RE: CNN Online Poll: 89% Believe There's Been a 9/11 Cover-up (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity



Message

luckydog1 -> RE: CNN Online Poll: 89% Believe There's Been a 9/11 Cover-up (12/30/2006 8:09:20 PM)

Sure Miss,  Check this link  http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=9 , lots of PHD's and/or other releveant expertise on this list.  Have you looked at the list of the 911 Scholars for truth, not a single one has expertise in a relevant field.  Imagine people at home pretending to do a visual spectral anaylsis on a Youtube Clip.  "that has to be thermite, look at the color" 



FangsNfeet -> RE: CNN Online Poll: 89% Believe There's Been a 9/11 Cover-up (12/30/2006 9:15:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZenrageTheKeeper

I think its just that no one can really trust anything the Bush administration says anymore and now people are looking back at the comments made by the administration concerning the beginning of this mess.

People want answers. They realize the current administration can't be trusted even when it divulges the truth. So they'lll jump to any convenient notion, regardless of how preposterous, to satisfy their needs.



You speak as if the government was once trusted and never lied to its citizens.



NeedToUseYou -> RE: CNN Online Poll: 89% Believe There's Been a 9/11 Cover-up (12/30/2006 9:24:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

No doubt the same number of dummies that think there are UFOs and Elvis is still alive.


There are UFO's there is no doubt about that. It stands for Unidentified Flying Objects. Only a dummy would think everything flying in the air is identified. There a ton of secret military projects and classifed aircraft. Not everyone that believes in UFO's believes they have aliens in them. And if the supposition is that a belief in alien life is stupid, there are plenty of MIT types that would disagree. So, unless you have some universal knowledge of everything being flown in the air and perfect understanding of the true nature of the universe and what is possible in regards to travel, it would be stupid to write off anyone that believes in UFO's be they earth bound creations or other worldly creations, does it really matter.

As far as 9-11 goes there are scholars that disagree, and it took about 1 minute to find them and videos.

Video by a physics professor.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586&q=professor+911&hl=en

MIT Professor
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248

Here's a site that is supposed to be scholars researching into the subject.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

So, if a bunch of well educated people can be doubtful of the published 9-11 causes, why is it so stupid for people to question it, that aren't "scientists".

I'm not sure to this day if the government was involved or not with the actual event. But I am sure they did haul off the remains in a hurry, and melt it down. I am surejets weren't scrambled. I am sure that Bush wasn't immediately pulled into a secure location, as one would expect to happen during an unknown attack on the country. I am sure that plenty of smart educated people have varying opinions on what happened. And I'm sure this debate isn't going to be settled, ever.





mnottertail -> RE: CNN Online Poll: 89% Believe There's Been a 9/11 Cover-up (12/30/2006 9:29:10 PM)

I would hope that our government is actually somewhat attune to the people and in terms of a real crisis, would let Bush go to the elements, so that is the only indication I saw that something serious was happening, the fact that they were gonna let bush fry in the thermite reaction there, where his wife was reading to the kids.

Hell, I thought we were good to go when he choked on a pretzel.





Real0ne -> RE: CNN Online Poll: 89% Believe There's Been a 9/11 Cover-up (12/30/2006 10:35:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

<I made it bigger so you couldn't miss it.>So when he gives the link and tells people to vote now, it is obvious that he is trying to stack the deck( I am sure the poll closed long ago, send alex an e-mail and tell him to edit his site< Ironically that is what he alleges others do>, you might get a free T-shirt.)  Also, we know that Alex makes his living from selling books and videos about this stuff.  Also we know there is an entire cottage industry of 911 conspiricy stuff.  I am sure this poll was mentioned on Coast to Coast(surely you know of it and Art Bell, if not check it out, you will love it.  We Also all know that a poll with out a scientifically representative sample means less than nothing.  You did cite Data from a meangless poll as the headline of this thread, I took that as you giving it credence,and you "overstating the level of Contraversy".   If you agree with me that Alex Jones was purposely stacking and posting ridiculous "Data" on his site to try to trick the foolish, I agree with you.

