Thursday, June 22, 2006

The Loosers Have Found Their Messiah

Charlie Sheen will appear at their conspiracy conference this weekend.

















No word on whether Denise Richards will be attending...

94 Comments:

At 22 June, 2006 12:07, Blogger Jujigatami said...

They're just excited because they think he's the Presidents son.

 
At 22 June, 2006 12:16, Blogger nesNYC said...

Holy shit, this story is so old. But anyway, here's another take on Charlie...

 
At 22 June, 2006 12:27, Blogger Nutman said...

haha are you fucking serious? hmm what a suprise someone in hollywood is also a gullable moron who will believe what a lunatic CTer tells him.

 
At 22 June, 2006 12:33, Blogger nesNYC said...

haha are you fucking serious? hmm what a suprise someone in hollywood is also a gullable moron who will believe what a lunatic CTer tells him.

Hummm... That's not unlike the gullible morons that accept the whole Bin Laden fabrication. Anyway, Sheen is an obvious straw man to later be struck down and discredit the whole movement. He’s a double edge sword.

 
At 22 June, 2006 12:37, Blogger James B. said...

Anyway, Sheen is an obvious straw man to later be struck down and discredit the whole movement.

I thought that was your job...

I am confused. Do you have a guide or something?

 
At 22 June, 2006 12:54, Blogger shawn said...

Hummm... That's not unlike the gullible morons that accept the whole Bin Laden fabrication.

I didn't realize the phrase "gullible morons" now meant "people living in the real world". Thanks for the heads up.

 
At 22 June, 2006 12:57, Blogger Abby Scott said...

You know gullible morons, like the ones that get their news from The New York Times vs. reputable sources... like jewwatch.com.

 
At 22 June, 2006 12:57, Blogger nesNYC said...

I didn't realize the phrase "gullible morons" now meant "people living in the real world". Thanks for the heads up.

If the Jew fits.

 
At 22 June, 2006 12:59, Blogger nesNYC said...

New York Times vs. reputable

Those two should never be mentioned in the same sentence.

 
At 22 June, 2006 13:01, Blogger nesNYC said...

More heads up.

 
At 22 June, 2006 13:01, Blogger Abby Scott said...

So jewwatch.com avoids the anti-zionist jews. How nice.

Just like the KKK avoids bugging those nice Negros that keep their mouths shut and know there place, eh?

 
At 22 June, 2006 13:15, Blogger shawn said...

Whoa! An insignificant minority of Jews are not Zionists!

(PS I already knew of them.)

Oh yeah, and that pro-Bush New York Times. It's practically the White House mouthpiece, eh?

 
At 22 June, 2006 14:59, Blogger CHF said...

God only knows how Charlie Sheen became such an authority on building collapses.

But then with NO STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS BACKING UP THE CT, I guess they'll take what they can get.

 
At 22 June, 2006 15:10, Blogger MarkyX said...

Stoplying.ca?

I remember them during the election campaign when they tried to smear Harper. I even exchanged a few emails with the webmaster.

Not exactly a good source.

 
At 22 June, 2006 15:39, Blogger nesNYC said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 22 June, 2006 15:40, Blogger nesNYC said...

God only knows how Charlie Sheen became such an authority on building collapses.

I know how.

 
At 22 June, 2006 15:41, Blogger nesNYC said...

Not exactly a good source.

Neither are yours.

 
At 22 June, 2006 15:42, Blogger nesNYC said...

So jewwatch.com avoids the anti-zionist jews. How nice.

Just like the KKK avoids bugging those nice Negros that keep their mouths shut and know there place, eh?


Out of the plethora of links and sources I use, funny (not) how you concentrate solely on Jew watch. Typical AND predictable.

 
At 22 June, 2006 15:48, Blogger Abby Scott said...

Dude, it was the first one on the list of links. If you didn't want me to look at it, you shouldn't have pointed me to it.

Others included rumormill.blahbleddyblah and other non-newsworthy sources.

I have yet to see you denounce the jewwatch site.

 
At 22 June, 2006 16:01, Blogger MarkyX said...



Neither are yours.



Structual engineers are a bad source..

Okay. Whatever buddy.

 
At 22 June, 2006 16:15, Blogger CHF said...

nesnyc,

so Sheen is a good source because...he's a celebrity?

Yeah man, who needs structural engineers when you've got actors?

Britney Spears thinks Arab terrorists did it.

I guess we need a tie-breaker now, huh?

What a joke.

 
At 22 June, 2006 16:16, Blogger CHF said...

"I have yet to see you denounce the jewwatch site."

And he won't.

 
At 22 June, 2006 16:36, Blogger Chad said...

