Denial
Dylan's response to the South Park episode on their blog:
I know, it's been kind of quiet here lately. Been finishing up 9/10 [all 17 hours of it I am sure] and working on the script for the Final Cut.
Btw, in the slight off chance that Trey Parker and Matt Stone read this website, congratulations guys. Some saw that as a hit piece. I saw it as a subtle and careful way of delivering the facts without taking either side. [Without taking either side? They called you a retard!]
The episode was incredible, and I'd like to thank you. I don't need to go into detail as to why I think the show was on our side, I'll just say that, based on interviews with you two, Eric Cartman often serves as your personal mouthpiece. [Isn't Cartman the stupid bigoted one?] And every time a character brought up evidence, it was either silence or "Are you retarded?
"One even brought up the explosions at the base of the towers. This wasn't a poorly-researched hit piece. This was a calculated and brilliant way of flying under the radar.
But hey, that's just my two cents. Interpret it as you may.
Yeah, OK. And Dr. Strangelove wasn't a parody of politicians and the military, it was really just a brilliant way of supporting the arms race.
posted by James B. @ 7:35 PM
190 comments
190 Comments:
"And every time a character brought up evidence, it was either silence or 'Are you retarded?'"
Exactly, your claims are so stupid that they don't warrant a reply.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This guy has got to be kidding. All that episode did was bash on those morons. Give us all a break and shut up Dylan Avery...ARE YOU RETARDED?
DID HE NOT LISTEN TO CARTMAN'S SONG?
"I can't base my logic on proof/Almost all the evidence points one way but I'm like Charlie Sheen and Gloria Estefan/I need to know what really happened on 9/11"
(Dylan they mean "almost all the evidence" supports us.)
I bet Dylan thought the Hot Catholic Love episode supported pedophilia and the Mormon episode was actually saying Joseph Smith was a genius.
Forget the South Park. Don't tell me this egomaniac is going to upload 17 hours of his glorified wank of a trip to New York.
It seems the "D" in "Denial" is for Dylan...what an idiot. When this guy is 35 he is gonna look back and go..."Oh My God, what was I thinking."
TAM
If it wasnt explain why one of the characters worw 911truth.org on his tshirt for half the show.
And then they implicated every conspiracy website as part of a more vast government conspiracy.
God, you people are retarded. They said the entire "Truth" movement is a government conspiracy. Are you that blind? Christ on the Cross, people, they called EVERYONE IN THE TRUTH MOVEMENT A RETARD AND PART OF A GOVERNMENT DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN.
Matt and Trey weren't "fair" in their episode, they scewered you people at every turn. They weren't saying "haha look at the ad hominem the debunkers are using" they were saying "haha look how retarded the conspiracy mongers are".
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
Dog town if thats the case could you expain why screw loose change has 8000 views on google video while loose change has over 20,000,000?
Argumentum ad populum.
You shouldn't accuse people of not arguing the facts and then using a logical fallacy.
According to you (or what passes for logic in your moronic world) the greatest book ever written was Da Vinci Code (best selling novel of all time) and Titanic was the greatest film of all time (highest grossing film in history).
pdoherty76 said...
At least he has the guts to debate Fetzer tho, none of u clowns would do it.
-----------------------------------
You, doherty, are a dumbass. Typical Cter making statements that are pure speculation, and totally false. I'm willing to bet that most of us would PAY to debate that fat fuck.
----------------------------------
AND NOW ANOTHER MORONIC STATEMENT
----------------------------------
Frank said...
By using the word "retarded" over and over again, they are making fun of the "anti-truthers" like O'Reilly, who will resort to name calling and personal attacks instead of discussing the facts.
----------------------------------
Ummmm....okay guy. That's why the only time they ask someone if they're retarded is when they act like they don't know what happened(i.e. you guys). When Cartman said 1/4 of Americans believe in a conspiracy and was told he was retarded and then asked if 1/4 of Americans are retarded(i.e. you guys!), he was told yes, 1/4 of Americans are retarded(once again, they are talkin about you guys). But if you're into the Zogby polls, it's actually 46% of Americans who are retarded. And since when did Matt Stone and Trey Parker care about calling names? Is this the first episode of South Park you have seen?
At least he has the guts to debate Fetzer tho, none of u clowns would do it.
pfffft. You've got it backwards. Fetzer makes sure he stays in the safety of his 9/11 echo-chamber websites as much as he possibly can.
By the way, who do you think won the debate? Didn't Fetzer do a rly, rly good job of answering why no mainstream media outlet - foreign or domestic - will print the truther's garbage?
"Go to my website. Everything's there." Yeah, Fetzy, God knows knows we won't find your crap anywhere else. Like an academic journal. Or a trade magazine. Or the New York times. Or any major daily anywhere in the world (well, maybe in Iran). etc...
I would debate ANY of the leaders of the Truth movement in public (and I'm awful in front of groups).
My only request would be no mocking the dead. I think Fetzer would have to drop out with that condition.
Bubbers when u have to resort to calling people a fat fuck then u definitely have lost the argument
No, personal insults from us are just the last nail being driven into the coffin. The argument was won long before.
No, it'd involve Jones comparing the WTC towers to two giant trees, and us rolling on the ground laughing. Followed by Jones pouting and calling us shills.
What facts do you deal in, exactly? You haven't shown a single one, while you HAVE engaged in quite a bit of ad-hominem attacks, as well as misrepresentation of figures.
I would love to see all u faceless internet trolls debating Steve Jones on the physics of the collapses
So you trust 1 cold-fusion researcher over every structural engineet and cd expert. Basically, you look at thousands of informed positions, and pick the only one that supports your position. Surely you can't be so ignorant. You must just be trying to stir up trouble.
On the other hand, maybe you're a true-believer. Listen, I've got this million dollar inheritance in Nigeria. I just your need a bank account number to get it here! Interested?
Alex I deal in facts like the 6 second collapse of Building 7.
You know, listing irrelevant factoids which may or may not be correct isn't going to convince anyone. In a controlled demolition buildings collapse at near free-fall speed. And in an UNcontrolled demolition they can fall at near free-fall speeds. The speed of the collapse is largely irrelevant to proving what caused the collapse. If you knew the first thing about building collapses, you'd realize that. Your math and physics knowledge doesn't mean squat in this case since you're workign off flawed assumptions.
How can a structural engineer who believes they were demolished come forward when he knows u idiots will pounce on him and call him a nutjob?
The same way your brave nuclear fusion researcher does. Except a demo expert would find it even easier, since his peers should back him, and we can't attack his lack of qualifications the way we do with you idiots.
just making the point that my beliefs are based on science not anti semitism or other dubious motives
Not quite. There's nothing scientific about your argument. You start with the same base assumptions as all CTers. The only thing you have going for you is that you're better able to analyze numbers. The relevance of those numbers to your case is a different thing altogether.
Alex could you please name a builing that has fallen symmetrically at free fall speed without the use of explosives?
Can you please name a building other than the WTC which has been hit by a 767?
Can you name a building with a design similar to the WTC buildings?
Didn't think so.
Yes I would trust a brave nuclear physicist with strict academic standards to a regular engineer whos scared to speak up because he will lose his job.
Most "regular engineers" know their science twice as well as a physicist (they have to, they're specialized). Why do you think engineers make so much more money (on average) than physicists? They're more useful.
You think engineering professors don't have "strict academic" standards? And tenure? Way to insult an entire profession, and just so you can continue to feel special and enlightened. You're special, at least.
Alex I deal in facts like the 6 second collapse of Building 7.
Shame it collapsed at (a minimum) 13.5 seconds. That's just me watching it. The seismic records place it between 20-30 seconds (you can't see collapses that begin inside a structure).
idiots
When an idiot calls you an idiot, is it a compliment?
Oh and about your question about other buildings falling symmetrically at free-fall...I'd like you to point out which building did that. WTC5 maybe?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Is that the guy who's shown one angel with no sound?