Edited because of a format error from my paste


To funny LOL


that will teach me for using firefox.

i actually went through that site with a fine tooth comb and nearly posted again to ask you wtf you were talking about LOL

then i thought i better just do a search on it and shazam it highlited something that was behind one of the pictures so i put the page in windows explorer and there is was plain as day! LOL

yep you are right the little shit tried to stack the deck and you are right again that i will be sending him an email letting him know how that discredits his case. At least now i can see why that number is so highas compared to so many people i talk with cant imagine the government could possibly even conceive such a thing...

i will agree with you that alex at least tried to stack the cnn poll but thats as far as it goes.

The first time i saw the alex stuff was maybe a couple to a few weeks ago and we did the 911 hoax or ??? thing a long time ago... where based on the data i found made the case for the building being dropped by explosives.  He is saying much of the same thing i have found frankly through my own research in short.   Had i seen that little stack deck trick of course i never would have used that one on here i woudl have stuck to the other headline.




Real0ne -> RE: CNN Online Poll: 89% Believe There's Been a 9/11 Cover-up (12/30/2006 11:46:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Sure Miss,  Check this link  http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=9 , lots of PHD's and/or other releveant expertise on this list.  Have you looked at the list of the 911 Scholars for truth, not a single one has expertise in a relevant field.  Imagine people at home pretending to do a visual spectral anaylsis on a Youtube Clip.  "that has to be thermite, look at the color"


So ld's point here is that if you cannot do a no brainer "title" match as such, he feels that a phd'd nuclear physics scientist is incapable of correctly analysing what is nothing more than simple physics 101 taught in the senior year of highschool and freshman year college.  i frankly find that humorous.  

i find it funny because i do not know one these guys who cant do it with both sides of their brain tied behind their head.

i have to admit that this is the first time i seen this site myself.  it basically discounts not a few items but "every single key point" that the wacko conspiracy kooks talk about. Almost like trying to sugar coat every single issue so readers dismiss every aspect of it line item by line item...Hmmm...something to ponder...

ld takes this stuff hands down as fact because he feels that his qualified "title" matched professors are the final word...obviously without researching it further validity on his own.  

i especially liked when they talked about the nist report findings since i have read (and reviewed), the nist report cover to cover more than once to make sure i didnt miss anything with particular attention to the part that gave the maximum temperatures that the main support beams got where the planes struck... and i think that is possibly the most obviously telling one piece so i will focus on that particular part of their jibberish.

(i even downloaded the original nist report and saved it to the archives just in case someone there wound up on a better payroll than they were already on so they could not change their story LOL)

Now ld prefers to believe what is said by his experts in a magazine that incidently prints things based on the highest bidder, and i can tell you that the pm "debunking" report he sites above as the final word does not say remotely the same thing as the nist report.  Hmmm wonder why?

So i have no reason to believe that ld has done any actual real research on this matter other than to parrot what suits his taste, the gospel as said by pm magazine that has several precisely "titled" phd's who changed their story midstream...  now who wouldnt believe them huh?

like i said earlier about the signs of a conspiracy...  professors have no need to change their story unless they are on the pay roll.. Oops i lost all my academic expertise for a second there and its really what the government says thats right!

anyway ld since you seem to feel that you are so well informed on whats propaganda and whats fact on this matter, here is an easy one for you....just cut right to the chase and tell us how the actual nist report compares with or differs from the the pm version of the nist report?

Oh and miss, do a search in this group for 911 and look for 911 hoax thread, read it from front to back including the links, it will take you a "very" long time as many people posted lots of good chit in there regarding the collapse of the wtc buildings so there are plenty of links to follow and great data...  Compare the data and testimonies that you find in those links and threads to that of pm mag... enjoy :)





goddessoflight -> RE: CNN Online Poll: 89% Believe There's Been a 9/11 Cover-up (12/30/2006 11:58:01 PM)

http://911inplanesite.com



Real0ne -> RE: CNN Online Poll: 89% Believe There's Been a 9/11 Cover-up (12/31/2006 12:16:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: goddessoflight

http://911inplanesite.com


Wow!  good post, input!  number 5 alive!! LOL 
i added some of that to my database thanks!



luckydog1 -> RE: CNN Online Poll: 89% Believe There's Been a 9/11 Cover-up (12/31/2006 1:19:04 AM)