Wait... you guys are now turning to the moron who fucked up a relationship with Denise Richards??

I'm gay and even I know that the guy that lands her does everything in his power to not fuck that up.

That would be like purposefully collapsing a building on top of 3.2 trillion dollars in gold bullion.

Falls under the category of Shit You Just Don't Do.

 
At 22 June, 2006 18:06, Blogger nesNYC said...

Dude, it was the first one on the list of links. If you didn't want me to look at it, you shouldn't have pointed me to it.

Others included rumormill.blahbleddyblah and other non-newsworthy sources.

I have yet to see you denounce the jewwatch site.


I posted that site on purpose to make the comment I made about the way you guys operate. I could have easily followed the links on jewwatch and you would have been oblivious as to where this kind of news has been filtering to. Basically, the jewwatch site takes the articles right from ADL and other Jewish sources they monitor. Now, did you follow where jewwatch got his info from? He sources his articles there same as all other "crazies" out there. These are all stories that are under reported and put on page 6 of the MAINSTREAM MEDIA that you guys love. Go ahead; debunk Silverstein's Zionist connections if you're not trusting what sites like Jewwatch to Anti-war.com are saying. Zionism is the poison that is leading this world to destruction. Wake up and realize that fact!

 
At 22 June, 2006 18:07, Blogger nesNYC said...

Structual engineers are a bad source..

Okay. Whatever buddy.


They are nothing without their grants if you are referring to the highly debunked NIST crew.

 
At 22 June, 2006 18:08, Blogger nesNYC said...

"I have yet to see you denounce the jewwatch site."

And he won't.


Correct!

 
At 22 June, 2006 18:09, Blogger default.xbe said...

They are nothing without their grants if you are referring to the highly debunked NIST crew.

please cite examples of this "debunking"

and there are many more structural engineers than those who contributed to the NIST report

 
At 22 June, 2006 18:22, Blogger nesNYC said...

please cite examples of this "debunking"

and there are many more structural engineers than those who contributed to the NIST report


Paid shill-ery does not count now matter how many degrees those clowns have. Again, the NIST fabrication has been highly debunked!

 
At 22 June, 2006 18:24, Blogger nesNYC said...

and there are many more structural engineers than those who contributed to the NIST report

Oh yeah, basically the same clique wrote all 3 conflicting "reports." Just how you give that any credibility is beyond comprehension.

 
At 22 June, 2006 18:24, Blogger default.xbe said...

Paid shill-ery does not count now matter how many degrees those clowns have. Again, the NIST fabrication has been highly debunked!

evidence theyve been paid?

 
At 22 June, 2006 18:28, Blogger jackhanyes said...

I have yet to see you denounce the jewwatch site.

I hear by condemn Jew Watch openly as being evil or reprehensible.

There are you happy, Not-very-funny Woman?

 
At 22 June, 2006 18:41, Blogger nesNYC said...

evidence theyve been paid?

So who came up with the 20,000,000 to "fund" this investigation? You mean they all worked for free? Hahhaha.

 
At 22 June, 2006 19:07, Blogger default.xbe said...

so my grandfather is a shill too? he gets money from the government every month

 
At 22 June, 2006 19:09, Blogger CHF said...

Tell you what, nesnyc: show me some structural engineers who aren't paid agents of the government.

There must be a few out there, no?

Surely you've got a few such experts on your side, seeing how the "truth" is so obvious...

 
At 22 June, 2006 19:26, Blogger Abby Scott said...

Jack!

I'm glad you don't subscribe to jewwatch.

It's also very interesting that you are jumping to the defense of someone who posted it.

However, you weren't the one who cited it, so I don't give a flying crap if you denounce it.

I admit I did not look through to see where jewwatch got it's facts.

I would also be loathe to delve into a citing of the KKK, Neonazisareawesome.com or poniesarecute.com. Those are just goddamned weird websites.

Oh, I am not Not-Very-Funny Woman. That title has been assumed by someone else. I am Couldn't Give Two Shts About Your Opinion.

 
At 22 June, 2006 19:26, Blogger Abby Scott said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 22 June, 2006 19:46, Blogger shawn said...

So who came up with the 20,000,000 to "fund" this investigation? You mean they all worked for free? Hahhaha.

Man you have a hard-on for poisoning the well (logical fallacy! jack, you see that shit?). You can't just dismiss someone if they're paid by the government if their report USES CONCRETE FACT. So the laws of phsyics and structural engineering suddenly evaporate if people paid by the government use them in a report? How do you manage to dress yourself every day?

 
At 22 June, 2006 20:58, Blogger ScottSl said...

"Paid shill-ery does not count now matter how many degrees those clowns have. Again, the NIST fabrication has been highly debunked!"

