2
   

Experts Claim Official 9-11 Story is a Hoax ! FINALLY!

 
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2006 12:45 am
Amigo wrote:
farmerman wrote:
magginkat said
Quote:

First of all I don't know where you go the part about the deficit & keeping people quiet. Did you just dream up that garbage?

Then you demand that I answer this crap as though I was the one who said it? Are you competing with george bu$h for nutcase of the year?

Might I suggest that you laugh because you have nothing worthwhile to say? Perhaps like george you have no curiosity about anything & accept the sound bytes fed to you as fact.

I like to question things. That does not make me a conspiracy nut nor does it mean that my questions lead to the correct answers. Only history will determine that.



So far in this past five years us "conspiracy nuts" have an almost perfect record when it comes to what the bu$h thugs are up to


Magginkat, your within a select group of conspiracists on this thread. Please dont try to unentangle yourself from the stuff herein. Your arguments are usually prefaced with invective and often cheap shots. We can discuss this rationally or youll be here crying in a wind tunnel cause nobody will give you the time of day.
I believe that your honestly convinced but dont seem to possess the skills to argue without screaming at the top of your lungs and calling names. Lets try to be a bit more rational. Many of us have kept this little thread alive, we can easily pull out and go away and youlld drop to the bottom like a cinder block.
What have you got to say about the data that was made up by the "conspiracists" (Im talking about the Lamont seismic record that was used to support cutter chrges in WTC) thats a faked piece of record that has been time scruched to look like its a sudden shock wave. In reality its a 40 second sweep that shows the building collapsing in a slow rising amplitude, consistant with something breaking up and dropping from the air to the ground. If there were cutter charges, these would be seen as sharp snaps on the record (none there)
farmerman, I'm beginning to believe your presence here is self serving. Are you helping us come to our senses. I your ready to get off the conspiracy theory bus well pull over whenever you want. Or is it invalid when you gone? Alice in wonderland was gone a long time ago. Why do you degrade yourself in our presence any longer then you have too. Why did you ever degrade your self by considering the WTC was a conspiracy anyway? You guys haven't kept this thread you have turned it into a school yard. I have to go can't finish bye
What this thread has really provided is a host for the usual ill company, Like chigers.

When you first told me the bomb sniffing plans would have smelled the explosives I thought to myself " Thats one hell of a hole in the most elaborate conspiracy in history, forgetting about the bomb sniffing plans." I can hear them at conspiracy headquarters now. "which one of you as$holes foergot about the bomb sniffing planes there flying over the WTC building now."

People entertaining a conspiracy theories in public provides a perfect enviroment for people to feed ther're superiority complex. So far youve'e told me I don't think for myself and my life revolves around conspiracy theories.

These right wingers that go around looking for people to make fun of are bottom feeders. Maybe they hang out around here because nobody else wants to play with them anymore. Maybe Bush didn't turn out to be the president they thought he would. Maybe tin foil hat wearing liberals like me and magginkat were right all along.

As magginkat has said it's a fact that the record of what the far left has been saying about Bush and whats going on in America has been perfect since 2004. Too bad we couldn't have bet on the word of the far left in Vegas we would be sitting pretty and the right wing would be hitching a ride home with they're pockets hanging out yet they still demonstrate the same tone and they're ALWAYS wrong and the whacko liberals are always right? What gives? Is that why you stopped to consider such an outlandish claim as 9/11 being a conspiracy?

Maybe our tin foil hats are making us smarter. On second thought what am I thinking, as if human history and technology would get so outlandish that such a thing could really happen. Technology would never become so advanced and people in power would never become so phsychotic with greed, power and domination that such a thing would take place. Everybody knows it's impossible for history to ever get so absurd.

By the way does being an expert in geophysics make you a better fisherman?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2006 08:38 am
I have absolutely no idea of what your saying. Im gonna need some translation here if Im to respond. Is it just me.? I wasnt the one who started being rude and a little hysterical. I think that everything that I tried to say was borne in fact as I know.