Need to use one thing I would like to point out is that Steve Jones ( the first link) is the founder of 911 scholars for truth, and Judy wood is a major member.  So all 3 links you give are essentially one.  I do not know why a professor of Cold Fusion(Steve Jones) would be considered and expert in any way in this field.  I would like to see any Credentialed person agree with the "conspiricy theories" on this.  Need ---Please take a moment and look at the list of who the "911 scholars for truth" actually are.  Don't just look at the list that says "Steve Jones BYU physics", google him and see what sort of Physics he does(cold fusion).  If you do you will see that not a single one of them have any relevant expertise, most can not even claim scholar status in any subject.  They do not say "hey we are Bright People with no expertise, but it seems wierd"  They pretend to be credentialed experts.  They are conning you.  Also Steve Jones claims to have found Archeological Evidence that proves Jesus visited America 2000 years ago.  That is indicitive of how he sees scientific evidence outside of his field of Expertise, he looks to prove his preconcieved notions. 

I looked over Judy Woods "evidence"  http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html  She uses Figure 2 a (Which is an intentionally obscured picture where you can't see the lower levels)   3 times on the same page.  Also after Figure 9 she says if it wasn't for the dust clouds you would see the sky.  I am sure she has been to lower Manhattan before, and is well aware that if you looked down that street you would see buildings not sky, and is intentionally lying.  In her analysis she assumes that the events would be consistent thoroughout the event, which is nonsense.  She totally discounts that as each floor Collapsed to the one below, it would send shockwaves through the buildings structure, weakening the lower levels.  She makes a meaningless supposition that each floor would be totally pulverized instantly, and no force would be transmitted down.  Lets test that...put your hand under a cinder block, and I will pulverize it with a sledge hammer, wanna bet that no force gets transmitted to your hand?  I am a sadist, and would love to test the theory.  Then she lists the Mathmatic proofs, which I will admit I do not completly understand.  But I can plainly see that she is not factoring in gravity, and is using formulas to describe the behavior of horizontal impacts, like in the Metal Ball pictures she uses, not vertical ones, where Gravity would also be a factor.  So she is uncredentialed, and intentionally lying about the math.  All that proves to me is that a cognent argument CAN NOT be made in her favor, otherwise she would make it.  If the real Mathmaticall models backed her conclusion, why would she try to trick us by using irrelevant math, and not factoring in gravity or inertia( as well as lie about the basic facts<complete pulverization as the building fell>).
There is a reason why the videos are so popular among "conspiricy advocates", they are much harder to fact check.



luckydog1 -> RE: CNN Online Poll: 89% Believe There's Been a 9/11 Cover-up (12/31/2006 1:35:17 AM)

So ld's point here is that if you cannot do a no brainer "title" match as such, he feels that a phd'd nuclear physics scientist is incapable of correctly analysing what is nothing more than simple physics 101 taught in the senior year of highschool and freshman year college.  I frankly find that humorous.  I find it humourous that you think a Freshman with one class in General Physics is capable of doing a structual failure analysis.
 
i have to admit that this is the first time i seen this site myself.  it basically discounts not a few items but "every single key point" that the wacko conspiracy kooks talk about. Almost like trying to sugar coat every single issue so readers dismiss every aspect of it line item by line item...Hmmm...something to ponder...  So you admit you have never examined the evidence that the Gov isn't lying to you?  that it all does make sense?  yes, it does go through the conspiricy line by line, wouldn't that be the way to do it?  And it finds the "Conspiricy" folks lacking on every single point.
 
ld takes this stuff hands down as fact because he feels that his qualified "title" matched professors are the final word...obviously without researching it further validity on his own  Why do you presume that I have done no research, lets face it you are such a weak reader you could not even tell that the poll you cited was stacked.  So because I want more proof than a dude who also thinks that it is proven scinetifically that Jesus Visited America, I havent done any research?   Thats pretty humourous.  And yes I do tend to give weight to people who are actually experts in a field, over some guy selling Sensational books.  Perhaps you don't.
 
Now ld prefers to believe what is said by his experts in a magazine that incidently prints things based on the highest bidder, and i can tell you that the pm "debunking" report he sites above as the final word does not say remotely the same thing as the nist report.  Hmmm wonder why?   Please cite a few of the differences,and not a link to a cite that says they exist, actually cite them.
 