Hoffman's been debunked. He claims the bowing of the towers was caused by refracted light. Ha ha ha!!
(He must not of looked very well at the photo)

http://www.pbase.com/bankst/image/35931732&exif=Y

 
At 22 June, 2006 21:14, Blogger nesNYC said...

nesnyc,

so Sheen is a good source because...he's a celebrity?

Yeah man, who needs structural engineers when you've got actors?

Britney Spears thinks Arab terrorists did it.

I guess we need a tie-breaker now, huh?

What a joke.


Did you read the link I posted? Sheen is a useful idiot used to derail the movement.

 
At 22 June, 2006 21:19, Blogger nesNYC said...

Man you have a hard-on for poisoning the well (logical fallacy! jack, you see that shit?). You can't just dismiss someone if they're paid by the government if their report USES CONCRETE FACT. So the laws of phsyics and structural engineering suddenly evaporate if people paid by the government use them in a report? How do you manage to dress yourself every day?

Let's see now, when something blows away your "beliefs" its either a logical fallacy or circular logic, correct? Look, the "investigation" cost 20 million, the NIST report has been debunked as junk science designed to fool people such as yourself. You can equate it to the laws of physics all you want, the fact is, this report DOES NOT explain what happened on 9/11, it is a blatant lie, fabrication, scam... No matter how bad you want it not to be.

 
At 22 June, 2006 21:21, Blogger apathoid said...

Did you read the link I posted? Sheen is a useful idiot used to derail the movement.


When you keep posting links to jewwatch.com and other unsavory sites, its a safe bet that not too many people will be clicking them.

So Charlie Sheen is a CIA plant now? You're more paranoid than I originally thought....

 
At 22 June, 2006 21:27, Blogger apathoid said...

the NIST report has been debunked as junk science designed to fool people such as yourself. You can equate it to the laws of physics all you want, the fact is, this report DOES NOT explain what happened on 9/11, it is a blatant lie, fabrication, scam... No matter how bad you want it not to be.


For the moment I'll concede that the NIST and FEMA reports are junk science(even though they arent), but what of all the independant peer reviewed papers and journals written by hundreds of engineers who support the official version of events?? Are they all CIA shills too??

 
At 22 June, 2006 21:29, Blogger nesNYC said...

I admit I did not look through to see where jewwatch got it's facts.

Just more proof you people jump to hysterics and lack any real analytical skills. Here's an "official" accounting of the jewwatch story that corroborates what they are saying:

He (Silverstein) is acknowledged for his philanthropic endeavors, and contributes his time and resources in support of the United Jewish Appeal/Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York, for which he served as chairman. Mr. Silverstein is Chairman of the Realty Foundation, Treasurer of the National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver, Trustee of the NYU Medical Center and Health System, Trustee of the South Street Seaport Museum, and a Trustee of the Museum of Jewish Heritage.

Source.

 
At 22 June, 2006 21:30, Blogger shawn said...

Let's see now, when something blows away your "beliefs" its either a logical fallacy or circular logic, correct?

No, when you use a logical fallacy it's a logical fallacy. Your defense is laughable. I'm sorry you have absolutely no knowledge of logic.

NIST report has been debunked as junk science designed to fool people such as yourself.

No it hasn't. Stating something as if it were fact when you have not proven your case is a logical fallacy called arguing the consequent.

You can equate it to the laws of physics all you want, the fact is, this report DOES NOT explain what happened on 9/11, it is a blatant lie, fabrication, scam... No matter how bad you want it not to be.


You really do come from some Bizarro world where black is white and up is down.

It's not a fabrication, lie, or scam no matter how bad you want it to be.

 
At 22 June, 2006 21:32, Blogger shawn said...

He (Silverstein) is acknowledged for his philanthropic endeavors, and contributes his time and resources in support of the United Jewish Appeal/Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York, for which he served as chairman. Mr. Silverstein is Chairman of the Realty Foundation, Treasurer of the National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver, Trustee of the NYU Medical Center and Health System, Trustee of the South Street Seaport Museum, and a Trustee of the Museum of Jewish Heritage.

A Jew supporting Jewish causes? Well, I never!

 
At 22 June, 2006 21:35, Blogger nesNYC said...

For the moment I'll concede that the NIST and FEMA reports are junk science(even though they arent), but what of all the independant peer reviewed papers and journals written by hundreds of engineers who support the official version of events?? Are they all CIA shills too??

Hey, all the "peer" reviewed Catholic church doctrines got people executed during the inquisitions. Doesn't mean they were right. Do you even understand what a hierarchical structure these engineering organizations operate under? The Catholic church of Galileo’s day would be proud! But their scam is easy to understand where there are fools lined up and willing to accept what they say as fact.

