911 inside job - for what?

[Professor Buzzkill]

I have already proven that fact on a number of occasions. Should we start with Cleveland airport and United 93 as a prime example, and then, continue where they now claim that no aircraft struck the WTC buildings?

Thats right. Don't quote my specifics and deflect attention to the most radical "truther" claims.

God, i don't know why i bother

[Professor Buzzkill]

3 buildings collapsed completely that day. The NIST report only covers two of these buildings and fully admits that they could not replicate the failures in testing. Fire damage is slow, creeping deformations. Never has a fire caused similtainous failure of all structral supports in any steel framed highrises. This is because fires in skyscrapers run out of fuel in certain areas after a couple of hours. No where near enough time to cause the steel to lose structural integrity. Conversely, when a building collapses, it takes the path of least resistance. Hence, if the top of a building collapses, it will fall towards the area of least resistance. In this case, that was any direction except straight down.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Professor Buzzkill

[skyeagle409]

I, however, think that you are appealing to authority instead of accepting that there are fallacies in the 9/11 official narrative.

3 building collapsed completely that day.

There would probably have been a fourth building had it not been for the heroes of United 93. Remember, warnings were received from a number of countries around prior to the 911 attacks that terrorist was in the final stages of carrying out their attack on the United States, with some reports warning the use of airliners as missiles to strike the Pentagon, the WTC buildings, CIA headquarters, the Capitol building, the White House and other American landmarks.

The majority of civil engineers, demolition experts and architects support the official story.

[skyeagle409]

God, i don't know why i bother

If you deal with me, I am going to challenge you to post the evidence that everyone can see..

[Professor Buzzkill]

The majority of civil engineers, demolition experts and architects support the official story.

3 buildings collapsed completely that day. The NIST report only covers two of these buildings and fully admits that they could not replicate the failures in testing. Fire damage is slow, creeping deformations. Never has a fire caused similtainous failure of all structral supports in any steel framed highrises. This is because fires in skyscrapers run out of fuel in certain areas after a couple of hours. No where near enough time to cause the steel to lose structural integrity. Conversely, when a building collapses, it takes the path of least resistance. Hence, if the top of a building collapses, it will fall towards the area of least resistance. In this case, that was any direction except straight down.

Every engineer that reads my statement will agree. I doubt the majority of any group has seriously given 9/11 any serious professional consideration. And if they had, they'd have to put their necks on the line and be called "loonies" by know-nothings like yourself

Edited May 3, 2013 by Professor Buzzkill

[skyeagle409]

Every engineer that reads my statement will agree.

The majority do not agree with 911 Truthers.

[Professor Buzzkill]

The majority do not agree with 911 Truthers.

Can you show me one example of a highrise that has fallen straight down through itself as the result of impact damage or fire? No? But three fell on the same day in NY. 3 buildings that were condemned and would have cost 5.7 billion to pull down. 3 buildings that were sold in the full knowledge that they were obsolete and were snapped up at a bargin price and insured against terrorist attacks in a very unusual and specific way to nullify the lease holders responcibilities under the contract while ensuring a massive payout.

[skyeagle409]

Can you show me one example of a highrise that has fallen straight down through itself as the result of impact damage or fire?

Actually, I have posted the Wndsor building fire where the steel structure collapsed in Spain. You also have to remember the other buildings were not struck by B-767s.

[psyche101]

There might well be people who distrust parts of the government or be against the current government of which they are being governed by, but as a whole, even from what you have posted, there isn't anything to me that says anyone of those posters is anti government.

The 1st quote, the person doesn't trust Obama, but neither do a lot of republicans that didn't vote for him. Does that make them anti government too?

The 2nd quote, says the government is suppressing knowledge of ET and UFO. Just because he believes that they are suppressing information, doesn't equate to being anti government.

The 3rd quote, says the government is controlled by special interests and that they wear suits. How is that being anti government, all he is saying is that the government is being controlled by special interest groups and from what I can gather, he doesn't want to be governed by them. That is not ant government, he is not saying that he does not want to be governed.