So i have no reason to believe that ld has done any actual real research on this matter other than to parrot what suits his taste, the gospel as said by pm magazine that has several precisely "titled" phd's who changed their story midstream...  now who wouldnt believe them huh?

Name one who changed his story midstream, I dare you. Again not a site that says they did, an actuall name, so we can check.
 
like i said earlier about the signs of a conspiracy...  professors have no need to change their story unless they are on the pay roll.. Oops i lost all my academic expertise for a second there and its really what the government says thats right!   Again please name a single proffessor who did that
 
anyway ld since you seem to feel that you are so well informed on whats propaganda and whats fact on this matter, here is an easy one for you....just cut right to the chase and tell us how the actual nist report compares with or differs from the the pm version of the nist report?   I think they compare nicely, but if you can cite any inconsistency I will check it out.



Real0ne -> RE: CNN Online Poll: 89% Believe There's Been a 9/11 Cover-up (12/31/2006 9:15:34 AM)

[
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
anyway ld since you seem to feel that you are so well informed on whats propaganda and whats fact on this matter, here is an easy one for you....just cut right to the chase and tell us how the actual nist report compares with or differs from the the pm version of the nist report? 

I think they compare nicely, but if you can cite any inconsistency I will check it out.


LOL the whole damn thing!

As i said you have no clue because you have done zero zippo nada reseach. 

you just made my point

fine i will play your game with you.  

cite where they are consistant and i will be glad to respond,

(thoough i probably wont have to "check much out"  because i remember most of it) LOL



Real0ne -> RE: CNN Online Poll: 89% Believe There's Been a 9/11 Cover-up (12/31/2006 9:20:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: goddessoflight

http://911inplanesite.com


Thats very interesting that they are showing this on national tv in new zealand and australia but not on us television.



NeedToUseYou -> RE: CNN Online Poll: 89% Believe There's Been a 9/11 Cover-up (12/31/2006 9:54:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Need to use one thing I would like to point out is that Steve Jones ( the first link) is the founder of 911 scholars for truth, and Judy wood is a major member.  So all 3 links you give are essentially one.  I do not know why a professor of Cold Fusion(Steve Jones) would be considered and expert in any way in this field.  I would like to see any Credentialed person agree with the "conspiricy theories" on this.  Need ---Please take a moment and look at the list of who the "911 scholars for truth" actually are.  Don't just look at the list that says "Steve Jones BYU physics", google him and see what sort of Physics he does(cold fusion).  If you do you will see that not a single one of them have any relevant expertise, most can not even claim scholar status in any subject.  They do not say "hey we are Bright People with no expertise, but it seems wierd"  They pretend to be credentialed experts.  They are conning you.  Also Steve Jones claims to have found Archeological Evidence that proves Jesus visited America 2000 years ago.  That is indicitive of how he sees scientific evidence outside of his field of Expertise, he looks to prove his preconcieved notions. 

I looked over Judy Woods "evidence"  http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html  She uses Figure 2 a (Which is an intentionally obscured picture where you can't see the lower levels)   3 times on the same page.  Also after Figure 9 she says if it wasn't for the dust clouds you would see the sky.  I am sure she has been to lower Manhattan before, and is well aware that if you looked down that street you would see buildings not sky, and is intentionally lying.  In her analysis she assumes that the events would be consistent thoroughout the event, which is nonsense.  She totally discounts that as each floor Collapsed to the one below, it would send shockwaves through the buildings structure, weakening the lower levels.  She makes a meaningless supposition that each floor would be totally pulverized instantly, and no force would be transmitted down.  Lets test that...put your hand under a cinder block, and I will pulverize it with a sledge hammer, wanna bet that no force gets transmitted to your hand?  I am a sadist, and would love to test the theory.  Then she lists the Mathmatic proofs, which I will admit I do not completly understand.  But I can plainly see that she is not factoring in gravity, and is using formulas to describe the behavior of horizontal impacts, like in the Metal Ball pictures she uses, not vertical ones, where Gravity would also be a factor.  So she is uncredentialed, and intentionally lying about the math.  All that proves to me is that a cognent argument CAN NOT be made in her favor, otherwise she would make it.  If the real Mathmaticall models backed her conclusion, why would she try to trick us by using irrelevant math, and not factoring in gravity or inertia( as well as lie about the basic facts<complete pulverization as the building fell>).
There is a reason why the videos are so popular among "conspiricy advocates", they are much harder to fact check.