 
At 22 June, 2006 21:36, Blogger shawn said...

Wow, that's quite possibly the falsest analogy I've come across in my life.

 
At 22 June, 2006 21:38, Blogger nesNYC said...

A Jew supporting Jewish causes? Well, I never!

What they omit is that the United Jewish Appeal is in fact a Zionist slush fund. Your tax dollars hard at work there, by way of deception.

 
At 22 June, 2006 21:39, Blogger shawn said...

What they omit is that the United Jewish Appeal is in fact a Zionist slush fund.

Do you ignore how overtly biased your Google searches are?

 
At 22 June, 2006 21:39, Blogger apathoid said...

From Nintendos first link:

Charlie Sheen's real name is Carlos Irwin Estevez. The Sheen family may be Crypto Jews. Some biographical information about him is here ~ some obscure unsavory link follows


Charlie Sheen is a JOOOO!!

Charlie Sheen and his father are probably working with the criminal network. Or course, Charlie is probably one of their Useful Idiots who follows orders, rather than a manager who makes decisions.

....and a government shill to boot !!

Funny stuff NES, got anymore??

 
At 22 June, 2006 21:42, Blogger shawn said...

Yeah, it makes a lot of sense for a family of Hispanics to be "covertly Jewish" (which doesn't really make sense, Crypto-Jew is such a ridiculous term in and of itself).

 
At 22 June, 2006 21:42, Blogger nesNYC said...

You really do come from some Bizarro world where black is white and up is down.

It's not a fabrication, lie, or scam no matter how bad you want it to be.


The NIST report is self evidently a scam. They couldn't even get their scale (truss) models to fail like their computer generated "simulation" did. How is that fact? That’s the bizarro world you're living in. Face it, the wool has been pulled over your eyes and you happily accept it. If I were you, I wouldn't bend over anytime soon.

 
At 22 June, 2006 21:45, Blogger apathoid said...

NESnyc said

Do you even understand what a hierarchical structure these engineering organizations operate under?


Lemme guess, the ASME and ASCE are Zionist slush funds?

 
At 22 June, 2006 21:45, Blogger shawn said...

The NIST report is self evidently a scam. They couldn't even get their scale (truss) models to fail like their computer generated "simulation" did. How is that fact? That’s the bizarro world you're living in.

Even if I were to believe you (I don't believe anything you type, but I'll take your word for it for the sake of argument), you're going to say a report is a scam BECAUSE A MODEL DIDN'T WORK RIGHT?! God, you don't have a reasonable bone in your body. Oh shucks a small model which couldn't be hit by planes or be on fire didn't fall the same way! It's all a scam!

 
At 22 June, 2006 21:49, Blogger nesNYC said...

Yeah, it makes a lot of sense for a family of Hispanics to be "covertly Jewish" (which doesn't really make sense, Crypto-Jew is such a ridiculous term in and of itself).

If you had any historical sense, it makes plenty of sense for Jews not to be too obvious about their heritage in that they were persecuted throughout modern history!! Duh... That is just one of the reasons but they have also been caught doing it to corrupt religious and governmental organizations that when found out, lead to their expulsion from almost every country in Europe.

 
At 22 June, 2006 21:55, Blogger nesNYC said...

God, you don't have a reasonable bone in your body. Oh shucks a small model which couldn't be hit by planes or be on fire didn't fall the same way! It's all a scam!

No, they built a full scale model of a floor section complete with trusses and appropriate stresses. After 2 hours, they could not get fuel fires to collapse it like happened on 9/11 and is why this part of their "investigation" was not included in their final report like the software manipulated computer simulation.

Logically, if fire compromised the structure like the report claims, then certainly the real life model would have corroborated the end result in the given time frame. IT DID NOT. Debunked, junk science, lies...

 
At 22 June, 2006 21:55, Blogger shawn said...

If you had any historical sense, it makes plenty of sense for Jews not to be too obvious about their heritage in that they were persecuted throughout modern history!!

Yeah...that makes sense in medievel Europe. Thanks to that little thing called the Inquisition, there aren't too many Hispanic/Latino Jews. Oh yeah, Hollywood has zero "open" Jews, too.

That is just one of the reasons but they have also been caught doing it to corrupt religious and governmental organizations that when found out, lead to their expulsion from almost every country in Europe.

And here he tries to rationalize his anti-semitism.

 
At 22 June, 2006 21:56, Blogger shawn said...

Logically, if fire compromised the structure like the report claims, then certainly the real life model would have corroborated the end result in the given time frame. IT DID NOT. Debunked, junk science, lies...


Man, high school science failed you in the worst way. Your argument is like saying the Piltdown Man disproved evolution.