Yes, yes, we've all seen Jovenko before. It's just too bad the same guy also says there's no way in hell that WTC1 and WTC2 were demolished. And the only reason he has the reaction he does to WTC7 is because of the angle he's viewing it from. I bet you any money if we showed him footage from different sides, he'd say the same thing about WTC7 that he did about 1 and 2: there's no WAY they were controlled demolition.
angle, rather
And you have the nerve to accuse US of being selective? How about showing the clip where he says WTC1 and 2 were NOT demolished? Don't you think that's a wee bit relevant, and should be included in any coverage of what the guy said about WTC7? You're a goddamn hypocrite.
erm alex could you please show me a plane that hit building 7? I didnt see one
Can you show me any other building in history built with thin steel beams, cantilevered over a power station, which took massive damage from falling steel and concrete, and then caught fire, which wasn't faught?
Well?
Tons of concrete eh alex? All i saw was concrete dust.
Oh, you were at grund zero were you?
Alex i agree with him that the towers wasnt a controlled demolition, it was just a series of bombs designed to get the towers down asap
Ah. That must be your scientific opinion.
You, sir, are an idiot. I've worked with explosives, you haven't. I wouldn't presume to lecture you about physics, so don't presume to lecture me about explosives.
If the fires in building 7 were unfought how could silverstein be saying pull the firefighters?
Were you planning on adressing the REST of the points, or are you going to continue acting like a retard?
Erm i have worked with explosives, but its very interesting that u assume i havent.
Well that's an outright lie. Which makes me question your "math and physics" qualifications too.
U dont need to be an expert to know that those towers were blown up
I think what you meant to say is "you CAN'T be an expert and think that those towers were blown up".
Right for all you selective evidence seekers who claim no CD expert thinks they were demolished have a look at this video in which a CD exert says 7 was a demolition:
Ok, you found 1 expert to say WTC7 was a demolition (based on a casual inspection of 1 video!!!!). The video even makes a point of telling how little he knows about WTC7. A casual reaction to being shown a video is not science, it's a first impression.
But we're the selective ones. Riiiiiighht.
Hey, I wonder if that guy lost his job. Probably not, he's foreign. Question: why don't any foreign engineers support the "truther science?" They don't have anything to lose. Where is the, say, French Association of Civil Engineers with a report that points to a controlled demolition?
Alex i agree with him that the towers wasnt a controlled demolition, it was just a series of bombs designed to get the towers down asap
We would've seen explosions, dumbass.
And did the bombs somehow survive the plane crashes and inferno? (The collapse starts where the planes hit.)
I've primarily worked with C4 and datasheet. How is that relevant?
Also I find it rather difficult to believe that a professional in the field of physics would constantly spell the word "you" as "u". Your behaviour on here suggests that you're, at best, a college student. So yes, I certainly have no problem calling you a liar.
If the collapse of the towers was unprecented and had a unique design then ALL experts opinions are exactly that. SPECULATION
Ofcourse. But if you really were a scientist, you'd understand that not all theories are equal. And you wouldn't be supporting a theory which makes no logical sense whatsoever.
so the fact is, building seven has confounded every expert and of all the engineers in the world,
Another lie.
For someone who "only deals in facts" you sure do lie a lot.
If the fires in building 7 were unfought how could silverstein be saying pull the firefighters?
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
source
(courtesy of debunking911.com)
erm maybe its because writing u is quicker
Yeah, but it also says something about your character. If I were talking to a 16 year old highschool kid, I wouldn't bother pointing it out because it'd be normal. It's definitely NOT normal from someone who claims to be a professional physicist.
Anyway writing on the internet with perfect spelling and grammer proves the assertion i made earlier about the anal retentiveness of u guys
Or we're sad about the dumbing down of America. The belief in invisible conspiracy theories and a destruction of the language are just two symptoms.
If you type correctly, it should be automatic.
"We believe there are secondary devices in the buildings"
Albert Turi, CHIEF of safety at FDNY
And? How does what they believed at the time have any relevance? Can you go ask the same guy what thinks NOW?
You know what, with every sentence you write on here you're convincing me more and more that you're lying about your background. There's no science behind your argument whatsoever, only the same type of quote mining and misrepresentation that the rest of your movement relies on.
"We believe there are secondary devices in the buildings"
Albert Turi, CHIEF of safety at FDNY
And a lot of people believed Saddam had WMDs. You don't seem to get the burden of proof is on you. You have to show the physical evidence for these secondary devices.
Also, the quote he posted was in an entirely different context.
In other words, you're a lying kid who doesn't know his nose from his asshole.
Alright, we're done here. Go pester someone else kid.
Burke even FEMA and nist dont know why building 7 collapsed. They said "even the best hypothesis of fire...has only a low probability of occurence(sic)"
NOTE: I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're correctly quoting the NIST report, and that the NIST report misspelled "occurrence."
----------------------------------
If the best hypothesis was fire damage, and there was a low probability of that happening, what does that say about the NIST's opinion of the demolition hypothesis?
building seven has confounded every expert and of all the engineers in the world, not one can give an explanation for it that doesnt involve explosives
No, it hasn't. You just quoted a report that came to the conclusion the building collapsed because of fire damage. There's a difference between "low probability of occurrence" and "zero probability of occurrence."
Ok Burke if ur going to quote a firefighter then may i be allowed to do the same?
If it's relevant to the discussion of Larry Silverstein's "pull it comment." Oh, it's not? Then why did you quote it?
The Chief of Safety was being pretty wise by considering the possibility (he said we believe) of secondary devices planted by terrorists. No wonder he's the Chief of Safety.
The burden of proof is on the US government and they havent produced a scrap of proof against osama bin laden.
Except for his confession.
well in the truth movement ur nobody till u get a troll on ur case
Someone must be new to the internet because he doesn't understand the term "troll".
By the way im 29, im guessing ur 17
"I am rubber and you are glue."
No 29 year old types like a 12 year old girl, just sayin'.
The burden of proof is on the US government and they havent produced a scrap of proof against osama bin laden.
Except for the martyrdom videos of the pilots, video of OBL planning 9/11, the history of the hijackers visiting AQ training camps, Moussaui(sp?) admitting knowledge of the plot, numerous confession tapes by OBL sent to al-jazeera (those CIA shills!) as well as statements by AQ taking responsibility, and the history of AQ terrorist attacks against America, for starters.
What evidence do you need?
What evidence do you have that anybody else did it? Affirmative evidence, mind you. I don't want to sit here and argue over some mid-level-FBI-official-who misplaced-a-verb-and-so-that-proves-a-conspiracy-because-FBI-official-never-misspeak.
I know im getting to people whe every spelling mistake becomes an argument in the debate
It becomes an argument when I have to determine the authenticity of the statements you produce, because you haven't provided a source.
You don't think it's a little odd that the NIST misspelled "occurrence?" Maybe not from the actual document? At any rate, I gave you the benefit of the doubt weasel.
The US trained osama, he is a cia asset and a very convenient enemy.
How many mistakes have you made in this thread?
Osama is not an Afghan, ergo he was never trained or funded by the CIA. Saudi and other Arab financiers took care of that. We only took care of Afghan nationals.
Christ, study this stuff before you start spouting off.
pdoherty-
Thank you for coming on here and being our punching bag for today. I'm trying to quit smoking, so I kind of needed it.
Can you come up with some arguments that aren't so easily refuted, though? It's starting to get boring. Like being stuck on level 1 of a video game.
Osama denied any involvement in 911 at first, why would that be?
Produce the video where he denies it.
Idiots like you believe that a magic bullet killed kennedy and u call us the nutjobs lol
There was no magic bullet. It went straight through both men and deflect off Connally's wrist. Of course you probably took a conspiracy nut at his word and saw an image with the bullet bouncing all around.
JFK was killed by one man - Lee Harvey Oswald.
How come you morons believe in all these baseless conspiracy theories?
pdoherty76:
So I am assuming you are 30 years old...a bit old for a truther...anyway, I will stop the mudslinging early, and simply say this...