The 4th quote, thinks the world is controlled by the illuminati and they want a one world government. Again, I'm not seeing anything that says he is anti government. All I can take from this is that he doesn't want to be controlled by the illuminate or the one world government.

The 5th quote, talks some crap about something in the sky and that governments have lied and covered up for 60 years. I'm not seeing anything saying he is anti government. As I said, criticism of the government doesn't equate to being anti government, even if he is anti Obama.

The 6th quote, calls those who don't believe Jones as government apologist. I'm not seeing anything anti government.

The 7th quote, rants on about people not being able to think for themselves and that they must think what the government tells them to think.

I'm confused by what you have posted because I can't find a single thing which supports your theory that any of these posters based on these quotes are anti government. And being anti government isn't always a bad thing either, look at those in Egypt under Mubarack. They were anti government protesters and I'm sure they were not bad people, or that they wanted no government whatsoever. They were unhappy with the government at the time.

You will always find people anti the opposing political party, that is the nature of the 2 party system, but I wouldn't call them anti government.

I guess I just see it differently, I sure wish I had a dollar for every-time I have read "Do not trust the Government they are liars"

As such, I think you're running with semantics a bit there, Obama is the current governor, the first quote calling him a lying piece of **** is rather personal in my opinion. That is not "I do not trust Obama because he....." it is a personal statement. Whilst some of those republicans might have thought something similar, they are not in public saying it. They know where that line is. The second quote gives what reason for this suppression? It's the Government. No rhyme or reason, nothing, just a dummy spit directed at the controlling authority. The third poster is automatically assuming the Government has an agenda to control people, and they have people you would not recognise, insinuating a nefarious agenda, the fourth assumes the US Government controls the entire world via the illuminati, which is slightly bordering on insane, and the fifth claims the "so called" as they put it, Government is stealing from the poor and giving to the rich, the sixth states an arch nemesis? and the last insinuates that the Government already have control over the people and only the crackpots were looked over. In each case it is making the Government out to be nefarious and underhanded. This sort of Anti Government is stupid because it id based on horse hockey. If we want to rally against the Government to force the Illuminati information ut of them, just what on earth is next???

Of course there are many people that suspected him over the years, but the point is that he was allowed to get away with it for many years, even though complaints were made against him. So speaking out doesn't always get the desired results.

Thanks for the link, I didn't know that she had been reinstated which is a victory for common sense and it's a good job she had the backing of the Royal College of Nursing, but how can you say that you do not feel that I have presented a case to prove when she says herself that "Anyone tempted to blow the whistle on unacceptable practices in the NHS will think twice before risking their career."

Look at what has happened to Bradley Manning when he chose to speak up or the persecution of Julian Assange for leaking the information which exposed some terrible things the government have done without our knowledge.

I can't find the quote, but Daniel Ellsberg said that that just because a government got caught covering something up, doesn't mean that government aren't capable of covering anything else up, or something to that effect.

Ahh, but Icke did not oust him. How he managed to get away with so much for so long could also be explained by the Catholic Church, on all fronts, that level of corporate hiding is not considered socially acceptable anymore, just like apartheid.

You say people will not blow the whistle because they risk their career, yet we have some notable examples being discussed here, where exactly that happened? A nurse spoke out, was ousted, then reinstated, and given an award.

Manning pleaded guilty to unauthorized possession and willful communication of sensitive material, including the hundreds of thousands of State Department cables and other materials provided to WikiLeaks. He violated his working contract, and his position. He was not upset with something being suppressed, he was trying to be cool with his hacker mates and got caught. And according to witnesses in his courtroom hearing, he places the blame squarely on himself. It is aholes like that who blow things out of proportion that get the CT'ers all juiced up and ready to swallow anything Alex Jones has to spread.

There are over 1800 signatures from Engineers and Architects which are all listed on his website, who are confident enough to be associated with him because they publicly signed his petition and have given their license number. Some of them are members of AIA too.