 
At 22 June, 2006 22:00, Blogger shawn said...

here's a far better analogy:

I build a scale model of the city of Hiroshima 1945. I also build a mini-bomb which will detonate in the same manner as an atom bomb. If I carry out my experiment and the nature of destruction isn't the same as what happened in reality then an atom bomb didn't destroy Hiroshima?

This is the argument you are making.

 
At 22 June, 2006 22:31, Blogger nesNYC said...

here's a far better analogy:

I build a scale model of the city of Hiroshima 1945. I also build a mini-bomb which will detonate in the same manner as an atom bomb. If I carry out my experiment and the nature of destruction isn't the same as what happened in reality then an atom bomb didn't destroy Hiroshima?

This is the argument you are making.


You're close, but not quite there. How would a computer simulation or a third accounting to show what happened factor in your analogy? However, you can possibly simulate in scale what happened in a nuke bomb blast and have it corroborated with a computer simulation. Ever saw one of those Tunguska simulations that showed a butterfly pattern just like happened in real life?

It escapes me were I saw this right now but I do recall someone building a scale model of the Tunguska area and detonating a mid air blast thereby creating the same butterfly pattern as documented in the actual Tunguska explosion. Why can't NIST get their models to work if it is successfully done elsewhere that the hypothesis is accurate as to the actual event?

 
At 23 June, 2006 04:26, Blogger telescopemerc said...

No, they built a full scale model of a floor section complete with trusses and appropriate stresses. After 2 hours, they could not get fuel fires to collapse it like happened on 9/11 and is why this part of their "investigation" was not included in their final report like the software manipulated computer simulation.

Maybe you should actually read the report instead of depending on what others tell you:

The report is here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6BDraft.pdf

The tests were ended before collapse on purpose. Ratings for the trusses were asessed from 3/4 hour to 2 hours The test was also fo a 17ft truss, rather than the 35-60 ft pieces actually used in the WTC (the fire chamber was only so big).

There is really nothing there that truly supports what nesync claims. He's cherry picking data (or rahter, one of his cult leaders is) from a test deigned to come as close, but not equal to the systems in place, and drawing a conclusion that the test was not designed to reach.

 
At 23 June, 2006 05:51, Blogger telescopemerc said...

To further my previous post:

The test refered to are not modelling simulations of the collapse. They are testing to see if the truss structure and truss steel came up to the required standards. To have done a real test they would have needed to build multiple levels, as trusses and columns acting or failing in 'tandem' produce much differing forces than a single truss. Modeling multiple stories like this is not possible due to the lack of sufficiently large fire chambers. As it is the truss they tested was much smaller than those in the WTC.

Taking this test and declaring that NIST is null and void is like catching an Olympic Sprinter on his morning walk, timing his progress and demanding his medals be stripped since his speed did not match that of his 40 yard dash.

The comment was also made that as a result of this test NIST was forced to use computer modeling to simulate the collapse. This is incorrect.

Nobody 'forced' NIST to do such a thing. NIST, like almost all other failure & engineering agencies around the world, uses computer modeling extensively and in some matters, exclusively. Computer modelling has proven itself extremely reliable and effective and is a vast improvement over scale modelling used in the past in some fields. Aeronautics, for example, have found that computer modelling is much better than scale modeling, and much of structural engineering feels the same way. If you disagree with this, you should consider never entering a tall building constructred in the past 20 years.

 
At 23 June, 2006 07:03, Blogger CHF said...

nesnyc,

LOL!

Sheen's a government mole now, huh?

Honestly man, if I were to make up a paranoid CT character for, say, a movie, I wouldn't come up with someone like you.

I just wouldn't think it was possible or realistic.

 
At 23 June, 2006 07:04, Blogger CHF said...

oh and Alex Jones is full of admiration for the "brave" Sheen.

So this means Jones is a.....what?

 
At 23 June, 2006 09:02, Blogger nesNYC said...

Sheen's a government mole now, huh?

No, you're not getting the point. He may well believe in the 9/11 conspiracy but that doesn't take away from the fact that he's being used as a useful idiot to later be flogged in public as is not happening. If what he’s doing is intentional or not is beyond my ability to confirm or not, but the writer of that piece I posted is convinced this is so. I’m not making any conclusion about Sheen’s motives, only that he is promoted by the mainstream media and will later certainly take the fall and bring the movement along with him.

 
At 23 June, 2006 09:03, Blogger nesNYC said...

oh and Alex Jones is full of admiration for the "brave" Sheen.

So this means Jones is a.....what?


Since Jones organization seems to be a Zionist one and Jones never has really come out against Zionist, we can all put 2 + 2 together and draw our own conclusions.