If you are so convinced you are right, and if you are not a coward, come over to JREF, where there is room, so to speak, to have a legitimate debate on the issues...oh, wait, I am sure you have already lurked three, and realize you will be "pulverized" if you open your mouth.
Pick a 9/11 issue (not the pakistani connection/iraq war BS, but an actual 9/11 theory on the attacks) and come on over and present your evidence mr.mathematician/physicist. We have civil engineers, architects, aerospace engineers, and people without those credentials, but a wealth of knowledge who could kick your intellectual ass on any of the issues.
The invitation is there, take it if you dare...
TAM - EET, BSc-MedSci, MD, CCFP
Like hey man, I mean I am not a Hardley Boy.
And only some of the LC Crowd are such retards they don't know when they are being called retards.
Macrophage, how many of these conspiracy theorists do you believe have a diagnosable mental disorder?
If you include the personality disorders, I would say 10-20%, likely more common in there group than the general population.
In particular, schizotypal and borderline personality disorders, or at least symptoms of such (A complete history taking from an individual would be required to make the diagnosis), are very common amongst them.
TAM
Thanks!
I should have mentioned I was including personality disorders. I lurk here a lot, but I just don't see the reason to argue with these people most of the time. :) Thought I would ask a question that just popped into my head. I'm just a lowly MS1 with an mech. engineering degree.
jacob;
by MS1 do you mean first year med school? If so, don't sweat it, and get back to studying your anatomy...lol.
I had a fellow classmate who had his Electrical Engineering Degree when he got in. I myself had a Electronic Engineering Tech Diploma, and a Bachelor Sc.
if by MS1 you meant something else, than ignore the above message.
TAM
So, this thread represents the current state of the debate. A conspiracy liar named pdoherty76 pretends to have a degree in physics. If he does, let's simply close all the colleges and universities and be done with it.
He attempts to address issues that have been worn to rags. He has read nothing--nothing at all--on the subject. It's as though the Protec paper, Mark Roberts's new paper on WTC 7, the NIST report, all of Dr. Greening's papers (available on 911myths.com), the material on debunking911.com, the Popular Mechanics book, Fetzer's humiliation at the hands of J.R. Dunn (on americanthinker.com), etc., etc., don't exist.
Why bother?
Actually, biochem is what I'm studying today. I'm taking a break from anatomy today. :)
Another fantasist claims to "know" that the Twin Towers were blown up. What does he know that controlled demolition experts, structural engineers, and physicists don't? Why can't he put his knowledge into words--words that can be checked and investigated?
Tell us what the experts keep missing. What is, at long last, the actual evidence that proves all the authorities wrong?
It happens WTC7 was built over two electrical substations owned by the old electrical utility Coned. It's an unusual design. It has a series of cross truss steel girders that are literally holding it up and after it was built, they were the main support of the building. When the steel cross trusses weakened the building was doomed, the center had the greatest load and the heat from the 45000 gallons of fuel was concintrated in the middle of the structure and not around the perimeter. WTC #7 had a lot of damage from the colapse of the towers as well, some 20 stories tall.
There are two other possible contributing factors. First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
They stored 45,000 gallons of diesel fuel there, that was used for emergency fuel for generators and burned for 7hrs under the main load bearing supports.
They never explain how a 47 story building could be wired with explosives and no body notice. CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition. the current world record
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807
Physicists don't build buildings and don't use structural dynamics.
What makes him an expert on structural engineering in the first place?
What is his mechanical design experience with Structrial Dynamics
What is his experience with aircraft investigatoins.
Which crashes did he investigate?
What is his experience with building design and how many has he investigated?
The difference is that for you, and I, and Pomeroo, etc, we realize structural engineering and the lot is not our "expertese", so we rely on the experts to explain how things occured.
The CTists, whom many admit, don't believe the experts count for anything, feel that there eyes don't lie, so that from video alone they feel they can claim that WTC 7 was brought down by CD.
Rediculous really, but they are CTers, so expect little more.
TAM
rayzor hitler burned his own reichstag and blamed communists then on the back of that he brought in his version of the homeland security crew, how u cant see it is beyond me.
Actually, when the Nazis thugs came to set their fires the guy they blamed it on was actually there setting one.
I dont live in americathank god but if i did i would be shitting myself.
Thank God you don't live in the greatest nation the planet's ever seen?
Your God must shit on you a lot if you thank him for that.
Bush says "the terrorists hate our freedom", well youve no freedom to hate any more so u should be safe eh
No freedom? Weird, I can go where I please, say as I please, and live how I please.
And I guess 99.9 percent of my friends who rag on Bush nonstop would be locked away if we had no freedom.
It's a shame you hyperbolic morons spout about things you obviously have no idea about. You even said you don't live in America, so how do you figure you can tell us how free we are? I've lived here all my twenty years and I've never had any of my rights revoked.
america is the greatest nation ever seen? You couldnt even beat vietnam lol
...if we fought it like Korea or WW2 the war would've been over in months. We left because of the rise of the peace movement.
America is backward in my opinion. I live in the worlds greatest nation...GREAT britain
Yup, so backwards we were the world's first liberal democracy.
Sorry, we took your place after WW2. I guess you aren't very well-read when it comes to history.
yet when fetzer says 911 was an inside job the psychopathic pervert Bill O'Reilly tries to get the FBI on him
Bill O'Reilly is a private citizen, numbnuts. And he tried to get the FBI to investigate him. You act if the FBI is O'Reilly's personal lackeys.
It shows the mindset tho doesnt it? If having an opinion can get prominent right wing deviants to ask for the fbi to investigate u then that hardly promotes free speech
I've had left-wing radicals call up the Secret Service on me before. Private citizens can do what they want.
Leaders have been doing it for centuries
How many can you name predating the 30s?
if america has free speech could u explain why steven jones has been placed on leave? or why politicians are asking for the same to be done to kevin barret?
Jones works at a private institution. Freedom of speech is only a government deal - the Constitution is a series of restrictions on what the government cannot do (infringe of specific rights).
A private entity can fire you for anything they want, they have their own rules.
As for Barrett, his class is on Islamic studies not 9/11 conspiracy. If he doesn't teach what he's hired for they can take action against him. They're educational halls, not prisons for brainwashing.
did u hear about that 14 year old girl who was questioned by the fbi at her school cos she had a blog that was anti-bush? free speech my arse
You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre either. Threatening the president is a federal crime (she had a myspace page with images of Bush being stabbed), by the way. PRobably because people have assassinated presidents before, nimrod.
wonder why.
Because a very confused man, named Lee Harvey Oswald, decided to enter the Texas School Book Depository and make his mark on history.
no steven jones got the boot cos he was set up on a right wing radio show to sound anti semitic,
Wrong, I already explained this to you.
kevin barret can ask his students to read whatever he wants
No...he can't. I've actually gone to college in America, you haven't, moron. There's a Holocaust denier on the faculty of Northeastern, but he is not allowed to air those views with his captive audience of students - he can only teach what he is the professor of.
captive audience of students? hes actually holding them captive?
You figure a Brit would realize words have nuance.
You pay to go to college here. You take certain classes to make your major, and you have to be in the class. They're looking to this person as someone who has studied whatever they are passing on for years - ergo captive.
u should seen what he could do with those bullets, he made em turn in mid air
I already told you that's wrong.
This is how you think the bullet travelled.
Unfortunately, they have the men in the wrong position. Connally was off-set from Kennedy and lower in the car.
And here's how it really travelled.
shawn were u in dealey plaza that day> no so u r not entitled to an opinion
And you were in Great Britain when 9/11 happened, you're not allowed to have an opinion on it.
Isn't it funny, I destroy his argument but his (hypocritical) response is to say I wasn't there so I can't have an opinion on it.
well james files confessed to killing kennedy so that proves oswald wasnt alone
He actually said he was the grassy knoll shooter.
Unfortunately (for you) the two shots that hit could've only come from the Texas School Book Depository.