What are some names?

Well not quite, as I often see official story believers say, well if our version of events didn't happen, then tell us what did happen and if you can't tell us what happened, then what you say is nonsense.[/size]

And it is not what the CTers are doing because some believe it could not be the terrorists, some believe that it was the terrorists but they were aided by the government, some believe that they were just patsies and the government created it. Trying to shoehorn all conspiracy theorists into one box is missing the bigger picture and shows a lack of understanding of the concepts surrounding the CT. The hypothesis you defend is the original one but the hijackers didn't confess because they died in the attacks. OBL didn't confess and from what has been posted, I do not see it as a confession, he might have supported the attacks but he is not confessing to them.

Also confessions are usually not enough to convict because the confession could be obtained by coercion, threat of violence, torture, given to protect others, or even down to mental health issues. A confessions is evidence and it maybe the best evidence but it sometimes isn't enough to convict. This is why the FBI never indicted OBL because even if we assume that he did confess, then it still wasn't enough for a grand jury to indict him for 9/11.

To be fair there is not enough to list each and every CT associated with 911. And as such, to an extent I am broad brushing that is because concerns such as yours do not offend me nearly as much as the ridiculous claims BR makes. SO when I am broad brushing, in order to maintain some sensibility and save these posts spanning several pages at a time, I am not referring to those with maybes, I am referring to those who claim there were no terrorists, there were bombs in the planes, or the planes were drones, the no planers, and the people who say daddy faked his death for the Government.

In all honesty, I thought that was quite apparent, and more so illustrated by our, what I feel are, meaningful exchanges.

Confessions might not be enough to convict, but people dancing in the streets, saying 3,000 innocent people "deserved it" and admitting to conspiring to fly planes into buildings, I find enough to satisfy my own concerns.

I think he exists because of his mum and dad but I ain't got a clue as to why he is popular, but then again, I do not get why O'Reilly or Limbaugh are popular either. I suppose people like shouty men...lol

Haha.........

With me, the louder you yell, the less you get heard. I treat all people I deal with personally that way. I understand why he is popular, he offers people an escape from reality, a place where a person can feel important. or feel they are making a difference. We all go through stages in life. Jones is there for the people who need to feel they are doing something.

I think there is a thread where I have mentioned it.

http://www.unexplain...c=200702&st=180

I could have pointed you to a rather long page over at another forum called frostcloud but the whole forum has been changed and all the old content has been removed. I just noticed that Colonel has posted over here, he was the punch bag over at the frostcloud forum.

Thanks, I'll have a good look, I have not met that Colonel as yet.

But you have missed the point, it doesn't matter where they are planted because you believe that they collapsed without thermite. So putting them in the middle of a single floor or placing them in strategic places wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome according to your own view.

But of the CT'ers say they were there, and if this basic and required component is not qualified, is it not prudent? It is not offering an alternate explanation, it is simply illustrating why the one put forth does not work.

He had only started 19 days before the attacks, they could have been planted long before he started and more importantly, O'Neill isn't going to vet every single person walking into the building, or every service man, maintenance worker. [/size]However there were reports that sniffer dogs were removed before the attacks and O'Neill was very critical of the poor security at the WTC.

Yet he still had more information than anyone, and one can surmise from his comments that he expected this. As such, he would not only be vigilant, but the best man to note untoward activity. I think his criticisms reflect this. He may not get everyone in the building, but for sure he would notice a repeated effort, as weould be required to lay thermite charges for a controlled demolition.

Right, I just read what was said here -

http://911blogger.com/node/19963

One particularly notable comment attributed to Ms. Pileni is this one: "Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad."

But then it says....

Interesting. Firm ties with the French/European military industrial complex. Experience with explosives and nanotechnology. It's reasonable to assume Ms. Pileni is familiar with nano-explosives. So Ms. Pileni's contention that "the topic lies outside my field of expertise" is false. Why would a nanotechnology expert and former consultant for the SNPE not want to comment on a paper discussing nano-thermitic explosives? A paper which caused her to resign? Puzzling.

