry picked a lot of steel which is not shown in the debris piles.
Was it ever in the debris piles?
Why didn't you show all the steel in the debris piles photos which remained as straight as the day it was erected?
Can you find any of your warehouse steel in the debris photos?
Nov 29, 2017 17:53:35 #
(Main)
Blade_Runner wrote:
payne1000
95 divided by 15 multiplied by 100 equals 633? Give. Me. A. Break.
My calculator says that is accurate.
No shit, Sherlock.
Mathematical equations don't have an expiration date. Unfortunately humans do.
That is not a scientific mathematical equation, it is simple arithmetic the product of which means nothing.
95 divided by 15 multiplied by 100 equals 633? Give. Me. A. Break.
My calculator says that is accurate.
No shit, Sherlock.
Mathematical equations don't have an expiration date. Unfortunately humans do.
That is not a scientific mathematical equation, it is simple arithmetic the product of which means nothing.
Boldwyn's equation is backed up by the brick and straw experiment. Professor Feynman would agree:
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-adk-adk_sbnt&hsimp=yhs-adk_sbnt&hspart=adk&p=feynman+if+it+doesn%27t+match+the+experiment+its+wrong.#id=1&vid=043d4abf84c7a4b050e568762b9c1645&action=click
Nov 29, 2017 17:48:46 #
(Main)
Blade_Runner wrote:
The scientific explanation for how and why the tow... (show quote)
Nowhere in any of the convoluted impossible collapse scenarios you and your fellow anonymous shill, emarine, have posted have you given a valid explanation of how the center core could collapse upon itself. The center core was designed to support three times the weight it actually held up. It's totally impossible that it would collapse straight down on itself in less than 15 seconds from the same weight it had held up for half a century. The fake war on Muslims is still going on. That's why it's so important that all the world knows the truth.
Nov 29, 2017 16:39:45 #
(Main)
amadjuster wrote:
You have automatically posted this list as "proof" of your allegations for years, and it is as hollow today as it was the first time you posted it. It proves nothing.
Nothing can be proved on an internet forum.
A lot of valid evidence can be posted, however.
It's up to readers to decide what the truth is.
It helps to have the evidence they may not have previously had.
Nov 29, 2017 16:23:20 #
(Main)
Blade_Runner wrote:
On September 11, 2001 fourteen buildings were destroyed or damaged beyond repair. These included WTC1, WTC2, Marriott Hotel (WTC3), WTC4, WTC5, US Customs House (WTC6), WTC7, St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, Deutsche Bank Building (130 Liberty Street), Fiterman Hall (30 West Broadway), 4 Albany Street, 130 Cedar Street, 133-135 Greenwich Street, 21-23 Thames Street. Explosives were not involved in any of this destruction, not even during clean up.
Of course the perpetrators couldn't use explosives to take down the damaged buildings at WTC. Everyone would have noticed how similar their collapses were to the three towers.
Can't have that.
Nov 29, 2017 16:20:07 #
(Main)
[quote=Blade_Runner]It is true that Newton's laws apply to a brick colliding with a sheet of cardboard resting on top of standing straws, but any resemblance to the twin towers ends there. The upper portion of the towers that fell were not solid bricks, the floors in the towers were not single sheets of something or other resting on top of eight steel columns like a table top resting on its legs.
You're right. The upper portion of the towers was much less solid than a brick. The floors in the towers did not rest on eight steel columns, they were connected to over 280 vertical steel columns which were all tied together at every floor by horizontal steel bracing. So, allowing for scale, the falling floors were much less weight than a brick, and the lower floors were many times the strength of the straws.
95 divided by 15 multiplied by 100 equals 633? Give. Me. A. Break.
My calculator says that is accurate.
Boldwyn posted his numbers game in the comment section of Heller's rant at garlic and grass.
Boldwyn concludes his pile of garbage with a truly self-centered statement,
I am in possession of the most critical information that all of the 911 researchers have been longing and praying for some Physicist to uncover. The wait for conclusive proof is over. Just request my paper to be sent to you via your email address.
Chuck Boldwyn
Boldwyn posted that bullshit almost 9 years ago, and if that mumbo jumbo arithmetic was even remotely close to an existing physics equation with credible results, by now it should have made enough of an impression that at least one truther scientist or engineer would have responded to it. It would have made it into the mainstream of 9/11 trutherism. No cigar. Not one scientist or engineer, has commented on it or responded to it, not a word. Nope, it just sits there tacked to the wall at garlic and grass, and every once in a while some moron in the truther movement sees it and thinks he has discovered the mother lode. Mathematical equations don't have an expiration date. Unfortunately humans do.
You're right. The upper portion of the towers was much less solid than a brick. The floors in the towers did not rest on eight steel columns, they were connected to over 280 vertical steel columns which were all tied together at every floor by horizontal steel bracing. So, allowing for scale, the falling floors were much less weight than a brick, and the lower floors were many times the strength of the straws.
95 divided by 15 multiplied by 100 equals 633? Give. Me. A. Break.
My calculator says that is accurate.
Boldwyn posted his numbers game in the comment section of Heller's rant at garlic and grass.
Boldwyn concludes his pile of garbage with a truly self-centered statement,
I am in possession of the most critical information that all of the 911 researchers have been longing and praying for some Physicist to uncover. The wait for conclusive proof is over. Just request my paper to be sent to you via your email address.
Chuck Boldwyn
Boldwyn posted that bullshit almost 9 years ago, and if that mumbo jumbo arithmetic was even remotely close to an existing physics equation with credible results, by now it should have made enough of an impression that at least one truther scientist or engineer would have responded to it. It would have made it into the mainstream of 9/11 trutherism. No cigar. Not one scientist or engineer, has commented on it or responded to it, not a word. Nope, it just sits there tacked to the wall at garlic and grass, and every once in a while some moron in the truther movement sees it and thinks he has discovered the mother lode. Mathematical equations don't have an expiration date. Unfortunately humans do.