ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 61 of 417
« First < 11515758596061 6263646571111161 > Last »
Patteeu Memorial Political Forum>911 was an inside job.
Taco John 12:06 AM 02-09-2006
After watching this, I am once and for all convinced that it was an inside job...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...81991288263801


The evidence is way too strong.
[Reply]
irishjayhawk 08:05 PM 02-17-2006
I just read the BYU article and it maintains a relatively objective view as it cites numerous places for "further investigation". This implies he doesn't conclude 100% on what he has seen or discovered.

I also was unaware of the amount of omissions and errors (even some admitted) in the NIST report.

There's just so much evidence to the contrary that I have to believe the official story is simply, garbage.
[Reply]
WilliamTheIrish 08:18 PM 02-17-2006
Originally Posted by Taco John:
I would appreciate it if we could stay on topic here. There is a lot of science that has been thrown out here that I don't want to see put on the back burner to personal attacks. Even if Sybil, er Kotter (or whateer username he's using) is an easy target.
Hey, the science will always be there. The personal attacks? You have to get those when you can.
[Reply]
mlyonsd 09:32 PM 02-17-2006
Sorry, I aint buying the claim that fire couldn't have taken down towers 1 and 2 since the structural engineer in charge of building them believes fire was the culprit. If fire didn't actually do it one of two things would have to be true:

1) He was in on the conspiracy.
2) He doesn't care about his own integrity. If he didn't believe fire could compromise the steel he'd be out front squawking about it since it was his responsibility for the structure and his integrity under attack.

NOVA transcript

Also, I don't see how you can dismiss Eager's opinion but accept the guy from BYU, if you're being objective.

Eager's explanation of why the towers fell....sorry if it's a repost.
[Reply]
Logical 09:41 PM 02-17-2006
Originally Posted by mlyonsd:
Sorry, I aint buying the claim that fire couldn't have taken down towers 1 and 2 since the structural engineer in charge of building them believes fire was the culprit. If fire didn't actually do it one of two things would have to be true:

1) He was in on the conspiracy.
2) He doesn't care about his own integrity. If he didn't believe fire could compromise the steel he'd be out front squawking about it since it was his responsibility for the structure and his integrity under attack.

NOVA transcript

Also, I don't see how you can dismiss Eager's opinion but accept the guy from BYU, if you're being objective.

Eager's explanation of why the towers fell....sorry if it's a repost.
Even if you decide to go with this theory, it will not come close to explaining WTC 7 which is where the real bone of contention lies.
[Reply]
mlyonsd 09:50 PM 02-17-2006
Originally Posted by Vlad Logicslav:
Even if you decide to go with this theory, it will not come close to explaining WTC 7 which is where the real bone of contention lies.
Even though I think you guys are crazy my post was intended to raise question about certain claims being made.

Just stating something like fire couldn't weaken steel enough to make 1 and 2 collapse doesn't make it true.

I raised valid questions....why would the lead structural engineer sit back and have his reputation blown apart when he would be smart enough to be able to debunk it?

Just keeping it real dog.
[Reply]
Logical 09:57 PM 02-17-2006
Originally Posted by mlyonsd:
Even though I think you guys are crazy my post was intended to raise question about certain claims being made.

Just stating something like fire couldn't weaken steel enough to make 1 and 2 collapse doesn't make it true.

I raised valid questions....why would the lead structural engineer sit back and have his reputation blown apart when he would be smart enough to be able to debunk it?

Just keeping it real dog.
In all honesty, are you saying it would be impossible for him to be bought? What about the kind of pressure the government can exert on people if it desires to accomplish something. Hell they could have simply appealed to his patriotism.
[Reply]
mlyonsd 10:08 PM 02-17-2006
Originally Posted by Vlad Logicslav:
In all honesty, are you saying it would be impossible for him to be bought? What about the kind of pressure the government can exert on people if it desires to accomplish something. Hell they could have simply appealed to his patriotism.
Well of course I can't argue that it isn't possible.

But I find the chance of possibility very slim. If it were true think about how far and how many people would have to be "bought".

Four years later and its still a secret? Me thinks you've been watching to many James Bond movies on AMC.
[Reply]
Logical 10:12 PM 02-17-2006
Originally Posted by mlyonsd:
Well of course I can't argue that it isn't possible.

But I find the chance of possibility very slim. If it were true think about how far and how many people would have to be "bought".