Now it's my turn to say your missing the point

Mrs. Pileni is not objecting to the veracity of the scientific content, which lies putside of her expertise, she is complaining about the lack of scientific content. Of which she is most certainly qualified to comment upon. And it seems to me that she felt that it was so political that she was not prepared to handle the backlash that one might receive when the article is read by professionals.

“I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.”

Blanchard doesn't give explanations and he speculates a lot of the time. Blanchard claims he had seismic spikes all over the place yet he has never shown anyone his data, he has never published or released it to anyone and yet are suppose to assume it exists. Why doesn't he present his data?

I think think it is irrelevant whether Hoffman is an expert in demolition or not. The argument he makes are good ones and he raises some very valid points. The fact that Blanchard as never rebutted Hoffmans paper, shows us that Blanchard doesn't have much of an argument left.

Would you mind showing some examples? From what I have read, Hoffmans rebuttals are all based on exaggerated hypotheticals. He always seems to rebut with "all demolitions are not the same". Blanchard exaplains this sort of demolition starts from the ground, to which Hoffman starts blathering on about top down demolitions, which are a very different scenario. LINK

I think the sensitivity of those who lost their lives and were effected by 9/11 are more important than finding out if a man got a ******* or not or was involved in dodgy dealings. And your lawsuits arguments are without merit when you consider that the lawsuits potentially available after 9/11 would raise the bar much higher than Clintons shenanigans.

Of course they insisted on more funds and they got more, but the amount was insignificant to other investigations and considering this was the biggest terrorists attack. I noticed that you didn't comment on the $3 million being given, do you think that is a fair amount of money to investigate 9/11, when you look at how much was spent on the Starr Investigation into the activities of Clinton?

Honestly, I would want to know more before allocating what budget is sufficient and what was not. As I said, with the confesions, proiximity and ONeils information, it seems much of the work was done for them already. If they received more money, then it just seems they were underestimated, and then the situation rectified. Were the additional monies deemed sufficient?

[psyche101]

Psyche

Are you denying that FE Magazine editorialized as it did?

Are you talking about Manninng? After all I have asked, could you not put a little more information in your posts? Honestly, it's not that hard!

[Spinebreaker]

Skyeagle.

Just for reference, a VERY, VERY small group of conspiracy theorists think there were no planes. Hell a few even believe some kind of secret ball weapon was responsible. All of the 'truthers' (Man I hate that word) don't necessarily agree. The fact that 11 or 12 theories exist, and all have some half decent evidence in itself seems suspicious to me.

I very much doubt the people you're arguing with are part of the 'no planes' group in this thread.

[psyche101]

Of course it's a bit vague, cause I and neither do the commission know why people lied.

Seeing as we do not know why people lied and covered up by putting forward false accounts, it could be just that some people could have done their jobs better or were a little complacent, but it could also be just as likely they are covering up the fact that they let it happen.

Seeming as you do not know, why take the very worst option first? Do you feel there is reason to believe some of the people were of such low character? Being complacent is the same as letting it happen really, I do not see why one would take the first option as the worst option when considering your fellow man?

No, it comes directly from Max Cleland and Richard Clarke themselves. Paul O'Neill further confirms what they were already stating.

And I agree that Bush was clueless and had no idea what was going on around him, this is probably one of the many reasons why he and Cheney fell out towards their end of the administration.

Ohh, OK, don't these men put a dent in your not coming forward theory though? i.e. "I've come to believe that people will say damn near anything, so I'm sure somebody will say all of that and more," says O'Neill, who was George Bush's top economic policy official.

And if you agree Bush was clueless, why do you place so much blame for death upon him?

If you are going to call someone an disgruntled or that he is talking BS, then you need evidence to support that assertion.Just because someone speaks out against their ex employee, doesn't make them disgruntled or what they are saying is BS.

