9/11 was an inside job!

[journey_man 0]

Originally Posted By: Oyuki kigan

7 pages! Mission accomplished!

And how!
Too funny.

So what's next?

[soubriquet 0]

Man has been turning iron into steel, and welding it, for the past 3,000 years. Now we have invented the sociologist. Make that women and turn the clock back by 3,100 years.

[Rag-Doll 0]

Oyuki, Mr. Wiggles,

 

You seem like a reasonable fellows and not likely to blindly hold to a view in the face of reasonable evidence. After reading the back and forth on this topic where do you stand now?

[Oyuki kigan 0]

Let me get back to you. After some of the posts, i took a vacation from this thread. The one link you posted about the building 7 evidence looked realy interesting and thourogh, so i want to read it fully before posting again.

 

Really, i am ambivolent. I haven't been convinced enough by either side to say conclusively what happened. I was playing devil's advocate for a while. Parts of both arguements make sense to me, and i have a lot more research to do.

 

Thanks for all the info tho. I really enjoyed your posts.

[thursday 1]

all this reading makes my eyes hurt.

 

the jury has been dismissed right?

[Rag-Doll 0]

Originally Posted By: thursday.

all this reading makes my eyes hurt.

the jury has been dismissed right?

Indeed. In fact the judge dismissed the entire case, saying that it was nothing more than a vexatious claim completely without merit and presented in a shambolic and inconsistent manner. Costs were awarded in favour of the defendant.

[spacefrog 0]

Ok sheeple here we go. It was fun to let it ferment while I did a bit more digging. Now soub, I studied your so called scientific analysis of the truss theory. Now you are basing it on some very weak premisses, namely not knowing how the WTC was constructed and using a simplistic and vague analogy of the structure based on a FEMA report.

 

I have read them and the nist report last night and conclude that their findings are so vague that it proves nothing. You all start with the idea that the first jet was fully fueled when on a Boston -LA flight. Well really out of the 24.000 gallon capacity according to CAR you will find that it will have no more than 10.000 gallons.

 

Furthermore FEMA does not specify on the grade of kerosene, again ask CAR about different grades and their flashpoints. Why do we use kerosene in aircraft> yes because it is not volatile and harder to ignite than other petrochemicals. So from the orange flames we can conclude scientifically that the fire was no where near hot enough to cause the steel to lose it strength over such a short period of time.

 

Maybe we can get a medium to contact Chief Oreo Palmer to ask him when on the 78th floor 7 minutes prior to the south tower collapsing, why he saw to isolated pockets of fire and thought he could put them out. Obviously if he was able to be there and thought he could extinguish the fires then your steel trusses were not losing shape bu actually cooling and gaining strength.

 

Further you all say that it was 1100F so the steel lost strength and it didn`t melt. Fine so can someone please explain calmly and scientifically how NASA pics of ground zero show temperatures of max750C in places and the reports of molten steel everywhere for weeks. How does that work? I just cannot understand. You are all so quick to throw out the molten steel. Actually let`s see fact 13 on the NIST site, how they found molten steel but thought it was irrelevant and didn`t bother to investigate it.

 

Oh but wait there was no core according to NIST and you all think it was a steel tube :-s, where does that come from? FEMA underestimates and generalises the core by saying that it was free standing. Hmmmmm no it wasn`t, boxed steel frames gradually becoming h beams. All made in Japan from high grade steel bolted together to form a very tough cage as the main support.

 

Anyway for all you Micheal Shermer disciples of antiscience and propaganda, please read.

 

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/sciam/index.html#meltedsteel

 

And

 

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

 

including schematics and blueprints so you can actually see how the floors were constructed. Why were they supressed from release to the general public until last year? And the whole site is well organised with scientific facts about the structure and is well referenced.

 

So go read it and come back and shout some more personal insults because you can`t win your argument. Also before you label people conspiracists, please understand what that means. I know the word has been usurped to refer to revisionists but really as native speakers you should all know what they both mean.