I dont live in americathank god
yes, we're all relieved to hear that.
but if files was a grassy knoll shooter that proves oswald didnt act alone.
He did act alone, the shots all came from the Texas School Book Depository.
Why will u accept osama bin ladens confession but u wont accept files?
I guess you missed the videos where he was with some of the hijackers.
thats right boys, keep making my case for me lol
You know what's great about science? People work very hard to make sure they have it right.
I guess Darwin was wrong because for so long everyone said God just created everything. I guess Einstein was wrong because Newton already figured out all that gravity stuff.
god your government is honest isnt it
Al Jazeera released it, moron.
At least post once without making an ass of yourself.
talking of global collapse, could one of you intellectuals please explain to me how uneven fires and totally different plane crash damage could cause global collapse in those buildings?
Ever played jenga?
could you expain why screw loose change has 8000 views on google video while loose change has over 20,000,000?
Like hey man, I mean, did you count all the versions of Loose Change? There's like version one, then I like changed it. Then there was version 2, and now I mena I'm changing it again.
Like hey man, we should call it Loose CHANGED and Loose CHANGED AGAIN
"Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake collapse", which could occur in "redundant" welded-steel buildings, such as the Twin Towers, only if every supporting column were removed simultaneously"
Guess who said that boys? A structural engineer.
Bulls*** you liar. It comes from Fetzer. Not an engineer by any account.
talking of global collapse, could one of you intellectuals please explain to me how uneven fires and totally different plane crash damage could cause global collapse in those buildings?
Are you ready to take an entire courseload in Structures? 'Cause there's no Cliff Notes version of this.
However, the short version is: How do you expect them to fall?
Doherty I was talking in language I thought you'd understand. When too much weight is on not enough support your jenga tower collapses.
That's why the tower collapses START WHERE THE PLANES HIT. It's the division between the intact tower and the "added" weight.
oh so ur saying the collapse was so strange that even nist had to change its story?
The NIST didn't find any support for the "pancake" hypothesis in the evidence, so they came up with a more appropriate one. What's wrong with that?
shawn u know nothing about einstein or newton
How do you figure? I think I've shown myself to be a well-read young man.
A reasonable expectation since they are the only skyscrapers in history to fall from fire
Only a moron could say something like that. They didn't fall from fire.
They fell from two loaded planes hitting them at hundreds of miles per hour followed by infernos.
but if files was a grassy knoll shooter that proves oswald didnt act alone.
Why will u accept osama bin ladens confession but u wont accept files?
Osama's confession fits the evidence, his resources, his motives, and his methods.
Files confession can be heaped on top of all the other confessed 'second shooters' who nobody on the 'grassy knoll' saw, or heard. Ergo, no evidence.
We had a case here in the US where a young girl was killed in a very brutal manner. A person just confessed to that brutal crime. Turns out, he wasn't even in the same state.
You might want to learn about equating evidence someday.
most jenga games involve jet fuel and planes.
You ignore the planes and fuel in all your comments, I didn't think you'd mind.
oi telescope, that qoute is from charles pelegrow a structural engineer
The quote you gave came from a letter from Fetzer.
Where is this 'pelegrow' working? What are his full qualifications?
i didnt expect them to fall.
This is why you are not an engineer. Most structural engineers had a very good inkling that they were going to fall.
A reasonable expectation since they are the only skyscrapers in history to fall from fire
Very few skyscrapers have such massive fires and the impact of the plane to deal with.
oh yes i remember the case of that girl. didnt ur fair media hold a tv trial for her parents and force them into hiding despite them being innocent. god bless america
That sound you heard was the point going over your head.
didnt ur fair media hold a tv trial for her parents and force them into hiding despite them being innocent.
How are they innocent? We still don't have who did it.
tomorrow u will pick up u welfare check
It's kinda funny seeing a Briton using welfare collection as an insult when he hails from the model welfare state.
building 7 wasnt hit by a plane.
A bigass skyscraper collapsed right next to it, though.
if structural engineers knew they were going to fall why did nist do an investigation and change from pancake to global
Can you rephrase that so that it makes sense?
Indymedia and Democracy Now!
Next you'll have us check the Weekly World News or the National Enquirer.
Charles the engineer...isnt he the oil rig designer guy from texas that fetzer loves so much.
Funny Doherty, you claim not to be a CTer, yet you feel the towers were brought down by Controlled Dem, you believe in JFK CTs, what am I missing.
Oh, and please give me the names of the four "Structural Engineers" you claimed earlier are in opposition to the official story (you know, the ones you said you quoted).
...let me see, Zuniga, Pelegrow, Oh and the two that Jones added to "Scholars" full time member list, despite them not meeting the very credentials that he set up for scholars...you know the ones that made Judy and Morgan leave, those are about the only 4 engineers I can think of in the field of buildings and structures that are against the official story. You might include Jowenko, but he only half supports anything the CTs put out, and that is based on visual evidence only.
Jeez man, the list of team leaders on NIST, just the leaders, is twice as long as the above. This doesnt include the hundreds of engineers that assisted them in the studies. Now if we get into the FEMA list, and the armie's engineers, well I mean, this gets longer than your arm...oh wait, they are all shills right...just nod your head.
Oh, and one other thing. Did you sign up to debate at JREF yet, as I invited you to. You know, a place where we can discuss a number of topics, without cluttering up poor Jim and Pats Blog...I didn't think so. Seems cowardice still exists amongst the CTs...oh wait, you said you are not one...my apologies.
give me a break. You come in here, act all high and mighty, and then you simply engage in ad hominems, ad nauseum in fact, and make absolutely no points, let alone points with evidence.
Scholars for 9/11 - F&*KING joke. A bunch of super left hippie professors with too much time on their hands. Amongst their full time members, they have only a handful of scientists with any credentials relative to the 9/11 attacks, and of those, even less have actually written anything on the topic. Yet these are the "leaders" of the "truth" movement...apart from the nut job, yes nut job, that is alex jones.
TAM
what a joke. Your whole crowd is a joke...a sad, sorry assed joke of whiners who are so void of any real life that they have to invent one to be a part of.
TAM
shawn u used a game of jenga as ur source so id stay quiet. i
I didn't think you'd understand a complex answer (you sure shut up after the JFK stuff, so I should've tried it), so I stuck with something even an infant could understand.
It wasn't a source either. A source is going "so-so at this publication said the best way to explain 9/11 is through jenga".
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/08/349170.html#democracynow
here u will see a full resume on Charles pegelow and see his open letter to democracy now
Color me unimpressed. The guy has been working on oil dericks his entire life. And he is a Civil Engineer, not structural. His opinion is also very much the minority.
building 7 wasnt hit by a plane.
No, just two other huge skyscarpers fell on it.
Oh and it then burned for seven hours, with absolutely no firefighting efforts and no working internal sprinkers.
No surprise it collapsed.
ull never be radio host like jones,
I don't want to be like Jones. He's an opportunist crank with minimal exposure. Art 'woowoo' Bell has more exposure and even he knows the 911 denier are full of crap.
ull never be a successful filmaker like dylan avery.
This must be one of those definitions of 'successful' that I am not familiar with.
telescope if you bothered to read his resume u would see that he worked on skyscrapers before oil rigs.
His resume says he did that for the two years just after he got his degree. Meaning that even by poor 70's Texas engineering standards he wasn't even an EIT, let alone a PE.
I dunno doherty, would you. Maybe over there you might be a rational sane person who would debate with facts and logic...I know your not doing that here, but who knows...the offer still stands.
As for a desire to be like Alex Jones, a relatively unknown shock jock for nobody radio...keep it, I wouldnt want it in a million years.
As for a "successful" filmaker, like Dylan Avery...ummm ok. The guy takes a bunch of other peoples footage, pastes it together, gets a friend to make some music for it, and then interjects his own "boy next door" commentary. Ok, is he a success, ya, I suppose, in the land of the internet. Talented...not by a long shot from what I have seen so far. I would call it right place, right time, and a tonne of luck...but we will see...see what the future holds for them...fame or famine.