It is obvious that Bush wasn't too bright documented by his Bushisms. I remember his presidental debate with Kerry and you can clearly see he is being told what to say. I've never read O'Neils book and I do not need it to tell me what everyone already knows, that Bush wasn't too bright. Look at the recount and purging of voters in Florida, Bush doesn't have the smarts to pull this off, but his neocon backers such as Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rummy certainly do.

It might just be the way I read it, but this to me indicates he was disgruntled.

O'Neill is the only one who spoke on the record, but Suskind says that someone high up in the administration – Donald Rumsfeld - warned O'Neill not to do this book.

Was it a warning, or a threat?

You can disagree, that is fair enough, it just sounds like the sort of BS en ex employee with nothing, yet everything to say might announce. It's cheesy, corny, and a bit ridiculous really.

Sorry but I totally disagree with your assertions here. If people enjoyed controversy, there much better ways of gathering it than joining a truth movement. And I do not think a lack of compassion, empathy or ethic is what motivates people to join them. I would say it is the opposite seeing as they do not believe what the government has told them and it is compassion, empathy or ethics which motivates them to demand the truth from their government, even if you think it's a pack of lies.

I feel that is not what I am seeing here at UM. I am pretyy surprised at some of the nonsense I have seen to be frank. Near everything Babe Ruth posts almost seems to be made up on the spot. He referred the the Ancient Aliens show in another thread as proof. Lets face it, no sane person in their right mind would consider such tosh as fact. Babe Ruth does not care, as long as it buck the conventional explanation, and sticks one into the Government he is happy.

We can say lies were told when there is documented evidence of those lies which were not merely mistakes. NORAD told the commission a story which the tapes showed was a fabricated account. Of course, people make mistakes, but these were not departmental mistakes, they were outright lies. Again the motivation of the lies doesn't necessarily mean that it was something nefarious going off and neither does it mean that it was just a covering up of mistakes or incompetence.

As I said before, where I support the truth movement is on a new investigation, what I do not support is groups based on different pet theories which they argue a toss about. I'm not sure why you would despise their motives, morals and what they stand for. If you believed that you were not told the truth about the events surrounding 9/11, would you think that your motives morals, and what you stand for is despicable.

OK, maybe you are not and angry at CTers, but you think they are despicable, yet you do not think those who lied to the commission for whatever reasons are equally or even more despicable. This is what I find strange. What I find even more bizarre is that even though you agree that there was incompetency issues and that could be the motivation for lying, yet you seem to be more vocal about twoofers than about those who failed being held accountable with the exception of Bodine.

I do not see the truth movement as a new investigation at all. I see it is mere controversy. As Babe Ruth pointed out, we have surpassed a decade now, if they cannot make something more than rumour over the space of ten years, mate, you really have to think twice don't you? The hard part is that it is so fragmented as you pointed out with my broad brush, but still, I find almost all alternate theories like no planes and passengers faking their deaths completely unsupported and cruel to the victims survivors. It is totally unnecessary and unreasonable IMHO. You might not be as into the wild claims as many others, but it is hard to not lump you in with CT'ers because of this.

I know the CT'ers are unfounded in the wilder claims they make, and when they say things like Daddy faked his death for the Government, my blood boils, the kids survived by those dads should not be subject to this cruel insinuation. They have been through enough, there is no reason to think such an insane idea is true, none at all, nor the no plane BS. Nor the controlled demolition crap. If there is something untoward within the system that need to be exposed, I wold bet rags to riches it has absolutely nothing to do with a deliberate involvement, but with all these stupid childlike distractions in place, some who actually should be punished for dropping the ball may walk scot free. That is what the truth movement says it tries to prevent, yet from what I see it is assisting those who did wrong. But what do we know of the lies? Some were probably told to some people to cover something up. Who do I get mad at? Everyone? I do not know what the lies were, but I do know the truthers are often wrong and that they are hurting people.

Truthers may well be the reason that no responsibility is ever accounted for. As you know, I personally feel Bodine is the pivotal point here, I do feel she is without doubt responsible for allowing the attacks to happen, and through personal dislike of one of her colleagues To me, that is dropping the ball and she should be held accountable, but I think the truth movement trying to spread the blame has lessened the responsibility she deserves to carry. But you can throw Pikard in there too.