 
At 23 June, 2006 09:05, Blogger nesNYC said...

Taking this test and declaring that NIST is null and void is like catching an Olympic Sprinter on his morning walk, timing his progress and demanding his medals be stripped since his speed did not match that of his 40 yard dash.

Excuses, excuses. Aren't you guys tired of making up excuses?

 
At 23 June, 2006 09:09, Blogger nesNYC said...

The tests were ended before collapse on purpose. Ratings for the trusses were asessed from 3/4 hour to 2 hours The test was also fo a 17ft truss, rather than the 35-60 ft pieces actually used in the WTC (the fire chamber was only so big).

I recall only a two inch distortion was achieved in the two hour test. Fine, now how did the rest of the building achieve symmetrical failure from that 2 inch buckling at the supposed site of the fires ONLY? Did you even read what you wrote? Making it fit isn’t good enough in this case. NIST nullified itself and then lied via their computer simulation to fool people such as yourself.

 
At 23 June, 2006 09:22, Blogger apathoid said...

N'Sync said
Since Jones organization seems to be a Zionist one and Jones never has really come out against Zionist, we can all put 2 + 2 together and draw our own conclusions


Got it. "Charlie Sheen" and "Alex Jones" are both Zionist strawmen being used to discredit the movement.
[Bill Lumbergh voice]
Hmmmmmm Yeaaahhhhh, I'm gonna have to go ahead and sort of disagree with you there.
Yeaaahhh
[/Bill Lumbergh voice]

Also, as far as "discrediting" the "Truth" movement, you might consider looking in the mirror.

 
At 23 June, 2006 09:27, Blogger Nutman said...

nesync do you honestly read any of what your typing, nothing you ever say has anything to it, like someone else said your just picking data you want, and when everyone else proves you wrong with facts something you know nothing about, you just back your lies up with more lies. come on now tell us all the truth, arn't you really just a teenager with down syndrome living in your moms basement with nothing better to do than get on here and spout off useless shit all day.

 
At 23 June, 2006 09:52, Blogger Alex said...

What we need is ANOTHER fruitcake in these forums, so we can watch him and insync accuse eachother of being paid government shills trying to discredit the movement.

Can you imagine the levels of insanity that could be reached? It'd be great!

 
At 23 June, 2006 10:08, Blogger telescopemerc said...

I recall only a two inch distortion was achieved in the two hour test.

You recall?! I gave you the link. Give me the quote. Not the it matters, you still misunderstand the purpose of this testing

Fine, now how did the rest of the building achieve symmetrical failure from that 2 inch buckling at the supposed site of the fires ONLY? Did you even read what you wrote? Making it fit isn’t good enough in this case. NIST nullified itself and then lied via their computer simulation to fool people such as yourself.

You again assume too much of what the test was for. The test was a baseline test, hence all the references to the ASCE 119 which is a baseline test that has been in effect for alomst 100 years!

Any deviation in these particular tests was irrelevant to the causes of collapse. The tests were set to determine if the steel, the baseline, fireproofing, and flooring system came up to the required specs before any damage was done.

The fact that these tests were done with all the advantages going to the structure ( structure intact, composite flooring intact, fireproofing in place) should have given you a good hint! Oh wait, you didn't read it.

 
At 23 June, 2006 10:09, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Excuses, excuses. Aren't you guys tired of making up excuses

Pointing out that you are making a massive mistake is not an excuse.

 
At 23 June, 2006 10:31, Blogger nesNYC said...

Any deviation in these particular tests was irrelevant to the causes of collapse.

How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?

 
At 23 June, 2006 10:34, Blogger nesNYC said...

like someone else said your just picking data you want, and when everyone else proves you wrong with facts something you know nothing about

Isn't that what this whole blog is about? How come it's okay for you guys to do the same and then wrong for the rest of us? Not that we're wrong, but just for argument sake? We know NIST pulled a well orchestrated fraud, plain and simple. Stop fighting the truth.

 
At 23 June, 2006 10:48, Blogger telescopemerc said...

How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?

When you have a point, make it. Otherwise stop acting like a spoiled child.

 
At 23 June, 2006 10:50, Blogger telescopemerc said...

We know NIST pulled a well orchestrated fraud, plain and simple. Stop fighting the truth.

On the contrary, WE know nothing of the sort. WE, unlike you, are capable of reading test reports properly, consult the proper experts, and can see a unanimous consensus of relevant experts around the world.

Meanwhile, YOU, who dares put the word 'truth' in his comment, cannot write about NIST without lying about it!

 
At 23 June, 2006 11:29, Blogger nesNYC said...

When you have a point, make it. Otherwise stop acting like a spoiled child.

Point was made. You have successfully conned yourself to believe the official propaganda.

