If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Ain't you got nothing better to do on your birthday?
you can make phone calls or check on the net with demolition companies ...no scientists needed ...to discover that pulling a fifty storey building with explosives couldn't be done in less than a month.
watch the landlord in action here ...then explain it for me ...http://www.911sharethetruth.com/extras/SilversteinBdg7.wmv
Initially, most of us fell for their version of the events.
But then came the slip-ups. The leaseholder of the World Trade Center admitted on PBS in 'Rebuilding America' that WTC-7 was 'pulled' on 9/11 (See video here in Windows Media Format), which is the standard slang for controlled demolition.
Look at the tapes from that day when TV anchors, Aaron Brown and Dan Rather first said the very same words about the collapses. Firefighters and rescue workers talked about explosives and bombs going off, all over in the buildings.
Recall the horrific images of the over 100-story towers coming down at free-fall speed, defying the laws of physics.
Recall the engineers who first stated that the planes and fires alone could not have caused the deadly collapse.Now the evidence is gone, witnesses silenced, and an independent, real investigation never happened. Sure, it is hard to accept that we have all been fooled so long, but only discovering and facing the truth will set the U.S. free.
I refer you to my previous post on WTC7, going in circles makes me dizzy.
Please explain, (without using google if possible), which laws of physics were being defied.
I'm also quite interested in how those fiendish folks at the PNAC managed to get the laws of physics enrolled on their side in the conspiracy.
Were they "Fucking hell!"?
Bravo VR. a truly enquiring mind!
You migt care to check the background of your Thomas Eagar as well. Youll find his subsequent appointment by the Bush admin to a comfy Federal Research Council a telling indication of why he, a specialist in exotic welding alloys (not structural analysis), would have been motivated to posit an article of unevidenced claims to endorse the equally, to date, non-conclusively substantiated "official" explanation of what is demonstrably the controlled demolition of three buildings.
As previously pointed out, those clamouring for a piece of the post-911 WoT industry and its exhorbitant budgetary winfalls need have no direct complicity in the orchestration of the event itself, merely a willingness to endorse the status quo paradigm without question after the fact.
Remember, just as Prof. Jones from BYU was shutdown from public speaking by BYU officials, many of the top Univeristies in the US are annual recipients of substantial federal R&D grants. Grants which this administration can and would threaten to end if Universities allowed their professors to question the company line too publically. MIT itself would risk nearly $10 million/year in federal funding. Not something the modern US university enterprise can afford.
Essentials of Engineering (ESD.02), Kinetics and Thermodynamics (3.205). That indicates to me that he might know a thing or two on subjects like fires and building collapses.
Your reasoning seems to be that
1)Universities get money from the government.
2)The government lies.
3)Therefore anybody who works in a university is lying.
Can you refute anything the man actually says about the World Trade Centre?
This theory is rooted in the original fraudulent structural model of the central core set forth in the FEMA report and subsequently repeated without investigation or question even by so called quality news agencies like the BBC.
The suspension of the laws of physics hearken back to the clear visual record of the not only the individual floors cascading down but the entire central structure as well, ALL AT FREEFALL SPEEDS. This means that the undamaged, non-fired bulk of the buildings would have had to collapse, for no adequately explained reason, ahead of the upper stories so as to provide no natural resistance or toppling of the upper segments.
It also begs the question of why the multiply-redunadant stress bearing central core - 47 box collumns in total - were equally dropped into the buildings' footprints as opposed to remaining largely intact.
The official claim defies all precedented normative behavioral characteristic for collapses deemed "asymetrical". ALL the WTC collapses were "symmetrical", empircally verifiably so.
Since we have addressed, repeatedly, the falsity of the "raging fire" theory with evidentiary testimony from firefighters on the scene on the day as well as the fact that kerosene-based jet fuel would not reach temperatures sufficient (especially so in an oxygen-poor fire such as what we had in the WTC towers) to weaken the ACTUAL strucutral design of those buildings (Eagar falsely presumes the floors were connected to the core merely with angle clips, when in fact each floor truss was also embedded in solid concrete along the inner core framework).
Nevermind that several machine floors dotted throughout the structures were doubly reinforced with secondary cross-struts adding further strength to floors below the imapct site and further confounding any legitimacy to the "pancake" theory".
I suggest you adopt a more courtroom approach to your corroborators and take stock of political/career motivations as well as more detailed indications of their actual areas of expertise. In doing so you might just find them equally as impeachable as you seem to so easily find those who point out the most logical and obvious inconsistencies.
For further reading, note that others have taken Eagar's article and its array of assumptions and addressed them point by point in light of what we DO know.
http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/6099_comment.php
I'm pointing the man towards some unanswered questions raised by the answers to the previously unanswered questions. I thought "truth-seekers" liked that kind of thing.
And what do your 'experts' wear, patchwork tie-dyed dungarees?
Now we all know the US government is responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Either they did them directly and it's a giant cover up.
Or, the various dicking about they have done with other peoples lives has come back to haunt them and they are responsible indirectly.
No one is bombing Switzerland, are they?
Rational minds would consider this fact in line with the ethos that has come to hold sway in US domestic public discourse, namely avoid being singled out as a dissenter. Those who have challenged this admin or attempted to seek injunctions against it have been systematically gagged or smeared.