I admire Q24 posts and I find him to be a very thoughtful poster. And although I do not agree with everything Babe Ruth says, I find that most of the time he puts some thoughtful posts together and that he has the knowledge to accept when he is wrong. To be honest, I only follow 2 threads on this forum at the moment, so I can't comment much beyond what is being posted here and on the other one I post and I have no interest in other conspiracies such as Bigfoot, Aliens and UFOs I don't debate JFK because I am strongly convinced in the possiblity that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent. 9/11 is the only thing I like debating and politics.

I do not want to give you a reason to hate the US government, you are entitled to hate or like whatever you choose. I can give you plenty of reasons to dislike elements within the US government, just like I can give plenty of reason to dislike elements within my own countries government. However, even if I gave you those reasons, depending on your outlook, you might not seem them as terrible acts or worthy of condemnation.

Q is a smart person, no doubt about it, but a sore loser and cannot admit when he is wrong.

Babe Ruth is so full of crap that a treatment plant would be jealous. Dead set, he never offers links, and when his sources are unearthed, they are shocking. I have not seen him admit that he is wrong, or that his sources are rubbish. Yet I can point you at another thread in the UFO section that shows he has no regard for fact whatsoever.

I do not see that both sides of the argument have a right to express them, I wouldn't have it any other way.

And I do feel that there are lots of reasons that the US Government actuated 9/11. They had much more to gain from it than OBL or the terrorists. Spending on the military/industrial/congressional complex went through the roof. The invasion of Iraq allowed for their infrastructure to be ripped apart and rebuilt by US/Western companies using their lucrative oil reserves. Afghanistan will soon be home to a pipeline bringing gas from the Caspian sea. I could go on but the US government had the most to gain by a long shot.

How do you pur a price on Religious satisfaction? As far as OBL is concerned, he is gearing up for the nythical afterlife with his 21 virgins. Sounds like crap to me. 21 young girls crying on your shoulder all night, no thanks. Spending might have gone through the roof but we are also on the tail end of the worst recession we have seen in decades. Wasn't much of a win.

What infrastructure was ripped apart? Shari'ah?

I would see a reason to absolve the terrorists if they were patsies. The commission knew they were being lied too, why they were being lied to is an unknown.

Who was being lied to? The commission or the terrorists? Sorry, bit confused.

The only panto debunkers I have come across is Skyeagle here. But I have seen plenty like him in other forums. Those who can never admitt o a single mistake within the 9/11 commission for fear it might lead them on a shaky path to twoofersville....lol

I have to say no, you're just wrong. Babe Ruth is far worse than Sky, and to be frank I fail to see how you do not come to the same conclusion. Didn't Babe Ruth say recently when Sky was asked a direct question, he answered it truthfully, even though it went against his argument?

Not at all...lol

• My main beef is that he ignores anything which shows him that he is wrong.
  
• He never admits mistakes.
  
• Spams the forum with junk, none of which is relevant to the conversation at hand.
  
• Builds strawmen and jumps to ridiculous conclusions, usually that no one has made or argued.
  
• His false appeal to his own authority in which he declares to be smarter than everyone else, including those who were at GZ.
  

I could go on, but you get the picture.

Yes, he ignores, but to be fair, I think he is ignored too. People just go "ohh, it's Sky" And having been in your debating shoes with regards to Sky, I understand what you are saying, but I cannot agree. Look at Babe Ruth, no matter what the subject, he will blame the Government. Does not even need a reason half the time. Sky on the other hand can differntiate, he will say cover ups happen, he will say the Governemtn is not always honest, and he will say you should question that which seems untoward, but he is not in this case. He can change his conviction, a panto, like Babe, cannot. With them, no matter the argument, the same answer applies.

He does admit mistakes.