 
At 23 June, 2006 11:32, Blogger nesNYC said...

Meanwhile, YOU, who dares put the word 'truth' in his comment, cannot write about NIST without lying about it!

How does the NIST report contain any truth? Why was omission their M.O. and not inclusion? It maybe accurate for what they did include, even though that's purely suggestive, but the fact so much is omitted shoots a hole right through it. Too bad you and yours can't figure that out.

 
At 23 June, 2006 11:33, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Point was made. You have successfully conned yourself to believe the official propaganda.

'Official Propaganda' that just happens to be supported by every relevant expert in the world, including nations not friendly to the US. That's inconvenient for you, isn't it?

Meanwhile, you can't talk about NIST without lying about it. Its just your nature I guess.

 
At 23 June, 2006 11:53, Blogger telescopemerc said...

How does the NIST report contain any truth?

Very easily.

Why was omission their M.O. and not inclusion?

If by 'omission' they did not consider the crackpot ideas that there is absolutely no evidence for, too bad. The modeling supports that the towers fell from the fire & damage. Experts around the world agree, and crank theories are not pursued just because some psychotic anti-semites cry foul.

It maybe accurate for what they did include, even though that's purely suggestive, but the fact so much is omitted shoots a hole right through it. Too bad you and yours can't figure that out.

If there are so many holes, perhaps you can point them out? So far all you've done is parrot some wbesite that you claim debunks NIST. It does not, and the figures you 'quote' to support your assertions (especially that '2 inches' figure) are laughable and easily disproven.

And again, relevant experts around the world do not disagree with its method or conclusions, at least not in any signifigant way.

 
At 23 June, 2006 12:59, Blogger Alex said...

I don't understand the logic behind his claims in the first place. Let's think this through:

"They" want to con us all into beleiveing "the official story"

So "they" set up a test to simulate a building being brought down by fire.

And the test fails!


Now let's think about this for a second. These "eeeeevil masterminds" manage to (supposedly) kill 3,000 people and bring down three massive structures without most people realizing what really happened....and you're telling me that they can't properly fake a test???

What's going on here?!?!

Assuming that NIST really WAS attempting to collapse their mockup (which they weren't, but regaurdless), the fact that it didn't collapse should be an indication that they're honest. Certainly if it HAD collapsed, the CTers would be screaming that the test was faked. Shouldn't the opposite hold true as well?

So even the most basic premise being made here is flawed. Not only did they totaly misunderstand the NIST report, but even if we were to take up the CT mindset and ignore the facts, their argument STILL makes no sense. If you're an evil government shill looking to back "the official story", wouldn't you make damn sure that your evidence backed the statements of your masters? So the only thing that makes sense is that those Evil Zionist Overlords are not just evil, but incompetent as well. But only incompetent enough to give themselves away to those who are smart and clever enough to "see the truth".

I can see how such a mindset could be addictive. In the absence of a beleif in a higher being, or a higher purpose, or pride in personal achievemnt, it MUST be tempting to simply ignore your own weaknesses and failiures and instead pretend that you're one of the few people in the world who understand what's really going on. Plus, in your own mind at least, you can never really be proven wrong because you can always come up with a modification for your theory. It REALLY IS like a religion for some people. They can't afford to give up their conspiracy theory. It's the only thing giving their lives any meaning.

 
At 23 June, 2006 16:24, Blogger shawn said...

Why was omission their M.O. and not inclusion?

Excluding moronic non-points isn't wrong to do. Just because someone believes something that's totally insane and outside the realm of possibility doesn't mean the government should check it "just to make sure".

 
At 23 June, 2006 16:25, Blogger shawn said...

We know NIST pulled a well orchestrated fraud, plain and simple.

Actually, nobody knows that because it isn't true. You, and others, have deluded yourselves into believing in some fantasy.

 
At 24 June, 2006 09:20, Blogger nesNYC said...

Excluding moronic non-points isn't wrong to do.

Well let's see, molten metal in the basement of all 3 "collapses" was not addressed in any of the "reports" so that is just one massive glaring omission. How is that moronic? I guess since it doesn't fit the official fiction then that makes it so? LOL!!

You're too easy.

 
At 24 June, 2006 09:30, Blogger nesNYC said...

So "they" set up a test to simulate a building being brought down by fire.

And the test fails!


Now let's think about this for a second. These "eeeeevil masterminds" manage to (supposedly) kill 3,000 people and bring down three massive structures without most people realizing what really happened....and you're telling me that they can't properly fake a test???