I'm not an expert on 9-11, my point with that post is to simply point out that their are scholarly people that don't agree with 9-11. And it's not much of a suprise to me that most of the scholars that would be willing to come out would join a site that is supposed to be for scholars. So, I'm not sure that is very much a negative. Another thing one would have to consider is it more than likely that if one was an Engineer or physcist that was interested in main stream work it wouldn't be good for ones career in academic circles to go against the consensus. I didn't claim that list was exhaustive, I claimed that is what a 1 minute google search could come up with. If I were to put days of effort into it, I have no doubt I could find more.  If you do look at the membership list at the one 911 scholars site. There are architects, computer scientists, engineers in there among other "less" qualified sciences I didn't run background checks on all of them of course.

However, I find it weird that you begin trying to explain why certain theories are incorrect. Are you a engineer, physicist, architect? You can have an opinion of course, and I have no objection to it. However, alot of people are in the habit of jumping down people's throat for having opposing viewpoints it appears and like to make comments denoting someone's intelligence is lacking, and that is really what I have a problem with.

And the non-academic things that happened during 9-11 are enough to give most pause. An academic isn't necessary to question why the remains of the towers were quickly melted. Why jets were not scrambled. Why Bush wasn't immediately taken into secret service protection, immediately when it was deemed not an accident.

Their answers for those few things are quite lacking and an Engineering degree isn't really applicable either to explain those situations.

If you misunderstood the point of my post, it's not to convince you that the government did it, but rather to point out that there are still degreed professionals that don't buy the official explanation either. And I see no harm in questioning what happened, even if it continues 30 years from now.

It's healthy to question.



luckydog1 -> RE: CNN Online Poll: 89% Believe There's Been a 9/11 Cover-up (12/31/2006 2:31:48 PM)

Another thing one would have to consider is it more than likely that if one was an Engineer or physcist that was interested in main stream work it wouldn't be good for ones career in academic circles to go against the consensus.   The consensus of Scholars.  I have indeed done a lot of reserch into this.  But please adress my point about Judy Woods, she is not factoring Gravity in her equations.  She is trying to use physics of a horizontal impact to describe a vertical one.  That is why the consensus is agianst her.  She is posting nonsense.  Commonsense shows that gravity would be involved in a building collapse, right?
 
And the non-academic things that happened during 9-11 are enough to give most pause. An academic isn't necessary to question why the remains of the towers were quickly melted. They wanted to clean it up and get it out of sight as quick as possible, makes sense to me.  Why jets were not scrambled.  Because it happened so quick, research the other side.  Why Bush wasn't immediately taken into secret service protection, immediately when it was deemed not an accident.  He was.  He stayed put in the room he was in while they arranged transportation.  Did you want him to jump up screaming and run outside the building?  What if there had been a sniper hoping he would do that?

If you misunderstood the point of my post, it's not to convince you that the government did it, but rather to point out that there are still degreed professionals that don't buy the official explanation either. And I see no harm in questioning what happened, even if it continues 30 years from now
I agree there is no harm in asking real questions, but Woods has to try to trick you by intentionally substituting a horizontal collision for a vertical one.  If she is intentionally lying its not asking a question, it is pushing an agenda.  She is claiming to use science, but her work has not passed a single peer review, so its not science.  She is using her degree to lie to you, and pretends to pass it off as science.



FullCircle -> RE: CNN Online Poll: 89% Believe There's Been a 9/11 Cover-up (1/1/2007 7:30:59 AM)

I think personally there would have been easier ways to achieve the same results that you say the shadowy government figures wanted to achieve. One of your previous arguments was that a plane never hit the pentagon but it was a cruise missile. My question is this: if you want it to look like a plane crash why not use a plane? Surely the people involved could find a way of using a real plane and limit the potential of eye witnesses seeing missiles flying about?

You obviously follow the bigger the lie the more people are willing to believe it philosophy.