 

I am so disturbed at the naivety displayed here and unwillingness to question anything that goes outside the realm of your supposed knowledge. Oh and Sociology was a little off the mark, I have an M.A in Philosophy and Politics and Ph.d in Philosophy(logic). So you can all laugh but unfortunately logic underpins all your legal, scienctific and engineering disciplines.

 

So let`s go reading and deprogramming our heads.

[Rag-Doll 0]

Originally Posted By: spacefrog

Fine so can someone please explain calmly and scientifically how NASA pics of ground zero show temperatures of max750C in places and the reports of molten steel everywhere for weeks. How does that work? I just cannot understand.

So NASA was in on it as well? I thought as much. Those SOBs, they weren't satisfied with faking the moon landings now they're getting in on 911 as well.

Well done Froggy, you've converted me!


If we say we believe, will you go away?

[JA2340 16]

 

 

Originally Posted By: spacefrog

...I am purely refuting the official theory and not offering any other in place.

 

Now, if that ain't a waste of effort, then nothing is! Without offering an alternative, you are basically saying that the official answer is the best one, but you aren't convinced? Unless you can offer a reasoned alternative argument, It would be my sugestion that you should quit while you are behind.

 

 

Originally Posted By: spacefrog

As for my second sentence, well if you don`t get that you never will so it`s pointless to explain.

 

I was once married to a shrink lady for whom that was the "killer argument". Whenever I asked for an explanation, I was told "If I have to explain, it isn't worth it." In my experience, if someone asks for an explanation, it is because the original statement was not adequately explained. If you are unwilling to explain, I (for one) will assume it is because you CANNOT! In that case, the argument will have reached its use by fate - no further input (or even reading of the thread) from me.

[Mantas 3]

I think I know the real truth to what happened.

[thursday 1]

I really don't give.... anymore.

[Mantas 3]

Lee Harvey Oswald was never killed by an angry mob. No, he was made the fall guy by the CIA for JFK's murder in 1963 and detained in a secret location all these years.

 

He bought his way out of captivity in 1997 from monies provided by the British secret service. In return for his freedom he organized the assassination of Princess Di and Dodie al Fayed because she was pregnant with Dodie's child.

 

He harbored a lot of resentment for the CIA for his framing of JFK's murder and subsequent incarceration. He wanted revenge.

Now, we all know that Osama bin Laden is really the head of the CIA, he was secretly promoted to leader during the Iran/Iraq war in the 80's. (now can you see where this is going?)

He organized the demolition of the WCT's and made it look like a terrorist attack and ultimately framed Osama for job.

 

Now if I could just prove he had something to do with that fake moon landing in 69......

 

BTW. I have a trade certificate in Air-conditioning.....does that count for anything?

[Mantas 3]

Originally Posted By: thursday.

I really don't give.... anymore.

Neither do I, but I just read 7 pages, so I feel I deserve to be a smart-arse.

[journey_man 0]

I think it's going to rain.

[Rag-Doll 0]

Originally Posted By: Mantas

Lee Harvey Oswald was never killed by an angry mob. No, he was made the fall guy by the CIA for JFK's murder in 1963 and detained in a secret location all these years.

He bought his way out of captivity in 1997 from monies provided by the British secret service. In return for his freedom he organized the assassination of Princess Di and Dodie al Fayed because she was pregnant with Dodie's child.

He harbored a lot of resentment for the CIA for his framing of JFK's murder and subsequent incarceration. He wanted revenge.
Now, we all know that Osama bin Laden is really the head of the CIA, he was secretly promoted to leader during the Iran/Iraq war in the 80's. (now can you see where this is going?)
He organized the demolition of the WCT's and made it look like a terrorist attack and ultimately framed Osama for job.

Now if I could just prove he had something to do with that fake moon landing in 69......

BTW. I have a trade certificate in Air-conditioning.....does that count for anything?

I knew it!

[journey_man 0]

Originally Posted By: Mantas

BTW. I have a trade certificate in Air-conditioning.....does that count for anything?

Only if it is from an Ancient Technical College that you refuse to divulge on the basis that to do so would invoke a curse from the ancient ancestors of the Illuminati that would genetically alter your entire bloodline for eternity, causing delirium, madness and unfortunate posting.