Four years later and its still a secret? Me thinks you've been watching to many James Bond movies on AMC.
Just because the government does not acknowledge something does not mean it is a secret, nor does it require this vast conspiracy some folks around here imagine would have to occur. Only if you are trying to prove the governemt perpetrated the WTC act would that be required. I have never once suggested that to be the case.
[Reply]
mlyonsd 10:14 PM 02-17-2006
Originally Posted by Vlad Logicslav:
Just because the government does not acknowledge something does not mean it is a secret, nor does it require this vast conspiracy some folks around here imagine would have to occur. Only if you are trying to prove the governemt perpetrated the WTC act would that be required. I have never once suggested that to be the case.
And I'm suggesting enough people's reputations are on the line where if the "official" findings weren't accurate they'd be the ones bringing the issue up, not someone that doesn't have a stake in it.
[Reply]
Logical 10:25 PM 02-17-2006
Originally Posted by mlyonsd:
And I'm suggesting enough people's reputations are on the line where if the "official" findings weren't accurate they'd be the ones bringing the issue up, not someone that doesn't have a stake in it.
Actually that is a great argument as to why they now keep their mouths shut. For whatever reason, premature conclusions, government paid them for a particular result, patriotism caused them to go with the governments story, they now risk their reputations if they were to change their story. They actually gain by keeping quiet now.
[Reply]
irishjayhawk 11:50 PM 02-17-2006
mlyonsd - Fire could have indeed caused it! The charges used to bring them down actually caused the molten steel found WEEKs afterwards. Hell you can see the actual demolition charges go off during the collaspe. The NIST and 9/11 Commission reports both said the Jet Fuel burned itself out in 20 minutes. Thus, the "raging inferno" that is supposed to have brought the building down, had to have been supplied by office supplies. So I don't see how, that could happen. Moreover, even if the jetfuel didn't burn out, it won't make molten steel found many weeks after the collapse. Plus, the molten steel was found in the BASEMENT, meaning it didn't seep down there, as it would have left a track.

It just doesn't add up. I'm not saying who did it, just pointing out that the mainstream story isn't cutting it.
[Reply]
Hydrae 12:06 AM 02-18-2006
Originally Posted by Vlad Logicslav:
Even if you decide to go with this theory, it will not come close to explaining WTC 7 which is where the real bone of contention lies.

So I have read where they say that the falling of WTC1 carved out a large chunk of the bottom 10 floors or so of WTC7. I can see how this would seriously affect the structural integrity of the building. But, is you take a building and carve out a piece from one side of the bottom and it then falls, won't it fall TOWARDS where the missing part is? Not straight down?

Just another question that doesn't have a decent answer in my mind.
[Reply]
irishjayhawk 12:11 AM 02-18-2006
By the way, to whoever said the video loses credibility because of citing a B-52 Bomber crashing into the Empire State Building:

Originally Posted by :
1945 plane crash

At 9:49 a.m. on Saturday July 28, 1945, a B-25 Mitchell bomber accidentally crashed into the north side between the 79th and 80th floors, where the offices of the National Catholic Welfare Council were located. The fire was extinguished in 40 minutes. 14 people were killed in the accident. [1]

During the accident, elevator operator Betty Lou Oliver survived a plunge of 75 stories inside an elevator, and currently holds the Guinness World Record for the longest elevator fall recorded.
- Wikipedia.


He simply misread 25 for 52, which would be really easy todo considering the 52 bomber is much more common and modern.
[Reply]
patteeu 12:42 AM 02-18-2006
Originally Posted by B_Ambuehl:
So if you can't attack the evidence of someone's story attack their crednetials eh? If you can't attack their credentials attack them personally. hahah

Why don't we reverse this. Hell, just look at the "credentials" of George W. Bush. Son of a CIA director. Former alcoholic. Failed Businessman. Plenty of shit there to latch onto if you wanna take a hard look at him. Dick Cheney. Former Halliburton CEO. John Kerry. Secret Society brother to George W. Bush. blah blah blah

BTW, Von Buelow was former German Minister of Technology. I'm sure you can dig up plenty of other shit about him as well.
The supposed credentials were what banyon advertised when he linked us using the phrase "more scholars jump on board." He didn't say "a bunch of yahoos who share an unhealthy obsession with conspiracy theories jump on board." Since he advertised them as scholars, I think it's fair to evaluate what kind of scholars they are. In fact, even if he hadn't advertised them as anything, I think it's important to know something about the people who are trying to convince you of something including their expertise and their biases. You don't like it because this group turned out to be particularly lacking in relevant expertise and dubious in terms of their biases.

And don't tell me about the so-called evidence. You aren't any more qualified to evaluate that "evidence" than anyone else around here. Very few of us would be qualified to do so without extensive research on the subject and none of us have done that research. At best, all we can do is evaluate competing claims by "experts" when it comes to the technical issues. Credibility is absolutely relevant in that exercise.
[Reply]
Logical 12:49 AM 02-18-2006
Originally Posted by Hydrae:
So I have read where they say that the falling of WTC1 carved out a large chunk of the bottom 10 floors or so of WTC7. I can see how this would seriously affect the structural integrity of the building. But, is you take a building and carve out a piece from one side of the bottom and it then falls, won't it fall TOWARDS where the missing part is? Not straight down?

Just another question that doesn't have a decent answer in my mind.
Exactly, I point this same thing out much earlier in the thread.
[Reply]
Page 61 of 417
« First < 11515758596061 6263646571111161 > Last »
Up