TAM
well dylan avery hasnt made a fortune but for a filmmaker to have tens of millions see his movie all over the world with the possibility of cinema release, id say thats successful compared to an internet troll
Sorry, but my definition of 'successful' means that I can sleep at night with a clear concious. It does not mean I crap out a bunch of the most laughable lies ever put on video and pander it to clueless college idiots.
Why does Avery hide from Gravy?
as for alex jones. minimal exposure? how many hollywood films has art bell been in?
Several series, not to mention a video game (or two). But this isn't a d*ckwaving contest.
Jones is a great american, look how he got the waco church rebuilt.
rebuild the pedophile palace. Won-der-ful
Oh and have u seen the video where jones predicts the 911 attacks?
Have you looked at all of his predictions that he missed completely? I can spew out hundreds of 'predictions' and some of them are bound to come true.
funny how a crank can predict them but the entire US intelligence apparatus cant
They guy with a shotgun full of buckshot who getsa few pellets into the target does not haev the right to brag about what a great marksman he is.
why do u repeatedly claim that not one structural engineer supports us when i have named several????
Have either of these engineers (you've named 2 that I can recall) published their findings anywhere besides conspiranoia websites?
Do they even have findings? All I've seen is one guy make some off-hand remarks about a video and an interview with Alex Jones.
They have a name for this kind of thinking.
Oh and have u seen the video where jones predicts the 911 attacks?
OMG! Proof Alex Jones was in on the attacks. South Park was right!
He said on 25th July 2001 that planes were gonna hit new york and osama would be blamed.
When you make thousands of predictions, it's only a matter of probability that you'll finally get a hit.
He said on 25th July 2001 that planes were gonna hit new york and osama would be blamed.
Link?
Jones also predicted a 'suitcase nuke' within two years.. back in 2001. He gaurunteed it.
You really need to learn about the shotgun approach. Or do you think Sylvia Brown is a real psychic?
Jones also predicted a 'suitcase nuke' within two years.. back in 2001. He gaurunteed it.
Yeah it doesn't help him that suitcase nukes don't exist. "Foot-locker nukes" is about as small as they get.
Perry Logan's website documenting Alex Jones' lunacy is down right now, but here's a post with a partial listing:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1999057&postcount=5
It wasnt fluke that he said this.
No, it wasn't. He made so many predicitons and claims that one was bound to come true.
Learn about the shotgun approach sometime, m'kay?
i think ull find suitcase nuke is not meant to be literal.
Ah, so ignore the missed predictions. Gotcha.
By the way, have u clowns managed to debunk the anthrax fiasco that happened after 911. which strangely targeted opposers of the patriot act
How abot this: The second sentence of your comment above is not true.
telescope r u seriously offering me a forum as a source?
First of all, JREF has for more credibility than Alex Jones on his best day. Second of all, the page I linked was quoting from perry logans' website, which I noted in my post was down right now.
U should replace bill sexual harrasser o'reilly when he retires, ur journalism is as shoddy as hi
Why?
the shotgun approach? maybe the fbi should try it, then the attacks would have been susopended.
No. They would have been chasing down many false leads. You really aren't very good at this, are you?
which strangely targeted opposers of the patriot act
Yeah that's always good way to silence opponents, try to kill your enemies with something that will arouse tons of suspiscion.
the anthrax came from an american lab
Oh did it?
by the way, watch that video on google, id hate to think ur forming opinions without looking at the evidence
And I'd hate for you to think your the first one to ever present this crap as proof of anything. This is a case of been-there-done-that.
This is old and moldy. Alex Jones is a crank. You can try to promote his 'prediction' but the facts are he's full of predictions and nonsense. End of story.
Oh did it?
I love it when they beleive everything the conspiracy websites tell them.
telescope i notice u didnt deny that bush called the fbi off al queada
The CIA hunts al-Qaeda, not the FBI.
telescope i notice u didnt deny that bush called the fbi off al queada
Because its the same old Partisan back-n-forth about which party was or wasn't hunting Osama. you can spin this crap all day. If Bush did call off the hunt, he screwed the pooch bigtime, he's got few fans on this blog.
But in truth we are all smart enough to know better than this oversimplified tale you tell. There are many methods for defeating and anticipating terrorists, and 'hunting' them is not always the most effective.
Or are you discussing the more recent nonsense claim about Bush 'calling off' the hunt for Osama?
burke just put "alex jones predicts 9/11" into google video and u can see the video of him saying it
Give me the link. I want you to watch it yourself first and then tell me exactly what he predicted. Don't paraphrase, either, give me the exact quote where he predicted terrorists will fly into the wtc.
You're the one who thinks Alex Jones is a psychic, so you prove it me, not the other way around.
If you can produce a quote that remotely predicts a plot by OBL to fly planes into the WTC, I'll watch the video. Not sure what it's supposed to prove, but I'll watch it.
oh really shawn? so why is it the fbi's most wanted list that osama is on?
Being wanted by the FBI does not mean they 'hunt' you in foriegn states. That is not their job or their juridsdiciton. Please get informed about what these American Insititutions do.
the cia dont hunt anybody you fool they are an intelligence outfit.
Osama-hunting CIA unit revived. Now apologize.
telescope i am still waiting for u to produce evidence of the hundreds of false predictions that alex jones made, any chance i could have them before christmas?
I gave yiou one already. You mocked the source, since you area coward. The perrylogan.org site is wonderful for Alex Jones nonsense, but it is down. That's not likely to get fixed on a Staurday night. So grow up.
But for you, here is another one:
""Within 2 years I'm predicting...that you're going to see a suitcase nuke in this country. You're probably going to see a release in a few years of something communicable." --Alex Jones, Infowars (10/18/01)
why kill the enemy thats keeping ur people in check like good little citizens
If Osama bin Laden was killed (or even better, captured), you'd see Bush's approval rating get into the 50s (maybe even the 60s).
That'd be much better for him, and his party as a whole.
there never was a hunt for osama, they let him go in december 01, he strolled across the border into pakistan. why kill the enemy thats keeping ur people in check like good little citizens
That is an insult to coalition troops. Butg it is no surprise, like your hero Jones you'd attack Soldiers in a restaraunt.
Doherty, are you going to apologize to me?
oh so ull only watch the video under certain conditions?
Hey, at least I'll watch it. More than I can say for you. Now find me that quote.
I think we both know why you won't do it.
(almost at 300, baby! I nominate you for troll of the year)
ur rite shawn, and just when its needed osamas death will be announced. even msnbc has spotted that on 14 occasions since
Well, now would be the perfect time. Republicans are poised to lose quite a few seats they were previously assured. This election promises to be rough on them. Cutting things a bit 'thin' wouldn't you say?
But the same comments from the same morons were made back in 2004. "Osama will be captured so the republicans will win the election".
Same crap, different year.
on the day bfore 0/11 the pentagon announced it was missing 2 trillion dollars.
So?
burke ive watched it because unlike u i look at all the evidence not just the bits i can pass
This is obviously not true or else you wouldn't be making such boneheaded mistakes.
ok shawn, im very sorry that i have caused u to be obsessed with me
No you called me a fool for saying the CIA was in charge of hunting Osama. A real man would've apologized.
burke ive watched it because unlike u i look at all the evidence not just the bits i can pass to markyx for him to paste over dylan "suffers a lot of jealousy" avery
Ok, so it shouldn't be any trouble to give me the quote, right? You're the one who thinks it's so important that everybody knows the truth, enlighten me.
You still haven't answered what this alleged prediction is supposed to prove, either.
I do what i do because i passionately believe that 9/11 was an inside job and a hideous injustice and i want to wake people up to it.
You lot do what you do because you want to discredit a flawed film by three young lads that you dont even know.
No we do what we do because people like you have had your ignorance preyed upon and will prey upon the ignorance of others.