Well, all I keep hearing from you people is that you can't fake physics. The floor model test was simply to figure out if a catastrophic distortion would occur subjected under the known conditions at the time in the building. But what ended up happening is that very little damage occurred. They tried to hide these results for quite sometime so you know "someone" was pulling the shots here. I honestly believe a few of these researchers actually believed that fire alone bought down the towers but when they couldn't simulate this in the lab, that part of the investigation was shut down and omitted. Those in control then had to resort to the computer simulation to prove their hypothesis and make it fit.

They could not fake this part of the test because anyone running a similar test could logically deduce that it was fabricated. So if they fabricated the physical test then the whole report is in question. It's a bit harder to prove the figures were fudged on the computer model they used without knowing how the source code was manipulated. You guys see the results and then conclude the test is valid without knowing that a key part of the test could never work in the physical world.

 
At 24 June, 2006 09:35, Blogger nesNYC said...

If by 'omission' they did not consider the crackpot ideas that there is absolutely no evidence for, too bad.

You mean like this "crackpot" idea? Oh yeah, no evidence here.

 
At 24 June, 2006 11:06, Blogger shawn said...

You mean like this "crackpot" idea? Oh yeah, no evidence here.

FIRES IN RUBBLE?! STOP THE PRESSES!

 
At 24 June, 2006 11:44, Blogger nesNYC said...

FIRES IN RUBBLE?! STOP THE PRESSES!

No, molten metal (on fire?) found weeks after the event. Temperatures in excess of any fossil fuel fire, how do you explain that? NIST didn't even try, that IS an omission and pretty much invalidates anything else they cleverly fabricated.

 
At 24 June, 2006 12:41, Blogger shawn said...

No, molten metal (on fire?) found weeks after the event.

You do realize molten aluminum is a possibilty?

I'm sure that picture of concrete and rebar was molten steel though, right?

 
At 24 June, 2006 14:11, Blogger default.xbe said...

Temperatures in excess of any fossil fuel fire, how do you explain that?

and what temperatures might those be? fossil fuels can get hot enough to produce the yellow hot steel shown in photographs (and if they cant, better tell that blacksmith at the renassance fair he doesnt exist)

 
At 24 June, 2006 14:29, Blogger Alex said...

The floor model test was simply to figure out if a catastrophic distortion would occur subjected under the known conditions at the time in the building.

No, it wasnt, read the NIST report and you'll realize that. But regaurdless, let's carry on.

They could not fake this part of the test because anyone running a similar test could logically deduce that it was fabricated.

Bull. Who's going to have the resources to run a similar test? You? By that logic, they couldn't have used demolition charges either, because they should have known that anyone crashing an airliner into a building in the future would invalidate their story. If you're saying they were willing to fake all this evidence, they certainly could and would have faked the collapse of a model.

So if they fabricated the physical test then the whole report is in question.

You're questioning it anyway.

It's a bit harder to prove the figures were fudged on the computer model they used without knowing how the source code was manipulated.

Bull. It's much easier to look at a computer simulation and see where the errors lie because you've got all the physical data sitting right in front of you, and you can even experiment with changing certain factors in order to see how they affect the overall model. Hell, if I had all the pertinent figures, I could MAKE you a computer model to simulate the crash. The hard part isn't making the damn model, it's properly measuring/calculating all the forces at work in the strikes, the fires, and the collapse. If there was an error in the model, it wouldn't be in the programming, it would be in the data.

 
At 24 June, 2006 23:45, Blogger jackhanyes said...

and what temperatures might those be? fossil fuels can get hot enough to produce the yellow hot steel shown in photographs (and if they cant, better tell that blacksmith at the renassance fair he doesnt

2000+ C in some places.

I guess you have worked with steel before. One thing you realize quickly is that there is a lot of type of steel out there. For example, the steel used in cars from the 40 to 70 is very, very, different from the steel used in today.

Most blacksmithes use low grade steel, high carbon with a lower melting temps the low carbon alloy steel such as structral steel Mild steel, used by black smiths, is easier to work with because it doesn't require as much heating. Only after they have formed the piece do they do some heat treating it which rising the melting point. Even then the melting point is much less the then steel used in buildings.

They use a type of fuel called coke (no, not the black stuff from atlanta) which is a processed coal that burns higher then coal and needs lots of oxygen to burn. Noticed the bellows?

For local heating they use acetylene touch which burns between 3000 and 3500 C. And if you ever used one, you would know how hard it is to cut through realy thick steel. The whole damn peice heats up before you can cut it.

My experinces working with steel makes me question the OS about office fires melting the thick box columns in the building. Of course it wasn't the melting columns that brought down the building, but the trusses that FEMA made smaller then they really were.

 
At 25 June, 2006 00:14, Blogger jackhanyes said...

2000+ C in some places.

Sorry 2000+ F in some plces.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home