Community > Posts By > HotRodDeluxe

 
HotRodDeluxe's photo
Mon 10/26/15 08:33 PM

Sounds like a bad peyote trip.


Drugs are bad.
Mmmmkay?


That was my first thought. Bath salts?

HotRodDeluxe's photo
Mon 10/26/15 08:33 PM
So, will The Walking Dead be blamed for a rise in violence? noway

If someone is stupid enough to take zombies seriously, I can argue a case for euthanasia.

HotRodDeluxe's photo
Thu 08/13/15 05:52 PM
Primitive beliefs spawn primitive actions.

HotRodDeluxe's photo
Sun 08/09/15 05:01 PM





Recently, some law enforcement officials have announced plans to urge law makers to make it illegal to record police incidents via cell phones.

Would this be a good idea or set a bad precedence?



I think filming interactions with police officers should be encouraged. This allows for both parties to protect themselves in case of claims of abuse.

Why would Police want to discourage this? CYA?


i think it's illegal to film cops in Texas, or it's on the books to be, but the kid that was killed in Arlington had no film of anything, the cop wasn't wearing a camera... so much for at least trying for some honesty...


Hi Moe! Yes, we need more transparency within enforcement agencies.

Recently, our state enacted legislation that was slightly unconstitutional in that it was trying to crack down on organised crime in Motorcycle Clubs. This banned wearing a cut in public and police were harassing anyone in a leather jacket. Mobile phone cameras exposed many abuses during this period. Thankfully, this legislation was repealed recently as it was oppressive and based upon a false generalisation (i.e. ALL bikers are criminals).




seems like the police wants to be secretive... i wonder why? lol


laugh drinker

HotRodDeluxe's photo
Sun 08/09/15 04:34 PM



Recently, some law enforcement officials have announced plans to urge law makers to make it illegal to record police incidents via cell phones.

Would this be a good idea or set a bad precedence?



I think filming interactions with police officers should be encouraged. This allows for both parties to protect themselves in case of claims of abuse.

Why would Police want to discourage this? CYA?


i think it's illegal to film cops in Texas, or it's on the books to be, but the kid that was killed in Arlington had no film of anything, the cop wasn't wearing a camera... so much for at least trying for some honesty...


Hi Moe! Yes, we need more transparency within enforcement agencies.

Recently, our state enacted legislation that was slightly unconstitutional in that it was trying to crack down on organised crime in Motorcycle Clubs. This banned wearing a cut in public and police were harassing anyone in a leather jacket. Mobile phone cameras exposed many abuses during this period. Thankfully, this legislation was repealed recently as it was oppressive and based upon a false generalisation (i.e. ALL bikers are criminals).


HotRodDeluxe's photo
Sun 08/09/15 04:17 PM

Recently, some law enforcement officials have announced plans to urge law makers to make it illegal to record police incidents via cell phones.

Would this be a good idea or set a bad precedence?



I think filming interactions with police officers should be encouraged. This allows for both parties to protect themselves in case of claims of abuse.

Why would Police want to discourage this? CYA?

HotRodDeluxe's photo
Sun 08/02/15 06:03 PM
Perspective & balance:

Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/

Hoax?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/31/wh-doubts-authenticity-planned-parenthood-videos/

HotRodDeluxe's photo
Mon 07/27/15 05:11 PM

OMG,that's Osama bin Shopping!:laughing:


Osama looking fabulous, Dahhhling. laugh

HotRodDeluxe's photo
Mon 07/20/15 03:37 PM



Jason Stapleton Program 07.13.2015

They Can't Predict Tomorrow, But 200 years? No problem!

Climate scientists claim we are headed for a mini-ice age, but weren't they calling for global warming before?

If they can't predict tomorrow, how can they possibly predict hundreds of years from now?

http://www.jasonstapleton.com/jason-stapleton-program-07-13-2015


Actually, you have it backwards. The Washington Post reported the solar scientist that did the work said, "On the one hand, Zharkova maintains that her research was not intended to make assumptions about the effects of solar variation on climate — only to lay out predictions about the solar activity itself. “What will happen in the modern Maunder Minimum we do not know yet and can only speculate,” she says."

It is the press who came up with the "ice age" connection. The climate scientists said she didn't know anything about climate research and that the solar minimum will have little effect.


As usual, there is always a rational explanation behind the hysteria.

HotRodDeluxe's photo
Wed 07/01/15 08:49 PM

my point is...that no steel and concrete skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire damage in the history of steel and concrete buildings, no not a single one....



You omit so many details that also are 'firsts'. But you wouldn't be doing that to project a bias, would you?