Reflectivesoul -> RE: CNN Online Poll: 89% Believe There's Been a 9/11 Cover-up (2/1/2007 7:32:55 AM)

I am curious as to how many of you have watched the loose change video and have done any kind of research into the claims made within that video.
 
To address some of the questionable points that have been brought up in this thread...
http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml
Gravity and the free fall speed of WTC 1 & 2 ...
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/slides.html
 
For me there are just way too many questions surrounding 9/11 as to what actually happened. Do I want to believe that our gov did this to its own country, of course not, but do I think its likely to be a better explination than men with box cutters did this, unfortunately yes. Especially since 11 of the hijackers have been proven to be alive and well since the 9/11 attacks.
 
More importantly for me is that America rose together to mourn the loss of 3000 lives on 9/11 and its known as a tragedy for us as a country and as citizens but what about the 3000 plus lives that have been lost since we invaded iraq? Do those lives not count as much? Where are the reports for the tragedy surrounding their deaths? 6000 plus lives lost in less than 6 years, and while we are sitting here debating who is ultimately responsible more lives are being lost. Where does it end? We may never be able to prove what happened, we may never be able to punish those involved, but what we can do is place the focus on the lives being lost today. It will be years before the people as a collective can reopen an investigation into 9/11, if it ever happens, in the mean time while people are pushing for the investigation I feel that Americans should bemore concerned with what is happening in our own back yards. In the last 6 years in my neighborhood alone the there have been meth labs blowing up, drive by shootings where an innocent woman was shot in the face, rapes, robberies, assualt, several major drug busts ( at the same house.... ).... The simple solution to most would be to move but to where? The social decay here in the US is not just in my city, its everywhere....



LDRandAstarte -> RE: CNN Online Poll: 89% Believe There's Been a 9/11 Cover-up (2/1/2007 10:54:15 AM)

Somebody plaese, shoot Me in the head!



beastie7 -> RE: CNN Online Poll: 89% Believe There's Been a 9/11 Cover-up (2/1/2007 11:14:49 AM)

GEEZUS !!!!
You people have way too much time on your hands.
Conspiracy or not; we'll never know. Possibilities....think Reightstag. Governments have the ability to do the unthinkable.....after all, Bush is president.



Real0ne -> RE: CNN Online Poll: 89% Believe There's Been a 9/11 Cover-up (3/11/2007 6:26:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
I find it humourous that you think a Freshman with one class in General Physics is capable of doing a structual failure analysis.
  i find it uncontainably laughable that you feel that a nuclear physics professor is incapable of doing structure failure analysis.  i find it eqaully as laughable that you find that underwriters labs engineers who tested the exact material in fire tests are incapable of doing structure analysis.  
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
So you admit you have never examined the evidence that the Gov isn't lying to you?  that it all does make sense?  yes, it does go through the conspiricy line by line, wouldn't that be the way to do it?  And it finds the "Conspiricy" folks lacking on every single point.
Exactly which government agency did that?  Do cite them so i can review their findings.  
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
Why do you presume that I have done no research, lets face it you are such a weak reader you could not even tell that the poll you cited was stacked.  So because I want more proof than a dude who also thinks that it is proven scinetifically that Jesus Visited America, I havent done any research?   Thats pretty humourous.  And yes I do tend to give weight to people who are actually experts in a field, over some guy selling Sensational books.  Perhaps you don't.
Its not a presumption.

Its an observation based on your uninformed posts. 

If you were an engineer, an honest one that is you would know how to read the government reports and compare them yourself rather than parrot the shills.

Since the gov does not mention one bomb in the collapse and the ny times claims to have interviewed and put on record over 12000 people that claim the heard, saw, or were injured by bombs including the fire department, police and other officials all mking the same claim and you want to stick to the party line and quote shills it shows you have done no research beyond what a shill would do and that is to use inappropriate labels to undermine those who professionals in the field who cannot be bought out.   Additionally there are literally hundreds of videos on the web where you can see the bombs going off, you can see the building pluming outward, you can see the skin blown off of that one guy....  like you got major denial going down for bud.

Then there is building 7 that the government claims intense out of control fires brought it down around 5pm and larry silverstien admits to blowing it to hell in a controlled demolition right on a pbs interview.
So what do your esteemed peer reviewed experts have to say about that?  