In the end it comes down to application of reason. Denial of it to remain safely ensconced on the bandwagon is far easier and far more potentially lucrative for the academic and commerical sectors than risking censure by those with the most to hide (and with the demonstrable character of stonewalling all scrutiny since they took office in 2000).
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html (wth link to his article)
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00.html
You might also note that former Underwriters Laboratory (UL) excutive Kevin Ryan also put direct challenge to NIST authorities on their findings of the structural integirty of the UL certified steel used in the WTC towers and, as previously noted, was not only stonewalled by NIST but subsequently disavowed by UL senior executives and fired.
Not surprising why other keen minds might be reticent in challenging the now entrenched populist paradigm of the "official" conspiracy theory.
That's it? That's all you have to back it up? You have *one* guy against all the other physicists? Steven "cold fusion" Jones at Brigham Young University in the middle of fucking Mormon country? You think all the other physicists have been bought off but for this one brave guy? Have you got any reason to agree with him apart from the fact that he backs up what you want to believe?
*He* doesn't think he's been gagged - do you understand the difference between the words "censure" and "censor"? Or is he now saying he's not been censored in an act of self-censorship to ward off the censors who censored all the other physicists in the USA, and presumably, in every other country as well?
http://www.newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724
For fuck's sake...
So earlier circulars of the BYU disavowal were false, Not being at BYU, one takes reports as they come, unlike yourself who thinks the mistaken assertion of the reactions to his work somehow nullifies the substance of it. Strange and desperate angle you adopt indeed.
Just what one would expect from a populist naysayer as you've proven yourself to be. Carry on...
[Edited to add: Oh and yes i am sufficiently aware of the difference between censure (to make official disaproval/criticism of) and censor (to prevent from publication/dissemination/broadcast) which is why I correctly referred to what had been reported of the BYU response as "censure".
From BYU's own site:
The above is quite clearly censure and expectedly so lest they put at risk substantial federal grant funding from the present demonstrably vengeful administration.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm
The man's a fucking loon.
Seems youre learning from Wlaking Dude how to grasp at whatever lame straws you can to avoid confronting logical and visually evident fact.
Guess it takes a loon to know a loon.
How would they have phrased this differently if they plainly thought he was wrong/a fool rather than if they were quaking in fear of shady government agencies shutting them down for asking the wrong questions and uncovering the conspiracy?
And yes, I think that if the man's other hypotheses that he is putting forward as serious academic research is that Jesus Christ roamed around Central America preaching the word of God to the Mayans, I think it does cast some doubt on the credibility of his other hypotheses. Mormons, for fuck's sake.
"These discoveries have provided me a deeper appreciation for the reality of the resurrection of Jesus and of His visit to "other sheep" who heard His voice and saw His wounded hands as did Thomas. My hope is that these new insights will encourage you to seriously consider the Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Christ. Why don't you start reading right away? The Apostle Paul said: "Prove all things. Hold fast that which is good." (I Thessalonians 5:21) Why not? I've done this and for me, the Book of Mormon is a remarkable new witness for Christ, standing as a companion to the Bible." - Professor Steven Earl Jones.
Yes, I think the Angel Moroni might indeed have paid Steve Jones a visit...:D
Keep grasping, you'll do WD proud.
Now I'm not a scientist myself, but from my reading at best the view that the collapse was caused by bombs rather than heat and structural damage from an airliner crash isn't universally accepted and at worst is only supported by a few on the fringes of scientific credibility.
Now it might be that the fringe are right (it wouldn't be the first time that the accepted scientific consensus turns out to be wrong), but to suggest those who follow the line the majority of informed experts support are failing to open their eyes to the truth seems slightly arrogant.
For me, the fact that he has, in his capacity as a profesor presented a lot of crackpot Mormon religious theories as scientific fact, points to option 2 being the more likely one. Nobody here is a physicist, the question is which physicist to believe and I sure as hell don’t think much of Jones.
“Now I hasten to say that I am not here trying to harmonize the scriptures with notions of the theory of organic evolution or of natural selection proposed by Darwin. In fact, many scientists including B.H. Roberts found problems in this theory. It seems pointless to try to reconcile scripture to a scientific theory which is itself in a state of flux as more data comes to light.
On the other hand, there are observations of fossils that show unequivocally that plants and animals lived well over 20,000 years ago, that is, before the time of Adam. If there was a progression of life on earth toward greater complexity, as the fossils show, I have no problem accepting the testimony of the scriptures cited above that this progress was ordered and caused by God.” – Professor Steven Earl Jones
I’ve got no respect whatsoever for anybody calling himself a scientist who rejects the theory of evolution in favour of the theory of intelligent design.
I'd read that extract again if I were you.
Oh and evolution is a load of shite as well. Only surpassed by the intelligunt desine theory.
"I might say in this regard that in my mind the theory of evolution has to include a notion that the dice have been loaded from the beginning in favor of more complex life forms. That is, without intelligent design of the natural laws in such a way as to favor evolution from lower forms to higher forms, I don't think the theory holds water." [Henry Eyring, "Reflections of a Scientist."]
Fucking Mormons, they're nearly as bad as the Jehovah's.
Theres a difference between believing that evolution was put in place by a god and intelligunt desine. It doesn't reject evolutionary theory, it just gives it a creator.
My God I agree with Klintock.
Belief in evolution doesn't mean that you don't believe in God, just that you don't belief in the literal truth of the Bible - which is something I think most major Christian demoninations would go along with.