9/11 was not an inside job, no matter how much you think it is. You're wasting your time. Someday you may realize that.
thats very sexist of u to assume
I assume women are smarter than men. I've only come across one female conspiracy nut thus far.
I do what i do because i passionately believe that 9/11 was an inside job and a hideous injustice and i want to wake people up to it.
The problem is that you 'believe' and that with the word 'passionately' put in front of it indicates that for you this is a matter of faith. It is your religion, and Alex Jones is your prophet.
By comparison, we work with the evidence and the science.
You lot do what you do because you want to discredit a flawed film by three young lads that you dont even know.
Anyone who reads this blog knows that Avery is only part of the whole 911 nonsense covered here. Screwloosechange has covered LC, Avery himself, The Scholars, and other films and nonsense. We don't look upon 'truth' as some preconceived notion that fits our political agendas. We go with what the evidence tells us.
boneheaded mistakes? Im not perfect but why dont you tackle young shawn on his jenga comparison.
Shawn was trying to explain things in simple terms for your simple brain. There was nothing wrong with that since you obviously lack the capacity to read the multiple peer-reviewed articles on the collapse that are available on the web and in trade magazines
I know why. its called conditional bias
Please do not use terms you do not understand.
I looked at the evidence and formed an opinion.
And you got it wrong (just like with JFK). Try again.
I have already stated that my belief in the demolitions is a scientific one.
You mean pseudoscientific.
The science sides with us, sorry.
I do what i do because i passionately believe that 9/11 was an inside job and a hideous injustice and i want to wake people up to it.
You lot do what you do because you want to discredit a flawed film by three young lads that you dont even know.
Could you be any more self-righteous? That film isn't just "flawed", it's fraud. It's a crass exploitation of the greatest American tragedy of my generation. They're dancing on the graves of the victims to make a name for themselves. LC deserves every word of condemnation it gets at this fine blog.
Don't think we're not looking for truth, we just happened to find it first.
i am not ignorant and nobody preyed upon me. I looked at the evidence and formed an opinion.
You obviously have not looked at the evidence with a proper critical eye or else you would not be so cloyingly trying to point to a single Civil Engineer who agrees with you rather than the entire field of Structural Engineers who state otherwise. That alone marks you as confirmation bias and poor evidence examining skills.
Face it: You dislike the United States and decided ahead of time that your conclusions was going to be that the US gov't somehow pulled of the most brilliant and flawlessly executed conspiracy of all time. You selectively looked at evidence to support that conclusion and discarded anything that disagreed with that conclusion. Thus your disdain for the US is justitied in your own mind.
You are hardly unique.
there are thousands of families of the victims of 911
There aren't thousands of families that believe it was an inside job.
Which doesn't actually matter, because they aren't immune from being wrong.
half of americans as of about 6 months ago thought that only 2 buildings collapsed on 911.
Because the others weren't targeted in the attack.
I have read them all telescope, and my masters in mathematical physics is a good grounding for that.
Actually, it isn't. Physics is not specialized enough for proper understanding of many structural concepts. Quite frankly, as Physics person myself I can rightly say that I would not really trust anyone in my field to be critical of engineering works. I would not trust a skyscraper solely designed by Stephen Hawking. (Conversely, I would trust a SE to explain string theory or black holes).
I suspect that you do not have the degree you claim, and that you did not read those papers. The idea that you were able to discard the work and peer review of an ENTIRE FIELD OF PROFESSIONALS is an arrogance that staggers the imagination.
Admittedly im not a structural engineer but then again most people here arent. I would like to know how the uneducated amongst u do understand the evidence?
I can understand the basic works and concepts. They fit in with what I saw and know. I then rely on the professionals in the field to make certain the paper is without major flaws.
It has to do with the field and its professionals. When the vast, vast majority of them are stateing that the papers are adequete. The alternative means they are all lying (even outside the US) or all criminally inept.
Does it not bother you that not one 'troother' has come up with a real model that has been peer reviewed by anyone other than Philosphy professors and other irrelevant fields?
most people havent seen the evidence. half of americans as of about 6 months ago thought that only 2 buildings collapsed on 911.
WTC7 didn't kill anyone and was not a target of the terrorist attack.
Do you think WTC7 is some magic word that would make everyone think that Osama was not involved?
That tells me you definately aren't reading anything but conspiracy nonsense.
dancing on graves burke? there are thousands of families of the victims of 911 who believe it was an inside job, are they dancing on their own families grave?
if they make fraudulent claims in a specious documentary, then yes.
Curious: do you think the London bombings were also staged?
Al-qaeda couldn't have done them, right? You don't believe in terrorism or terrorists. They're like leprechauns, right?
Pdoherty76 has made the mistake of visiting a forum where the regulars know his canards and falsehoods inside and out. It's 2006 and nobody buys the bullshit about a "magic bullet" in the Kennedy assassination, either. Trying reading Gerald Posner's 'Case Closed.'
Now, I won't say anything bad about Great Britain, a fine country and a trusted ally. But here's the deal: Before boring us to sleep with stuff that has been debunked over and over, take a look at 911myths.com and pick out the topic that interests you most. Show us the errors you find in the information presented. Let's see how much of a truth-seeker you really are. Hint: are any of your beliefs falsifiable?
(i suppose u clowns will tell me those nasty branch davidians deserved what happened to them)
Uhhh they started the fires.
with regard to building 7 i think that is the single strongest piece of evidence.
Thus showing how bankrupt your entire faith is.
even nist and fema cant explain it.
Actually, NIST's preliminary report explains it pretty well. There's probably a lot more details to hamer out but suffice it to say that lots of damage + 7 hour fire can collapse a building. NIST is trying to find out exaclty how.
Of course, you;d know that if you had read what you had claimed to have read.
many builings were damaged but 7 is the only one that fell
Because 7 was the only skyscraper that was both badly damaged and on fire AND was a skyscraper. Not some 10 story hotel.
and it was the only one owned by silverstein.
Meaning nothing.
bankers trust took an absolute hammering from the collapse.
But did not have uncontrolled fires at its key structural points for seven hours.
talking of which, can ur structural engineers explain how pieces of steel weighing a 100 tonnes were embedded in buildings 600ft from the towers? does gravity force things sideways in new york
They don't have to. That piece you describe is nowhere near that weight and nowhere near that fara away. Stop using kooky sites as sources.
talking of which, can ur structural engineers explain how pieces of steel weighing a 100 tonnes were embedded in buildings 600ft from the towers? does gravity force things sideways in new york?
Your the physics major, you tell me. Ever hear of f=ma?
i havent researched the 7/7 bombings so i cant offer an opinion
You should probably get on that. It's well established that Al-qaeda is a just a CIA front group. That means the Americans were behind 7/7, too. You could take that case to the UN. I mean, that's an act of war against the UK. Why are you so worried about something that happened here?
does gravity force things sideways in new york?
Does every piece of debris from a collapsing building fall exactly, straight down? I suppose it might if it were a controlled demolition. Having something like, say, a fucking airplane run into a building at 500 fucking mph just might expel some debris away from the building.
please explain to me how uneven fires and totally different plane crash damage could cause global collapse in those buildings?
The jenga analogy was pretty good. Local failures can cause global collapse. Once one load-bearing beam fails the weight has to be distributed among the remaining beams, pushing them beyond their designed limits. Mind you, this is just me using common sense and basic civil engineering. If you want a scientific opinion, read a scientific opinion (that Alex Jones isn't spoonfeeding you.)
if i had been in that waco compound i would have shot as many atf as i could obnce i saw them firing at my children
...you haven't read up on Waco have you?
i think little richard mite have shit himself, he hasn't responded, bless him.
No actually I just went to eat dinner. Yes f=ma is a simple equation but if you can't understand the basics (which you obviously can't) I might as well dumb it down for you. What you fail to realize is that you in no way anger me or offend me which you are obviously trying to do. It is quite obvious that by the tone of your comments that all you are trying to do is troll. You clearly lack basic logic skills so I find it HIGHLY improbable that you hold any degree in anything. The manner in which you type also adds to my belief that your not even old enough to hold a degree.
