Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Creative Speculation

In reply to the discussion: Face with a name [View all]

superbeachnut

(381 posts)
28. faces talk, but offer no evidence, no proof, more woo
Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:02 PM
Jul 2014

Bruce Sinclair, thinks he is a structural engineer, a fire science expert. Bruce Sinclair is a paranoid conspiracy theorist who flies planes.
Hope he does not rant about this claptrap in-flight.
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/story/2012-03-27/JetBlue-captain-subdued-after-erratic-behavior-on-flight/53811070/1

Well, the one I use for people who are 9/11 neophytes or people who are disbelievers is -- The single most compelling piece of evidence is the collapse of Building 7 at the World Trade Center. - R. Bruce Sinclair

WTC 7 burned all day, no firefighting, and it collapsed. Not sure why he thinks WTC 7 is some smoking gun. Bruce is not a structural engineer, has no clue what fire can do; so he adopts fantasy from 911 truth nuts.

Most people don't even know that Building 7 collapsed because it's been expunged from the mainstream media completely. - R. Bruce Sinclair

Building collapse when on fire, and Bruce has to lie about WTC 7. A report was done on WTC 7, like other building totaled in fire. One Meridian Plaza, fire fought and the building totaled by fire. Windsor building, fire fought, building totaled by fire, and the steel frame section collapsed. oops, Bruce is fooled by the failed 911 truth movement of woo.

But the bottom line is that when a 47-story steel and concrete structure falls at 5:30 in the afternoon at 6 and a half seconds of free-fall speed into its own shadow - R. Bruce Sinclair

Bruce must be using that special 11.2g physics pilots for truth use.
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/balsamo2.html
Bruce waves his hands (or googled 911 truth lies and believes them blindly) and says "free-fall"... oops physics again; WTC 7 took over 16 seconds to collapse, not 6.5 seconds. Bruce fails physics, which is standard for pilots for truth (see 11.2g physics).
Its "own shadow"? lol, wrong again Bruce Sinclair.
What is free-fall speed? 30mph, 100mph, what is it Bruce? This is funny, but then I am a geek, an engineer and a pilot; I took physics, not that I would not say "free-fall speed", but it is not a speed; Bruce has no clue what physics is, he is a 911 truth believer.
Bruce, WTC 7 was not a concrete building, it was steel frame. Sorry, but the new WTC 7 has concrete core to protect the stairs, etc. Bruce does not offer math, or engineering to go with his fantasy.

with video tapes of people saying "You'll have to get back. The building is coming down." - R. Bruce Sinclair
Fire fighters have people move back, and some predict it might collapse, so they prepare and get people back. Wow, fire fighter doing their job. oops, Bruce seems to trying to hard to lie about 911.


This is the prima facie proof of an inside job. This building was hit by no airplane. ... - R. Bruce Sinclair

What a big leap of stupid. Bruce Sinclair, a failed pilot for truth believer thinks he can do engienering, and fails to present evidence. Doubt he knows what evidence is.

Where is Bruce Sinclair's supporting evidence for pilot for truth impossible speed, fake Vg diagram, or the 11.2g then 34g failed g force nonsense?

Same old 911 truth talk, no substance.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Face with a name [View all] johndoeX Jun 2014 OP
What are these pilots claiming? Does being a pilot make their claims credible? arcane1 Jun 2014 #1
"I gave him nothing of the sort" (credibility) johndoeX Jun 2014 #2
I haven't made any claims, and you misquoted me without answering me. arcane1 Jun 2014 #3
Translation - johndoeX Jun 2014 #4
You are still avoiding my simple question: what are these pilots claiming? arcane1 Jun 2014 #5
You try to engage in a discussion with which you haven't read? johndoeX Jun 2014 #6
Nowhere in this thread did I state an opinion. Only a question. arcane1 Jun 2014 #9
Wrong arcane1 johndoeX Jun 2014 #10
yeppers! wildbilln864 Jun 2014 #16
This message was self-deleted by its author superbeachnut Jun 2014 #12
pilots for truth faces to go with the fringe conspiracy theorists spreading lies of impossible speed superbeachnut Jun 2014 #7
In other words..... johndoeX Jun 2014 #8
Faces which spread lies about 911 - unable to hit targets terrorists hit - pilots for truth superbeachnut Jun 2014 #11
Beachy, lets keep it simple.. shall we? johndoeX Jun 2014 #13
pilot for truth sources failed at physics, aero, and more superbeachnut Jun 2014 #14
Yawn... johndoeX Jun 2014 #15
Your 11.2g failed math is classic, never gets old, you still have it posted superbeachnut Jun 2014 #18
Post removed Post removed Jun 2014 #19
hmmmm.... wildbilln864 Jun 2014 #17
Faces don't help with knowledge, logic and physics superbeachnut Jun 2014 #20
Max Speed at 700' ? delphi72 Jun 2014 #21
Faces delphi72 Jun 2014 #22
faces that spread lies about the murder of thousands by 19 terrorists superbeachnut Jun 2014 #23
Jeff Latas analysis is based on failed knowledge superbeachnut Jun 2014 #24
Ross Aimer, what does he say about 911 superbeachnut Jun 2014 #25
FYI, it is not appropriate on DU to demand fellow members to reveal their real names and pictures. stevenleser Jun 2014 #26
Even if it was ok here... William Seger Jun 2014 #27
so why do you? wildbilln864 Jul 2014 #29
I use my real name because politics is my business and I want to encourage name recognition. stevenleser Jul 2014 #30
totally agree! n/t wildbilln864 Jul 2014 #31
faces talk, but offer no evidence, no proof, more woo superbeachnut Jul 2014 #28
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»Face with a name»Reply #28