No steel framed building had 767's crash into them either. No steel framed building had a raging fire go unfought for seven hours. I could go on, but it's a fallacious argument from the outset, so I won't bother.

because the wtc towers prove, beyond a doubt, that it can be done just as easily and safely


LOLOL Safely? How do you figure that one?

by taking out 3 or 4 floors up near the top with explosives and a fire accellerant and that steel and concrete building will absolutely fall straight down like a stack of pancakes


You forgot the impacts. That was rather convenient for your fallacious argument, but transparent.


....i'm sure all the demo companies will be instituting this amazing industry revolutionizing new technique on their very next contracts....


Of course, that is utterly ridiculous as it would not be safe, nor predictable.

You have a limited understanding of the subject.

HotRodDeluxe's photo
Wed 07/01/15 07:38 PM
May he rest in peace and be forever remembered for his contribution to humanity.

HotRodDeluxe's photo
Tue 06/30/15 04:57 PM
WT7 came down at free fall speed.


And can you explain what that meme means to you?

a) It didn't come down at free-fall speed. The collapse took 17.5 seconds and free-fall was noted on the NW corner for 2.25 seconds at the 12.5 second mark. Free-fall was actually exceeded for those 2.25 seconds and that throws a BIG spanner in the claims of Gage and Chandler.

Straight down.


The curtain wall yes, and? What does this mean to you?

You seem to attribute some significance to these points.

HotRodDeluxe's photo
Mon 06/29/15 05:24 PM




LOL The Statue of Liberty looks like Queen Elizabeth II.

HotRodDeluxe's photo
Mon 06/29/15 05:07 AM


Thermite remains a myth:

https://youtu.be/aGGJ4xzna8o



you tellem Hotrod.


Hi Alle! Metalwing did it admirably I thought, and he even showed me where I had made a mistake. LOLOL


HotRodDeluxe's photo
Mon 06/29/15 04:53 AM
Edited by HotRodDeluxe on Mon 06/29/15 05:07 AM

Geez guys. If you really want to know the science behind how the 9/11 buildings fell, I posted ALL the science on Mingle2 years ago. I posted all the physics and explained it from scratch because I am an expert in structural engineering and forensics. I am even aware of some of the design flaws in the tower construction which led to the use of light truss construction (which shouldn't have been used in the first place).

The "thermite" theory is nonsense. The sulfur that seem so mysterious is just a common ingredient in sheetrock/drywall which is made of calcium sulfate of which there were TONS.

The steel reaches failure mode at about 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. The fire from the jet fuel burned at about 1,800 degrees. I posted the strength/temperature curves for steel which shows exactly how much strength is lost as the steel heated up. At 1000 degrees the trusses only had half their strength which is about when you would expect them to fail.

Building seven has two vertical truss supports that took the place of the main interior columns. The falling debris set fire to the building adjacent to one of the trusses and (trust me on this one) trusses are not near as fire resistant as typical heavy steel or steel/concrete columns. The ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) even did a nice computer study of the way that the vertical truss pulled down the building as it failed. The computer simulation matched EXACTLY the photographic evidence of what actually happened.

In a similar note, the shear connections on the two towers are what was expected to fail in a fire but the actual failure mode was more of a rotation of the shear connections which allowed the columns to bend resulting in column buckling from P-Delta effect. (resultant loads off center from the column centerline which induces bending).

Lots of photos were introduced into conspiracy websites showing melted steel which were actually where the firemen and contractors cut the metal with torches to look for survivors or remove large pieces of the building.

I am not sure why anyone thinks it takes more than the planes to bring the buildings down. All it took was a lot of heat to an already damaged structure hit by a plane. ALL the science and physics backs up failure by this mode.

The real science is just as available on the web as the junk. Why not study how the real world works and prove it to yourself?


Hey! Long time no chat my friend!

This illustrates one of your points.
WTC5:



This simulation illustrates the damage to the columns in the North Tower:

http://youtu.be/cddIgb1nGJ8

HotRodDeluxe's photo
Mon 06/29/15 04:15 AM
Edited by HotRodDeluxe on Mon 06/29/15 04:28 AM
Here is a basic plan of 7WTC:



Note the large open area and the trapezoidal shape of the building itself.

The interior was gutted after seven hours of unfought fires. A single column gave way under the Eastern Penthouse and the interior progressively collapsed from east to west; the curtain wall followed. The Eastern Penthouse contained all the machinery for the lifts and air conditioning; these crashed through the floors starting the interior collapse sequence.



This graph shows the acceleration between the 11 second mark and the seventeen second mark. Note the free-fall that 9/11 truth claim to be the smoking gun occurs at the 12.5 second mark (note the blue line).

The fact that freefall is attained is for 9/11 truth the evidence that explosives were deployed to demolish the building, for as Chandler says, 'freefall can only be reached when all resistance is suddenly removed from beneath certain floors' (9 to be exact IIRC).