[TJ OZ 0]

A question to space frog. Do you believe that the records of events that occurred in the following are factual.

Princess Diane's death

Moon landing

JFK

 

[Go Native 70]

Originally Posted By: spacefrog

Oh well and why should I tell you what degrees I have from which university, how is it relevant anyway?

This is probably the key to why you are the way you are Spacefrog. Being able to verify the credentials of someone who makes certain claims is just about, well...everything! You see in the world of real science, if a scientific paper is published the first thing other scientists will want to check on is if the paper was published in a credible publication. They do this because that publication will already have done some checks on the credentials of the writer of the paper and that basic scientific methodology has been applied. Then the paper will be reviewed by peers throughout the world and the methodology, results and conclusions rigorously scrutinized. After all this the scientific community will be able to make a very informed decision on whether the paper has made a contribution to our understanding of the world around us.

Knowing what degrees you supposedly have makes all the difference in the credibility of the arguments you bring to this forum on certain subjects. Previously you believed yourself to be somewhat an expert on human enhanced global warming and now you're an expert on structural engineering. And yet we still have no idea what scientific background you have that allows you to comment with such certainty on these subjects.

If you fail to see why your academic background has nothing to do with how we should view your comments on this forum then it explains perfectly to me how you allow yourself to be swayed by ridiculous crackpot conspiracy theories. Not understanding why your credentials are important means you don't understand why the credentials of those you get your information from are important. In the age of the internet just about anyone, anywhere can publish just about anything regardless of their qualifications in the field they publish on. Knowing the credentials of those that make comments is paramount. So if you want to be taken seriously at all please inform us of your academic credentials that allow you to comment with any authority on subjects like global climate change or planes crashing into buildings.

[journey_man 0]

The moon landing, hello! Has to be true, you couldn't fake a thing like that!

JFK - it's as per the official version, Lee Harvey was framed.

 

Now Princess Di is the interesting one. It's amazing the the real truth hasn't been allowed to come out, but it's out there for those who are prepared to do a little research. You have to look in the right places though.

 

She's still alive of course.

 

Consider the position, you know for a fact that MI5 has been contracted to take you out, you're pregnant, Dodi is starting to press you for marriage and you are totally tired of the constant pressure and turmoil of public life. In short you want it to all go away.

 

Princess Di knew for some time about MI5's plot and had plenty of time to prepare for them. And what an amazing job she did.

 

Think about it, the official reports never conclusively proved that it was in fact her body. There are no DNA proofs, no conclusive dental matches and NO PREGNANCY WAS FOUND. This in spite of everyone around her knowing she was pregnant. Granted, to find and create such a good body double is difficult to comprehend, however this in no way alters the fact that it was done and done well.

 

So where did she go? Well it's all there for the looking, but I think I will respect her obvious desire for privacy and not lay it all out for those who are simply out for some irresponsible glory. Suffice to say she has all the privacy she desires.

[spacefrog 0]

And so SJ`s intelligentsia speaks, and again if you can`t win the argument resort to name calling and ridiculing.

 

Just can`t understand why you all are so desperate to defend this. It`s so obvious you never read any of the evidence nor saw the blue prints and schematics which I presented.

 

So next best thing make it personal and ridicule someone or are we going to claim trolling again because my view doesn`t fit in with your own beliefs.

 

Obviously we need to have an English lesson again, Conspiracy means 2 or more people concocting a story to distort the truth. So please point out how I was conspiring and with whom??? As I pointed out earlier I am for revising which happens to mean a person or persons wanting to change something to reflect better accuracy.

 

Anyway keep trolling away and applying your kindergarten logic to everything.

[spacefrog 0]

Originally Posted By: JA

...I am purely refuting the official theory and not offering any other in place.

Now, if that ain't a waste of effort, then nothing is! Without offering an alternative, you are basically saying that the official answer is the best one, but you aren't convinced? Unless you can offer a reasoned alternative argument, It would be my sugestion that you should quit while you are behind.