If you really researched 9/11 like you said you did you would not be rehashing the same old points. It is quite obvious that your just another CTer, though unlike your fellow loons you attempt to make yourself seem more intelligent through pedantic phrases like:
"i tend to use f=ma in the 2nd order differential form rather than ur simplistic linear form"
Seriously you expect me to respect you as an intellectual with crap like "ur" and "i"? At worst your just another kiddie at best your terribly lazy.
You have shown repeatedly that you have no understanding of the investigations into 9/11. You also have no understanding of our government organizations, our politics or our system of government. You also dodge topics left and right which CLEARLY shows that you have no intellectual fortitude. If you had the knowledge and the degree to back it up you could easily shut us up, yet you can't. Since you have failed to address and properly refute questions given to you it is my declaration that you have lost this argument and as a result earned yourself the title "King Douchebag"
I will now retire to bed. This is the reason that I will not follow up your shitty attempt at a rebuttal.
jenga is the worst argument i have ever heard, but also the funniest so i thank u for brightening up my day
it's not an argument, it's an analogy to help you conceptualize how entire structures can fail because of local failures.
Dang, man. I'm supposed to ignore watching the towers fall, ignore the lack of any evidence of explosives, and ignore the opinion of thousands of engineers and professionals, on your say-so?
----------------------------------
I haven't given up hope on you. I should, but I believe every human has the capacity for common sense.
Let me put it to you this way: we both have hypotheses. You've done nothing but attack the evidence in favor of my hypothesis (the official hypothesis). I haven't heard a single criticism without a reasonable answer, but I suppose you would disagree.
Can you give me any evidence that supports your hypothesis?
Give me some evidence of explosives. I didn't see or hear any explosions like this. Squibs, which could be consistent with my hypothesis, but no actual explosions.
What about evidence of explosives being pre-planted? If an airplane can't weaken the support enough to bring the towers down, I would think it would take a pretty good amount of explosives to do the trick. Any evidence of these soundless, invisible explosives being planted?
What about motive? I hear from CT'ers that OBL had no reason to attack us. What reason did the Government have to attack not only WTC1, but WTC2, WTC7 (and only 7), the Pentagon, and flight 97?
That's a good start. 3 questions, I demand answers.
1. Why didn't I hear or see any explosions from the planned demolition?
2. How did the explosives get there in the first place?
3. Why would the Government risk exposure 5 times over when it could have just attacked on of the WTC towers?
Ok, it's late. Everyone has gone to sleep. Admit it, you're being intentionally obtuse to keep the thread going.
Excellent work.
I was kind of hoping we'd get this thing to 400. I'm not about to post 20 more times, though. Oh well.
burke they havent gone to bed, they are soundly beaten
Dream faster. It was freaking 1AM when I stopped.
You haven't pulled out anything new, so to claim we are 'soudly beaten' is just chest beating.
burke check out my blog. the jenga thing ive posted there should give u a chuckle even if u dont agree. the picture is great and i swear i never knew it existed
You still don't get it. This is why your physics degree is useless for what is engineering work.
Every entry on your blog is laughable, BTW.
my bog started 16 hours ago, give it time.
That baby is stillborn.
my next post is gonna deconstruct that schizo mark roberts.
Even if its a 200% improvement over what you've done so far, it will still be utter worthless crap.
pdoherty76
There were investigations and nothing was removed illeagly. Why don't you provide proof instead of opinion
S jones is a total unqualified fraud.
BYU Suspends Jones
He must have been getting close
you have not addressed anything about WTC7 except to just give your opinion, why is that?
http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645199800,00.html
to the Troooooooth!
"BYU has repeatedly said that it does not endorse assertions made by individual faculty," the statement said. "We are, however, concerned about the increasingly speculative and accusatory nature of these statements by Dr. Jones."
PD
As far as WTC7 goes which you still have not addressed
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
There was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 20 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
pdoherty76
http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm
Below is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/who/stafflists/academicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiadjis_George/Voyiadjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics
More links to civil engineering papers and other information concerning the WTC collapse...
Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.
Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.
Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.
"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.
Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.
"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.
Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.
"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103
Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.
Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.
Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.
National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.
Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.
Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)
Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.
Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.
The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.
"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.
You are going to deconstruct Mark Roberts (aka Gravy). Good luck. I am anxiously awaiting this one. If you do, you will be the first in a VERY LONG LINE of CTers. All have failed, many leaving JREF with their tails between their legs.
Mark Roberts spends more time and energy on debunking the crap the CTers spue than any person I HAVE EVER SEEN.
Like I said, good luck, can't wait to read your "Deconstruct" Of Mark. I'll let him know your intentions.
You want to debate somebody, Debate Mark Roberts, since he has already agreed to Debate James Fetzer in March, I would say you would be good practice...lol
TAM
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/firsttime.htm
Conspiracy Theorist bring up the fact that the towers were the first steel high raises to fall in history. The fact is the towers had a lot of first's that day.
There were a lot of first for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had it's fire proofing removed from it's trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had it's steel beams which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had it's vertical load bearing beams in it's core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with it's bottom floors on fire. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower fire had almost 40 stories of load on it's supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. Both lost I-beams from the heat. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.
I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.
Conspiracy sites point to the building falling straight down as proof the buildings were blown up. Even Professor Jones uses this in his paper as an indication of controlled demolition.
But Jones and others making this claim know very well that these buildings are not built like the towers. Most of the buildings they point to are steel reinforced concrete buildings or have steel reinforced concrete cores. Others are constructed with a steel web evenly distributed throughout the building. These buildings are not a "tube in a tube" design. The towers were steel without concrete. The towers perimeter steel walls were held in place by the trusses and those trusses were connected to the perimeter columns by small bolts. They also weren't hit by an airliner at 500 miles an hour.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire.htm
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/genfires.htm
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire2.htm
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire3.htm
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire4.htm
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/towers.htm
The towers and building 7 were essentially bolted together like an erector set. No concrete was used to create a ridged block or protect the columns. The steel webbing was pushed to the outer walls.
A challenge to conspiracy theorist:
1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high
2) Which takes up a whole city block
3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design
4) Which came off it's core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)
5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.
6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours
7) which had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.
And after all seven tests are met the building didn't fall down.
Anything less than meeting these seven tests is dishonest because it's not comparing apples with apples. Showing a much lighter 4, 5 or even 15 story building which doesn't even take up a city block, and has an old style steel web design leaves out the massive weight the 47 story WTC 7 had bearing down on it's south face columns. Yes, this is "moving the bar" back to where it should have started.
It is an absurdity to expect these buildings to perform the same during a collapse. This is why it's the first time in history these buildings fell as they did. It's the first time in history buildings constructed like this collapsed.
So what have we learned from the conspiracy theorist? Something the NIST realized long ago. Concrete makes good insulation.
pdoherty76
"with regard to building 7 i think that is the single strongest piece of evidence. even nist and fema cant explain it. many builings were damaged but 7 is the only one that fell and it was the only one owned by silverstein. bankers trust took an absolute hammering from the collapse.
talking of which, can ur structural engineers explain how pieces of steel weighing a 100 tonnes were embedded in buildings 600ft from the towers? does gravity force things sideways in new york "
I adressed WTC7 and you ignored it and seem to forget there was a 20 story gash in the building as well as a huge fire burning uncheched for 7hrs.
The 24' sections were the outer girders that were bolted to gether in sections thus creating a weak point at the joint. Every one knows that joints are always weak points. There was a 3 to 4 inch layer of concrete on the average floor. The floors were not designed to be self standing but designed for lateral loads. Contrary to what some conspiracy theorists say, the core walls were NOT concrete reinforced. The floors had little or no rebar just steel screen like that of home slabs.
