kelpdiver 2 #26 August 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteyes, the similarity is that both sets are intellectually vacant. Both hold their beliefs based on faith, because facts aren't important or helpful to the belief. you realise what you are saying don't you! You are actually agreeing with me! Wow! sorry to disappoint you - I had just been running in the heat for the prior hour and the phrasing gave you false hope. I'm describing creationists/ID people along with 9/11 tinhatters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #27 August 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteExplain how thier investigation is not a hypothesis? Why does every hypothesis to you have to be peer reviewed? I don't understand why you are grasping this particular straw so hard. For the illusion of legitimacy it gives him?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #28 August 4, 2009 QuoteWhy does every hypothesis to you have to be peer reviewed? I don't understand why you are grasping this particular straw so hard. This particular hypothesis cost millions of dollars and is supposed to determine the cause of the only 3 steel framed strucutures in history to fall due to fire, symmetrically and completely into thier own footprint through the path of most resistance. This is an astounding result, there are thousands of people worldwide including scientists and engineering professionals that refute the report. Do you not think it is fair that they get to have thier say officially? Is the time and money not wasted on an investigation that does not make sence? So on the contrary don't think all hypothesies should be peer reviewed, but if any one of them should be, it should be this one! Interestingly enough, when I put forward Steven Jones' hypothesis into this debate a few months ago, I was asked to produce a peer reviewed journal, I did so, then when I asked if the Nist hypothesis was peer reviewed... ... silence prevailed? Talk about double standards!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #29 August 4, 2009 Quotedetermine the cause of the only 3 steel framed strucutures in history to fall due to fire It's funny how you never mention the plane that smashed through the structure taking out half the support columns. It was much more than just a fire.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #30 August 4, 2009 QuoteIt's funny how you never mention the plane that smashed through the structure taking out half the support columns. It was much more than just a fire. sheesh, even NIST doesn't claim that! The planes did create substancial damage, yes. But that damage was not reported to result in the collapse of the buildings, those buildings were designed to withstand multipule impacts from such aircraft. It was the fires that were supposed to have caused the collapses. Do your research as I have!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #31 August 4, 2009 QuoteDo your research as I have! NO! You believe what you viewed on some conspiracy website that explosives brought the buildings down and you run with that.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #32 August 4, 2009 QuoteQuotedetermine the cause of the only 3 steel framed strucutures in history to fall due to fire It's funny how you never mention the plane that smashed through the structure taking out half the support columns. It was much more than just a fire. Also funny is how the scenario keeps changing...first it was 'the only structures to fall by fire' - then, once he was shown multiple examples of that besides WTC, it becomes "fall due to fire symetrically into it's own footprint" Hey, rhys - how many MORE criteria are you going to add until you can eliminate everything that doesn't prove your point?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #33 August 4, 2009 QuoteAlso funny is how the scenario keeps changing... Your just a denier who must be in on the cover up! You undercover for the MAN?If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #34 August 4, 2009 Quote Quote Also funny is how the scenario keeps changing... Your just a denier who must be in on the cover up! You undercover for the MAN? Damn, you caught me.... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #35 August 4, 2009 Quote Damn, you caught me.... It will be our little secret! Now meet me in the batcave so we can plan out next massive attack so we can conquer the world!If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #36 August 4, 2009 QuoteI was asked to produce a peer reviewed journal, I did so, then when I asked if the Nist hypothesis was peer reviewed It was peered by the "Journal of 9/11 studies". It's a conspiracy journal. His real peers distanced themselves from him_____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #37 August 4, 2009 Quote Quote Damn, you caught me.... It will be our little secret! Now meet me in the batcave so we can plan out next massive attack so we can conquer the world! We can't...rhys is still playing on the bat-puter.