OK more kindergarten logic how the hell do you conclude I support the official theory even if I am not convinced. That`s hysterical.

So we need to give an alternative otherwise the original theory stands. No you are just so deluded, the original theory is so flawed it can never be true. So because I don`t give an alternative it automatically validates the theory I refute.

Going to have to remember that one

[TJ OZ 0]

Mine was a legitimate question

[Go Native 70]

Once again (we have been through this before) please advise the name/names you have been called. Also, as in the argument over global warming, I have not stated at all my own opinion on this subject yet you seem to believe my comments are because your view doesn't fit mine. How do you come to that conclusion? What exactly am I defending if I haven't even stated my own position? And please, I have not tried to 'win' any argument with you as I do not believe you have ever presented an argument coherent enough to actually win against.

 

I don't have any problem with you presenting your opinion on something. I do have a problem with you forcefully pushing your opinion as though it's fact when you have obviously no academic credentials whatsoever to make enough of an informed opinion to have such certainty. Oh by the way from what university did you get your degrees? It's important to know when there are websites like the following Online College Degree based on life experience where you can easily purchase degrees with no study whatsoever. And using words like 'sheeples' to describe the rest of us poor, uninformed, brainwashed masses I think falls under your description of "name calling and ridiculing".

 

Lets look at the author of the blue prints and schematics you presented. Jim Hoffman is a software engineer and is respected for his work on the visualisation of Costa's minimal surface. This guy is a scientist, no doubt about it, but his work on the 9/11 stuff seems to me to be a little out of his field of expertise. If he was an eminent scientist in the field of structural engineering then I would give much more credence to his assertions. Having had scientific training he certainly knows how to present something that appears very well researched but have his assertions been published in a credible publication other than on his own website? Has his assertions been peer reviewed by those actually working in the field of structural engineering? I think not...

 

So spacefrog if you were to say that you 'believe' he makes good points and invited us to read and make our own decisions I wouldn't have an issue. You don't do this though, you want us to read what you have and come back and completely agree with you. If we don't you carry on with comments like "I am so disturbed at the naivety displayed here and unwillingness to question anything that goes outside the realm of your supposed knowledge.". Believe me some of us are more than a little disturbed by some peoples willingness not to question everything and to believe anything outside the realms of their knowledge.

 

 

 

 

[Mantas 3]

OK Spacefrog, I'll try to take you seriously from now on. (this will be difficult).

I don't have any degrees in logic, philosophy or whatever. I do however hold some engineering qualifications. I don't however agree totally with GN about the relevance of qualifications in this debate.

I have spent the 26 years working in commercial multistory buildings, old and new. I've been involved with the construction and maintenance, additions, repairs ect. I've worked in and on the roofs, under the floors in the shafts, been involved with the power supply, sub stations, generators, boiler plants, Air-con plants ect. These are my qualifications I feel are relevant here.

>Anyway this still doesn`t explain the foundations and the molten metal for weeks at the bottom of ground zero nor the sulphur found. And really it explains nothing about the fire crews and eyewitnesses that reported explosions and other anomalies over their 2 ways during the whole event. Obviously they are 911 nutters.<

 

Explosions and other anomalies ???

 

A farking big jet plane just hit a massive sky scraper in the middle of New York city! What do you consider to be the normal procedure for this sort of event?

I think you would get a lot more credibility on SJ's Spacefrog if you stopped thinking of yourself as an eagle of intelligence circling high about the moronic masses. Kindergarten taunts like sheeples wont help either.

[Go Native 70]

Qualifications don't have to be an academic record Mantas. As in your case they can be a lifetime of practical experience. It's just degrees in sociology and philosophy don't in my book make someone able to comment with such authority on subjects like climate change and structural engineering.

 

I for instance am not actually trying to debate the engineering aspects of the WTC collapse because I personally know very little at all about strutural engineering. I will though debate the relevance of comments by people who claim to have superior knowledge in a field they have no specialised knowledge or experience in. I will welcome their opinions as long as they don't push them as truths that we lesser minds seem unable to grasp.