The failure of the floor system led to a free fall of a mass of approximately 30 stories and 14
stories onto the 80 and 96, respectively, floor structure below. The enormous kinetic energy
released by this 2-3-floor downfall was too large to be absorbed by the structure underneath.
The impact effect generated from this upper part onto the lower part was surely much higher
than the buckling resistance of the columns below.
Indeed, such a structural system is based on the premise that the perimeter columns and spandrel members resist gravity and lateral loads. These loads are transformed into axial, bending, shear, and torsion stresses and deformations. The thousands of tons of downward force was turned into lateral force expelling girders sidways as they broke at the bolted joints. I guess 10000 tons is not sufficient to throw an 80 ton girder.
The lighter perimeter columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 appear to have used column-to-column connections with 4 bolts, whereas larger members presumably from lower floors used six-bolt column-to-column connections. Core column sizes vary, with some heavier sections at the lower floors having plates 4 inches thick or greater. The steel pieces range in size from fasteners inches in length and weighing a couple of ounces to column pieces up to 36 feet long and weighing several tons.
In hind sight there were a number of flaws in the construction, that may have helped the colapse. I saw piks showing the shear pins but they were designed for lateral loads not vertical. The truss mounts were simple "L" brackets, a dia brace on each would have made them much stronger and heat resistant. Perhaps this was the real weakness? The floor joist trusses should have had vertical supports as well for stiffness. There were many thousand of tons of floor pushing down on the already weakened outer load bearing members. The floors were not designed to be self standing and the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and designed to withstand lateral loads, hence, can implode onto itself. The pushed down colapsing the truss supports which were the only support for the floors to the outer walls so the weight of the concrete floors fell in the hollow section of the building with little of no restance one of the reasons the building was so light for its size, the only other floor support was from the core girders.
OK pdoherty76
You have yet to address anything I have posted or anyone else for that matter. Everything has been explained in great detail. You have yet to give the same explaination of your theories, all we get from you is opinion, conjecture and speculation.
You are so positive in your theories then back them up in detail with hard evidence. You all do the same thing when you have no proof you just come back with some dumb questions.
There are no benchmarks for these crashes to use as a baseline so every conspirisy expert can come out of the woodwork with silly theories and completly avoid the true facts and never give their qualifications to spew these theories, they just spew what ever theory that suits their agenda.
You keep quoting these type of people as experts even though they don't build buildings and don't use structural dynamics.
It is silly for me to keep answering your questions when you don't answer mine.
First of all default why don't you explain how it happened, it did so why don't you people explain anything instead of asking the same dumb questions? When a million tons of debris comes crashing down many things can happen that are difficult to explain. As I said there are no benchmarks for something like this. Can you explain how a thin piece of AL can slice thru a 3' palm tree or how a 2x4 can embed its self totally thru a tree in a hurricane?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ok stevew watch 9/11 mysteries and explain how a steel girder ended up in a perfect semicircle with no buckling or cracks
And what is the relevance of this? Is that something that can only happen in a controlled demolition, and not an airplane induced collapse? So you think it is a secret message of some kind? You brought this up, you tell us what you think it means.
I can't believe you guys are still arguing with these retards. Especially with the anti-American limey. It stopped being funny about 200 comments ago.
AV
As I said. When a million tons of debris comes crashing down many things can happen that are difficult to explain. There are no benchmarks for something like this. I bet you could have walked around in the debris pile and come up with a myriad of anomilies that woulg be very hard to explain.
The truth is already out there, but people tend to deny the truth and only stick with people who agree with them, no matter if they are educated in the field or not. They ignore evidence and simply link to other conspiracy sites without their own thought. They view experts like Structural Engineers or Fire Scientists or Pilots as the 'enemy' and 'paid off shill'. Why would they do this? Because it doesn't fit on how they want to see things. Just look at people who think Elvis is still alive.
These conspiracy theorists have taken fact out of context and turned it to fiction, they have carefully selected random clippings which were the extreme end of the spectrum not the mean average of the time, meaning it is a very skewed view of what we saw and heard during our present period.
Well it seems obvious now that the guy was trolling for attention to his spittle-attack blog. We've seen this stuff before, would-be's and never-weres coming in saying they're going to break down all the arguements and evidence we present.
As usualy, we get the usual paltry attacks, along with the usual debunked myths, along with a boatload of second-guessing. Its the same dog.
Alex
You are right. Talking sense to people like these serves as much purpose as licking a bald man's head to solve algebraic equations.
It's funny how this guy says he's got a degree in Mathematical Physics, yet on his blog he promotes "Screw Screw Loose Change" which actually uses bad equations. Seriously, the right equations is what someone with at least High School Physics under his or her belt should know.
Most "regular engineers" know their science twice as well as a physicist (they have to, they're specialized). Why do you think engineers make so much more money (on average) than physicists? They're more useful.
That'd be why teachers make no money at all while football players earn a gold mountain a game:p.
Oh and have u seen the video where jones predicts the 911 attacks?
That means nothing. Such predictions are spooky (my farvourite one is how the book "Wreck of the Titan" depicts a shipwreck so similar to that of the Titanic), but they mean and prove nothing.
dancing on graves burke? there are thousands of families of the victims of 911 who believe it was an inside job, are they dancing on their own families grave?
That argument goes both ways. In my eyes, it's the "truthers" who dance on graves by looking at only one side of the issue, rather than .
bush wouldnt even have had an investigation if it wasnt for the families fighting for one.
The fact that he's a moron is not evidence he was behind the attack.
most people havent seen the evidence. half of americans as of about 6 months ago thought that only 2 buildings collapsed on 911.
if all the ervidence were shown people would be truthers in droves
Nope. The people who know something about 9/11 will be the ones who are not swayed. All myths, from "global warming is a myth/harmless" to "Jesus Christ made a kid with Mary Magdalene" prey on ignorants.
That'd be why teachers make no money at all while football players earn a gold mountain a game:p.
Point taken.
Just to justify my comments, though, I'm comparing two professions in similar fields.
To take it a little further, I would say that football players are more productive in the grand scheme of things than teachers. Er... I would say that if I thought I wasn't going to get flamed into the 9th circle of hell, anyway. It would be a fun argument, at least.
I think we all noticed that you, pdoherty76, pointedly ignored my request to show us a few errors selected from the various topics covered on 911myths.com. Conspiracy frauds all have the same m.o. They're absolutely sure that 9/11 was an inside job, but they are devoid of any actual evidence supporting their fantasies.
Show us the errors in the Popular Mechanics book; in the NIST report; in Dr. Greening's papers. Until we see something other than empty rhetoric, we can conclude that you have no interest in truth.
Your critical faculties have surrendered to your anti-American prejudices and you have swallowed uncritically a load of codswallop. Hot air didn't bring down the WTC and it won't win your debate with rationalists here.
All myths, from "global warming is a myth/harmless"
Not a myth per-say, since the research behind global warming is rather....well, frankly, it stinks. There's very little question that we've experienced a small increase in mean temperatures, however so has Mars, and I can guarantee you that humans weren't responsible for that one. I'm fairly certain that the Mars rover is environmentally friendly :)
30 years ago all the scientists were up in arms about "global cooling", predicting the arrival of a new ice age. So I tend to mistrust a lot of the hype around global warming. I'm not saying it's not happening because I'm certainly not qualified to draw that kind of conclusion, but the research behind it isn't conclusive enough to convince me that it's caused by mankind, and it's DEFFINITELY not strong enough to justify idiotic measures like the Kyoto protocol. Although Kyoto would be a bad idea even if we had 100% solid evidence that global warming is going to continue and that it's created by CO2 emissions.
Sorry to go so far off topic, I just hate seeing legitimate skepticism of data being equated to claims that a building fell at faster than freefall speeds.
I just find it very funny that the conspiracy liars babble endlessly about "the evidence," and when you ask to see it, it turns out that it doesn't exist. How do they manage to dupe themselves?
What a douchebag. That is so so sad.
I wonder how all these girders got bent:)
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm
Post a Comment
<< Home