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #38 August 4, 2009 Just saw parts of MIB the other evening. This thread reminds me of some of the lines: "Elvis isn't dead, he just went home." Whatever the line is when he mentions the need to collect evidence, and ends up buying all the CT rags like National Enquirer. Not to mention all the fuzzy pictures and ignored outright fraud. Doesn't faze CTers though. Even after people got busted making crop circles and admitted making others, the CTers ignore it. Anyone who doesn't agree with them must be part of the CT. Kind of like the fact that not one video of Bigfoot or ET or Nellie is in clear focus. It's as if a requirement for being a CTer is that all photos be taken out of focus and videos be taken while jiggling the camera. Must be in their job requirments. INTERVIEWER: "Let me see you wiggle that camera." (Interviewee, furiously jostling video cam while shooting flock of geese flying in front of swamp gas with Venus in background) INTERVIEWER: "Oh man, that is nice, great job! You're hired."" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #39 August 4, 2009 Quote INTERVIEWER: "Let me see you wiggle that camera." (Interviewee, furiously jostling video cam while shooting flock of geese flying in front of swamp gas with Venus in background) INTERVIEWER: "Oh man, that is nice, great job! You're hired." No, they teach that in photography school now and call it 'art'. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cliffwhite 0 #40 August 4, 2009 QuoteQuotedetermine the cause of the only 3 steel framed strucutures in history to fall due to fire It's funny how you never mention the plane that smashed through the structure taking out half the support columns. It was much more than just a fire. I'm interested in the reports of molten steel in the basement levels of the towers and #7. How did the fires burn hot enough to produce molten steel? Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #41 August 4, 2009 QuoteNO! You believe what you viewed on some conspiracy website that explosives brought the buildings down and you run with that. Excuse me assumtion guy, I spent many hours searching, watching, listening and studying all aspects of this event, I have read the NIST report, i have watched the debunking movies i have watched the debunking of the debunking movies and read the reports. have you? I bet you just watch your fox news, laugh at the one line tin foil hat jokes, feel like a part of the crowd and go on with your life? If not it sure sounds like it!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #42 August 4, 2009 Quote Quote Why does every hypothesis to you have to be peer reviewed? I don't understand why you are grasping this particular straw so hard. This particular hypothesis cost millions of dollars and is supposed to determine the cause of the only 3 steel framed strucutures in history to fall due to fire, symmetrically and completely into thier own footprint through the path of most resistance. This is an astounding result, there are thousands of people worldwide including scientists and engineering professionals that refute the report. You still going on about this even though you know without a doubt the towers collapsed at the impact zones? www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #43 August 5, 2009 QuoteAlso funny is how the scenario keeps changing... Ah no it hasn't, you just read what you want to read, show me agian where a structure had fallen (as all 3 WTC structures did) completely and symmetricly into thier own footprint? Ir do you refute thjat it happened that way? QuoteHey, rhys - how many MORE criteria are you going to add until you can eliminate everything that doesn't prove your point? I only have 1 criteria; 1, That the collapses are explained correctly, explaing how it is possible that the simultainious freefall speed of the collapse if the initial floors that gave way is possible with random fires. This is my conclusion (and many others) from reading the NIST report. it will not change, the only thing that changes is the official story as they dig themselves deeper and deeper into a hole, fortunatley(for them) they have the god loving, sheepish, community behind them. No one wants to now they are being fucked up the ass from thier superiors, do they?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #44 August 5, 2009 Quote This is an astounding result, there are thousands of people worldwide including scientists and engineering professionals that refute the report. Wasn't it hundreds of thousands of folks yesterday?! Did BushCo snuff out 99% of them with its Mossad hitsquad? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #45 August 5, 2009 Quote It was peered by the "Journal of 9/11 studies". It's a conspiracy journal. His real peers distanced themselves from him Gee i wonder why? Quote http://www.cracked.com/...conspiracy-theories/Laugh Quote The tinfoil hat version has already been debunked many times over. Quote http://zapatopi.net/afdb/ Quote I was watching Batman on tv tonight. Quote This is a red herring. I seriously doubt NIST needs to have their investigation peer reviewed. They are all scientists and engineers working together on an investigation, not a new scientific idea. Quote put on your tin foil hat and watch this. Tongue http://www.popularmechanics.com/...ary_law/1227842.html Quote You just need... the Bat-computer. Angelic Quote For the illusion of legitimacy it gives him? Quote It's funny how you never mention the plane that smashed through the structure taking out half the support columns. and it goes on, these are obviously well thought out, educated comments, that bring clarity and substance to the debate. it quite obvious that you lot have a deeper understanding of what went on than me... Why don't you just fulful my one criteria? insead of making stupid jokes? or better yet, refrain from take place in the conversation/debate. (not aimed specifically at you nanook!) That won't get your post numbers up though will it? You can't afford to spend more than a minute on a post because you have to crack the 50,000 post mark before the end of the year!!!! Majority may rule, but that doesn't make the majority right, take religon for example, in the east Islam rules, in the west christianity rules. Are they both right? No, niether of them are, but try telling that to them!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #46 August 5, 2009 Quote i have watched the debunking movies Oh thats right! Loose Change has all the answers! I will take the words of engineers from Purdue, MIT and Northwestern before I believe two dousche bags with a computer.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grimmie 186 #47 August 5, 2009 rhys, I just completed my 30th year as a full time firefighter. I will sit down with you any time, anywhere, to discuss the entire event with you. I'll even bring along a few of my FDNY pals that were there that day and about 100 friends that were on the "pile" for weeks digging. We can cover building collapse, fire behavior, load bearing walls, etc. I'll bring the FDNY log of events. It covers every single collapse with photos, lots of them too. I was on duty here in California the morning of September 11th. All sixteen of us (it was shift change) were worried both towers were going to collapse. Name the place and time, call me... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #48 August 5, 2009 Quote : Quote i have watched the debunking movies Oh thats right! Loose Change has all the answers!Crazy I will take the words of engineers from Purdue, MIT and Northwestern before I believe two dousche bags with a computer. I was actually refering to; http://www.debunking911.com/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html http://911conspiracydebunked.com/ and the likes, You see, I actually have studied this and have an open mind about it. Science however prevails, and these debunking theories all use the NIST reports and official story as a basis. When you do understand what the official stroy is trying to put forward, then you would understand the lie that they are telling. I understand Isaac Newtons findings, and how if all the floors above the impact zone were to imact the floor below, the energy tranfer would potentially be enough to cause a systematic collapse as is explained in this report; http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf but once again this assumtion is used as a basis of the entire calcualtions; Quote Mc = n mf ……………………. (1) where mf is the mass of one WTC floor, assumed to be 1/110 the mass of an entire WTC tower, namely mf = (510,000,000 / 110) kg 4,636,000 kg We consider the initiating event of a WTC tower collapse to be the failure of crucial steel support structures at the appropriate upper floor level of the building, followed by the free fall of the entire upper block of n floors through a distance hf = one floor height = 3.7 meters. It is readily determined using the relation v = {2gh) that the descending upper block impacts the floor below at a velocity of 8.5 m/s. The law of conservation of momentum states that: m1 v1= m2 v2 So the floor completely vanished? The steel was not just weakened by the fires and sagged, then just gave way, It actually vaporised and the complete 3.7 metre section of the building dissapeared? maybe Al Q. hired David Copperfield to get the thing going!This is the point I am trying to get across to you guys, where the mathmatics looks sharp and the words look intellegent, that very assumtion is false, impossible and stupud!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #49 August 5, 2009 Quote these are obviously well thought out, educated comments, that bring clarity and substance to the debate. it quite obvious that you lot have a deeper understanding of what went on than me... Every month or two you insisted on resurrecting this discussion. Eventually everyone realized what a huge waste of time it was debating reality with you, so we're just going to have fun instead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #50 August 5, 2009 QuoteYou see, I actually have studied this and have an open mind about it. And there are stucture enginners, demo experts, men with PhD's in physics, firefighters who say your theorys are full of shit but you refuse to listen or you debunk there story by either asking another question or accusing them of ignoring the so called "truth"If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