Babe Ruth, on 23 April 2013 - 11:31 PM, said:

You may not be aware of it, but last year or so Sky posted a video, very convincing, of an F-18 crashing into a civilian apartment building or some such. When called upon it, Sky did (admirably) admit that it was a concocted video, completely fake.

I cannot see how the pictures Sky has presented are junk. Actual wreckage answers many claims the troothers make up. I do not see his point or pictures adressed, I just see people telling him not to post them. Can you place a sentence beneath each picture explaining why it should be discounted form the debate?

I think the strawmen are rather mutual to be frank. Lets face it, over a decade and still banging the same drum? No solid proof after all this time? I can see this being a debate for decades to come. Honestly, what will that achieve?

He does use appeal to authority, I admit, he has a great deal of real world experience with the military. I have spoken with people I trust and I feel this is not only true, but he hangs around with High calibre people. It's bound to slip out, and I too have held that against him in the past, when I probably should not have. We can indeed learn from experience.

I think most people, not you, but certainly the other two, just feel they are smarter than Sky because they use big words. I do not feel that is the case at all. They might be able to talk circles around Sky, but in the real world, Sky actually does fly circles around them.

I am not one of these people who think the main stream media publishes nonsense, but I am not stupid enough to trust them implicitly or that they cannot be used to promote certain agendas or propaganda.

Agreed, each story is not only written by individual people who interpret things in their own way, but people have opinions too. Not to mention this is the media bread and butter, They need to spice up headlines to sell them first, and keep food on the table.

It makes no difference whether Muslims chopping the hands of robbers or Christians thinking it's OK to electrocute killers, cause the lord says an eye for an eye, they are both wrong and inhumane.

Religion is fine, but only in moderation...lol

I agree that religion has good and bad points, but for me, it's hard to see good points about the Muslim way of life.

Christians do not electrocute anyone. Christians have not been law in the west since the Thirty Years War. They have not killed people in the name of God for centuries, they grew up. To a point. Electrocution? That's democracy for you.

Glad to hear it. I'm going to be sinking a few on Sunday night myself. Although I drink rum instead of Lager nowadays...lol

Cheers

Stundie

I love a good stout myself, enjoy, and in turn have an extra one for me.

Cheers.

[psyche101]

Besides being business acquaintances, what Dubya and OBL had in common is that they were both sock puppets in their roles on 11 September.

Bloody hell BR, your Jones's sock puppet!

Edited May 3, 2013 by psyche101

[psyche101]

3 buildings collapsed completely that day. The NIST report only covers two of these buildings and fully admits that they could not replicate the failures in testing. Fire damage is slow, creeping deformations. Never has a fire caused similtainous failure of all structral supports in any steel framed highrises. This is because fires in skyscrapers run out of fuel in certain areas after a couple of hours. No where near enough time to cause the steel to lose structural integrity. Conversely, when a building collapses, it takes the path of least resistance. Hence, if the top of a building collapses, it will fall towards the area of least resistance. In this case, that was any direction except straight down.

NIST focuses on the initiation of the collapse, not the collapse itself. Never has a 747 been flown into the Trade Centres either, it's a unique situation but not altogether hard to understand, the heat expanded the steel in the truss in all directions. As a result they also expanded into the columns. The trusses/floor system, sagged in the middle because the columns were preventing the trusses from expanding in their direction. That led to the bowing of the exterior columns. The floor connections of the long span floors could support a load of a couple story masses and had an energy absorbing ability of a couple hundredths of a GJ per story. The floor connections were like crepe connecting the floors to the columns. The crepe was sufficient for the structure in its static organized state but was a weak link during collapse when the structure in the region of the collapse front no longer resembled the static organized state.

[bronstein]

Seemed pretty neat when I saw somebody's avatar was a dolphin.

Turns out?

Name-calling remains the weapon of the statist, conformist, bigot.

Dolphins are supposed to be stealthy and benevolent.

Sometimes they kill sharks.

I think they dolphin guy should change his avatar to a shark.