Magginkat suffers from a "whatever Bush did, hes responsible for everything evil" complex. Thats a preposterous stand. Believe it or not, I also believe that Bush needs to go, just for sheer INCOMPETENCE, not some veiled plot to dominate the world. Magginkat has him somehow involved with 9/11 and whoknows whatelse? This thread was only about 9/11 and the assertion that it was a controlled demolition.
So far, from the "controlled demolition conspiracy theory" Ive seen no real hard evidence thats vetted. Its all been pretty much ramblings by professional conspiracists who love to suck gullible minds in with them.
You (amigo) seemed to have stood back and questioned whether the conspiracy theory was just that , a theory built on sand. If you continue looking , you will see much forensic data out there that supports the" planes crashing into buildings theory"

Somebody jumped all over Tico for doing a google search and finding that the sources of much of what was orginally posted in the top of this thread came from a known nut job site. Thats all he did, he didnt "USE" any of that to make claims. Somehow the conspiracy minded ones have got their logic so twisted that they are failing to understand some of the basic debate points that Tico made.

As far as rudeness, you and magginkat have been rude beyond normal terms and if it goes farther, and Im a patient dude, I will report you to the mods and all thatll do is get this shut down. SO, try to debate with points and evidence , dont take shots at the debators on the other side. Its only decent manners.

Geophysics and fishing go hand in hand. When Im out doin geophysics , Im usually waiting for data to come in from technicians, if Im in a remote area, Ill take a fishing rod or sketchbook along . Im kind of hyper so I always need something going on.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2006 12:06 pm
farmerman wrote:
I have absolutely no idea of what your saying. Im gonna need some translation here if Im to respond. Is it just me.?
No, it isn't. You've been exceedingly clear and each of us who bothered to read and comprehend what you've written and supplied owe you our thanks. Thank you.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2006 12:27 pm
Amigo wrote:
Nimh mentions that global warming is scientifically proven. I knew that when I put it down as conspiracy theories of the past. People called me a whacko conspiracy theory, tree hugging idiot then too. Yet global warming was based on scientific evidence.

I think you misunderstood my point.

Earlier on, you defended the 9/11-cover-up theory saying that, yes, its a conspiracy theory, but hey, global warming started out as a conspiracy theory too and that proved to be right. (link)

I said no, global warming did NOT actually start out as some conspiracy theory: it started out from the beginning with concrete scientific data. And thats where the 9/11 cover-up theory is different, because other than speculative open questions, scarcely anything has been brought here to buttress itc claims. No data, no proof, nothing concrete or scientific.

The two things are simply incomparable.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2006 12:38 pm
The first time ever I'm quoting MM in agreement:

mysteryman wrote:
Mags,
Its time to fish or cut bait!!!!!

Do you have any proof at all that

1. The president was in any way involved with the 9/11 attacks

2. The WTC was destroyed by preplanted explosives

3.The WTC collapsed because the govt destroyed it

Dont give us your .. theories,but please show proof that your .. theories are correct.


Important: thats positive proof we're asking for, Magg. Any. Not just things that help you argue that, well, it cant have happened the way they said it did, but any positive evidence that it did indeed go the way you said it went instead.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2006 02:06 pm
nimh wrote:
Amigo wrote:
Nimh mentions that global warming is scientifically proven. I knew that when I put it down as conspiracy theories of the past. People called me a whacko conspiracy theory, tree hugging idiot then too. Yet global warming was based on scientific evidence.

I think you misunderstood my point.

Earlier on, you defended the 9/11-cover-up theory saying that, yes, its a conspiracy theory, but hey, global warming started out as a conspiracy theory too and that proved to be right. (link)

I said no, global warming did NOT actually start out as some conspiracy theory: it started out from the beginning with concrete scientific data. And thats where the 9/11 cover-up theory is different, because other than speculative open questions, scarcely anything has been brought here to buttress itc claims. No data, no proof, nothing concrete or scientific.

The two things are simply incomparable.
No, global warming and 9/11 are not even close to being the same thing They have just been treated the same. Global warming was called everything except concrete science. Like global Warming 9/11 will be knocked back and forth. For every expert on one side another expert springs up on the other side. I just saw a report debunking the story by popular mechanics that alot of people claim to be proof that 9/11. So each side is waving the chosen stats, reports and experts in they're first and if you don't buy there version your an idiot.

The hypothesis by Steven E. Jones is what I am just starting to read. This is the paper that has been recognized by FEMA (or that they can't ignore). It starts talking about building WTC7 which was never hit by a plane and collapsed straight down (nearly symmetrically) in 6.6 seconds.

In video you cans see "squibs". Supposed explosions going of as seen in any controlled demolition. Many other tapes have been confiscated. They would have inspected the beams but they went to China as scrap metal.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2006 02:15 pm
No, you can't see squibs in any video.

People see what they want to perhaps, but there is no video evidence of squibs.