(that the 911 truth movement was correct?)  LMAO
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
Please cite a few of the differences,and not a link to a cite that says they exist, actually cite them.
Geez lucky i thought you said you did some research?  Apparently it has been pretty shallow research or you would have known that miegs and chertoff are shills for the bush administration. 

Now i have looked at the government sources directly, NIST, ASCE, and FEMA reports and reviewed them personally. 

So... Is there anything in particular from those reports you would like to debate?  
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
 I think they compare nicely, but if you can cite any inconsistency I will check it out.
i would probly tend to agree that the propaganda sorta matches, sometimes, of course its a matter of record that nist changed their analysis um... was it 2 or 3 times now trying to get their ducks is in a row... LMAFO  
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
The consensus of Scholars.  I have indeed done a lot of reserch into this.  But please adress my point about Judy Woods, she is not factoring Gravity in her equations.  She is trying to use physics of a horizontal impact to describe a vertical one.  That is why the consensus is agianst her.  She is posting nonsense.  Commonsense shows that gravity would be involved in a building collapse, right? 
 " following my previous discussion with Miguel over the WTC building collapses, Judy Woods, a professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University, has recently published a website in which she discusses 'The Case for Controlled Demolition'. It's a damned fined case, scientifically compelling and approachable to the public.
  Here you go lucky, here is judy's phone number, why dont you just give judy a call and tell her to her face what an unqualified dumb ass she is, and while you are at be sure to have your data ready so you can show here the errors of her ways.      http://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/Wood.html
  Then come on back and tell us how you shut her down, and send your findings into the truth orgs and we can publish it for you and you will be famous, since the woman is so freaking over qualified its enough to make die of laughter!  
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
They wanted to clean it up and get it out of sight as quick as possible, makes sense to me. 
   Oh geez that is so sweet and thoughtful of them to COMMIT THE CRIME OF DESTROYING THE EVIDENCE to protect our from that unsightly mess up so our poor little virgin eyes arent burdened by investigators actually proving that bombs blew it all to hell!  You sound more like a shill every day!  
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
Because it happened so quick, research the other side. 
 How quickly was that?  
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
He was.  He stayed put in the room he was in while they arranged transportation.  Did you want him to jump up screaming and run outside the building?  What if there had been a sniper hoping he would do that?
I thought you said you did research?  Apparently you know nothing of procedure.  Hey what if thor threw a lightning bolt hey?  That would be more fun than a sniper!   But i do understand your point, they had to arrange to get the transportation flown in from canada because that was the closest parking place they could find LMFAO
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
I agree there is no harm in asking real questions, but Woods has to try to trick you by intentionally substituting a horizontal collision for a vertical one.  If she is intentionally lying its not asking a question, it is pushing an agenda.  She is claiming to use science, but her work has not passed a single peer review, so its not science.  She is using her degree to lie to you, and pretends to pass it off as science.
Do cite the source of this horizontal issue you are bringing up.
Also cite and show which peer reviews she has failed excluding those from the gov shills, hearst, chertoff and meigs gang from the homeland propaganda squad.  Do you have even one?  Peer that is? Thats not on Chertoffs payroll?
 
Well you have her phone number by all means call her up and have it out with her, let me know when you are finished and i will follow it up with a call as well and lets see what she has to say.
 
Otherwise you are just parroting and towing the party line.



Real0ne -> RE: CNN Online Poll: 89% Believe There's Been a 9/11 Cover-up (3/12/2007 7:00:56 AM)

How about a comment on some peer reviewed news for ya!


Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” This should be headline news worldwide. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the U.S. media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? Why has the U.S. media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government’s account? And on those few rare occasions when a 9/11 dissenter has made it upon the airways, why has the mainstream media ridiculed the guest as a conspiracy nut, rather than listen to the evidence that clearly raises valid questions about the government’s 9/11 account? Why is the Big Media Conglomeration blindly content with the government’s 9/11 story when so much verifiable information to the contrary is available with a few clicks of a computer mouse?

Who is it that is controlling the media message, and how is it that the U.S. media has indicted Usama Bin Laden for the events of September 11, 2001, but the U.S. government has not? How is it that the FBI has no “hard evidence” connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?

…No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11… Think about it.

http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875