Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004 Status: offline
|
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.
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment? Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality! "No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|