In any controlled demolition, it takes weeks of preperation. Support beams are cut almost through to weaken the structure. Demolition charges must be properly placed to blow the correct beams out. In a controlled demolition you eliminate the bottom supports at the base of the building to collapse it in. In the video is is obvious that the top floors start to collapse first before pancacking through the lower floors.

How did they know which floor to place those charges on? The pilots weren't that skilled to choose exact floors.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2006 02:27 pm
WTC7. The one the plane didn't hit.

But the rest of what you said is noted. Of coarse you know the theorist will pinpoint the time when the explosives were planted.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2006 06:14 am
At this point I think I'm posting whatever i'm posting here out of sheer boredom. Who gives a sh!t what happened it's not like we could change anything anyway. Were 1% of 1%. Humankind is screwed. Whatever we were worth we traded in.

I just fancy that I could make a difference. Deep down I know we were defeated a long time ago.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2006 07:49 am
Like parados says, squibs werent used for anything because they are connected by det cord and anybody dropping a building wouldnt be so incompetent so as to have squibs flying out of the building.Many of tose "puffs" were wetted down drywall that , upon drying and gitting the air rushing by, just popped open and blew dust clots.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2006 12:27 pm
"No data, no proof, nothing concrete or scientific." That describes the government story. There has been scientific evidence posted on this thread that says the fires were not hot enough to melt steel. The government has not proven it's theories. Steven Jones will be all ears the moment the government tries.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2006 12:35 pm
Quote:
There has been scientific evidence posted on this thread that says the fires were not hot enough to melt steel.

steel doesnt have to melt to suffer heat creep. It bends through heat under a dynamic load. They found the lower bolts and they were sheared (those didnt go to Indonesia)

no cutter charges

Steve Jones group lied about the seismic records

Noones coming forward to admit that they saw other than what has been reported inDC

building collapsed at points of impact and propogated downward
News reports and closed circuit cameras caught the plane going into the Pentagon

Whose makin what up? I think the conspiracists are a bunch of losers who are exploiting the "fog of the occurence" to slip in misquotes, untruths, and outright whoppers
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2006 01:41 pm
farmerman, Can you direct me to the information about Jones's group lying about the seismic records. I would like to see it and show some other people. I'm fighting with people on both side of this. It's like a comedy.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2006 04:40 pm
The Twin Towers was built on a steel skeleton which supported the outer walls. The floors were suspended between the steel beams. All that was needed is a failure of some of supporting beams and the weight of the upper floors came crashing down. It's all in the NOVA special and many other non-government generated documents supported by structural engineers, not a bunch of idealogues with an agenda. Much as I disrespect Dubya, I can't pin this one on him.

There have been no other buildings constructed in this manner. It was very experamental and obviously, they aren't about to try it again. Anyone wonder why?
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2006 04:41 pm
Why?

(you big blue furry fart)
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2006 04:53 pm
Scully is not a fart.

Just see the NOVA special -- there is little new in structural engineering except that confirmation that there was something drastically wrong with the construction of those two buildings. That's why there are no new buildings using that technique. Not to mention, and I still feel sadness for those lost in the catastrophe, they were two monolithic, butt ugly architectural eyesores.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2006 04:56 pm
You did it. You thought they were ugly. I'm calling the scholars of 9/11!!!! You can't hide
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2006 04:58 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
There have been no other buildings constructed in this manner. It was very experamental and obviously, they aren't about to try it again. Anyone wonder why?
Yep, I do. I have to question this assertion from an engineering standpoint (not that I'm engineer, I'm not). In the grand scheme of things; every skyscraper is a "temporary structure" so I have to assume that a method to bring them down in a reasonably controllable fashion is engineered into every new skyscraper construction. Imagine the damage if it buckled at the bottom and tipped like a tree over a 5 block area. I would assume that in the long term, man will be forced to bring them down before decay takes its toll, so wouldn't it be fool-hearty to not plan accordingly?
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2006 05:06 pm
I hear what all the mature people are saying on this thread. When I am done reading Steave Jones report and the latest and most creditable counter claim. Then I will take this to farmerman at which time he will call me a fanatic loser who does not think for himself and whose life revolves around conspiracy theories. Ive been through this before about ten times in my life. I know the routine.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Feb, 2006 05:17 pm
The construction technique of the Two Towers follows no previous precedent in structural engineering even as a temporary structure, especially considering their height. The terrorists lucked out by hitting them in a very vulnerable spot where the weight of the upper floors did not need a massive failure of the outside skeleton but only the distortion of the girders which occurred from the heat. It did not require that the girders "melted."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 05:32:09