However, if you note on the graph, that free fall is actually exceeded at the 12.5 second mark and maintained for 2.25 seconds. This denotes other forces at play here other than the simple removal of floors.

Chandler's hypothesis only works if the collapse sequence is regarded as taking 6 seconds. It didn't, it took 17.5, and as the interior collapsed, it 'pulled' the curtain wall down with such force as to exceed free fall.



HotRodDeluxe's photo
Mon 06/29/15 04:02 AM
Edited by HotRodDeluxe on Mon 06/29/15 04:12 AM

According to the official theory, the Twin Towers collapsed due to the structural steel being weakened by fire. In other words, they collapsed due to fire. if that's the case, then how come no modern high-rise, before or after 9/11, has ever collapsed because of a fire?? If that's the case, 9/11 would be the first time in history a modern steel building has ever collapsed due to fire or steal weakened by fire.

For example, why didn't this building collapse?



1991 One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia, raged for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors of the 38-floor building. 1988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles, which burned out of control for 3-1/2 hours and gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower. Both of these fires were far more severe than any fires seen in Building 7, but those buildings did not collapse. The Los Angeles fire was described as producing "no damage to the main structural members".

Or this one?



Skyscraper in Madrid Spain burned for almost 24 hours, no collapse.

These out of control infernos burned much more longer and much more intensely,
but remained standing.



Compared to this weak, under control smoldering fire, burned less than an hour,
which caused the WTC towers to collapse but the others are standing!??



i call bull$h1t!


Simple really. Neither of these examples were struck by Boeings. In addition, 7WTC collapsed owing to the fires being unfought for seven hours because the collapse of the twins had severed the water supply and the FDNY could not get pressure. You haven't factored in the unique nature of the design of 7WTC either.

One should be careful when making generalisations regarding the nature of fires, for each behaves according to a multitude of interactions that are essentially, chaotic.

Your argument is basically one based on incredulity.

HotRodDeluxe's photo
Mon 06/29/15 03:45 AM
Edited by HotRodDeluxe on Mon 06/29/15 03:47 AM

9/11 investigation spent 16 million dollars, bill clintons blowjob and other clinton scandals, 50+ million.


And? Does the amount spent on it automatically bring the findings into question?

well you would think they could afford to spend more money investigating one of the biggest "terrorist" attacks in history, than bill clintons marital indiscretions. i would anyway.


Sorry, I'm catching up on the thread, so please excuse my replies being 'all over the place'.

I feel we have to think like a politician here. Sure the administration was reluctant to cooperate with an inquiry. They feared the political ramifications of perhaps being caught with their pants down (which they were). But so were London, Madrid and Bali in the following years.

Can you imagine the political mileage the left would have gained out of such a finding?

I'm sure the Bush administration feared having to defend such claims and prosecute a war in Afghanistan at the same time. Bush had an opportunity to gain political mileage over Clinton for his limp wristed response to the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanganyika, and he missed it. In 2000, the Cole gave Bush all he needed to eliminate AQ, but he too, waited. Eleven months later AQ escalate their campaign.

HotRodDeluxe's photo
Mon 06/29/15 03:22 AM
Edited by HotRodDeluxe on Mon 06/29/15 03:23 AM

What cannot? The collapse took 17.5 seconds. What is your point.



Actually # 7 came down in 6 seconds.


No, it was 17.5. Chandler got it wrong. See the following video and note that the collapse sequence begins with the disappearance of the eastern Penthouse.

http://youtu.be/nqbUkThGlCo


Did you miss that part in your extensive research of 9/11?


No, it is usually one of the first replies on the subject when I relate the real figure, not the fantasy of AE911T. I'm surprised it took this long and I nearly missed your response.

AE911T know that the interior collapsed before the curtain wall exterior-they just 'haven't removed it yet'. ;)

I'd really like to debate the subject of 7WTC with someone who knows the subject. If you're up for it, I'm keen.

HotRodDeluxe's photo
Mon 06/29/15 02:49 AM
Edited by HotRodDeluxe on Mon 06/29/15 02:50 AM
Think about it for a moment. Painting on a coat of thermite will do very little in order to destroy a long-span open plan building. It would be a nice flash though.


I think I down played that a little.

Actually, it would be a HUGE flash that you would see over the horizon. And it would cause everything combustible in the immediate vicinity to ignite. But no, the steel frame would probably survive as Thermite is a flash powder, and the process is all over in a fraction of a second.

This bring into question another point about thermite which is often raised: Thermite could only be responsible for the 'Rivers of Iron and Steel' that were noticed for months later according to some sites.

If Thermite is a flash powder, that means cooling would begin immediately. Thermite therefore, is NOT confirmed by the Molten Rivers reports.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 24 25