There's my hard-hitting first comment on www.unexplained-mysteries.com

[Professor Buzzkill]

Actually, I have posted the Wndsor building fire where the steel structure collapsed in Spain. You also have to remember the other buildings were not struck by B-767s.

Smoke and mirrors is all you ever do. You know damn well that the collapse in the windsor building occured after obvious deformations. You know that all the structrual supports did not fail similtaineously.

*SNIP*

Edited May 3, 2013 by Lilly
ad hom remark

[Professor Buzzkill]

NIST focuses on the initiation of the collapse, not the collapse itself. Never has a 747 been flown into the Trade Centres either, it's a unique situation but not altogether hard to understand, the heat expanded the steel in the truss in all directions. As a result they also expanded into the columns. The trusses/floor system, sagged in the middle because the columns were preventing the trusses from expanding in their direction. That led to the bowing of the exterior columns. The floor connections of the long span floors could support a load of a couple story masses and had an energy absorbing ability of a couple hundredths of a GJ per story. The floor connections were like crepe connecting the floors to the columns. The crepe was sufficient for the structure in its static organized state but was a weak link during collapse when the structure in the region of the collapse front no longer resembled the static organized state.

Where are the large deformations you would expect to see in a fire hot enough to heat the steel that much? Why was there simultaineous failure of all structral supports dispite having varied levels of damage and exposure to fire?

[Lilly]

The next person who comes out with the "paid disinformation agent" nonsense will find that "the price" will be their own to pay.

Do not accuse others simply because their opinion differs from your own.

[Stundie]

The majority do not agree with 911 Truthers.

Using all of the member of ACSE who haven't signed Gages petition doesn't equal a majority...lol

The fact you keep sprouting this logical fallacy highlights the weakness of your argument.

[Babe Ruth]

His only 'argument' is an appeal to authority, nothing more.

[ellapenella]

His only 'argument' is an appeal to authority, nothing more.

did you get to view Alex Jones last night ? It was pretty good. He totally told Obama what he thinks of him. I kind of got a little nervous for a bit , hoping the program would remain online.

I tell you , i don't know if people are going to be permitted to speak freely anymore of things that we don't appreciate that are happening. I suppose if that occurs town meeting will become a new thing . Actually that sounds like a good thing.

I never did like the title tea party , but I may look into what they are about , like do they even make a difference or not ? They must because this administration keeps trying to paint them as something bad , when they're not bad at all.

Only communist minded people try to shut everyone up , they do and say some really bad things about people, people that only want to keep the spirit of the constitution in America ...

[Professor Buzzkill]

The next person who comes out with the "paid disinformation agent" nonsense will find that "the price" will be their own to pay.

Do not accuse others simply because their opinion differs from your own.

I agree with your sentiment Lilly. However, we have had posters here make topics about being paid to argue a view point on a number of different forums. The poster explained the techniques used by these paid posters. If someone follows all these techniques exactly, does that not increase the chances that they are paid as well?

Do you think that UM is immune to these tactics?

Sorry for any offense caused

[skyeagle409]

Smoke and mirrors is all you ever do. You know damn well that the collapse in the windsor building occured after obvious deformations. You know that all the structrual supports did not fail similtaineously.

*SNIP*

How long did it take for the steel structure of the Windsor building to collapse because of fire? Remember, that building was not struck by a B-767.

[psyche101]

Where are the large deformations you would expect to see in a fire hot enough to heat the steel that much?

What, like this?

and this?

They ara at Hangar 17 at John F Kennedy Airport, why?

Why was there simultaineous failure of all structral supports dispite having varied levels of damage and exposure to fire?

Because it was weakened from the top down and pancaked increasing the destructive force with each meter that fell. Not to mention the mass of a plane as well. The floors were not built to take that much.

Edited May 6, 2013 by psyche101

[psyche101]

Using all of the member of ACSE who haven't signed Gages petition doesn't equal a majority...lol

The fact you keep sprouting this logical fallacy highlights the weakness of your argument.

What do you feel the percentage actually is, and why?