Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth. - Page 7
 
View testimonialsView Artwork
Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 318
  1. #181
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    41
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Randis View Post
    That is all very cool, if there are any new developments, please send me a postcard addressed to Narnia because that's how far I am in the closet.
    Dude, you're supposed to just post a picture of Will Smith. Don't stoop to verbal insults. It smacks of effort.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #182
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    bangkok/Berlin
    Posts
    2,588
    Thanks
    96
    Thanked 3,056 Times in 945 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    You were the one who posted the Will Smith picture, i do not post pictures nor do i engage your kind in a serious conversation.

    I understand that life is boring and some people would die for aliens to land or for vampires and werewolves to emerge, some do roleplay and read books and some dive into crazy conspiracy theories and some simply can not let an event such as 9 11 pass by. Its cool and fun and we all did it when we were kids but please do not expect everyone to take you serious.
    You have no evidence (you would have a case if you had any and you don't)
    Talking with you is no different than talking with people about faith, aliens, moonlanding...

    Currently working on my indie RPG , please check out
    DRAGON FIN SOUP on KICKSTARTER
    Please support my Project!
    - - - - - - - - - -
    My finished paintings and other work
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Randis For This Useful Post:


  5. #183
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    41
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Randis View Post
    You have no evidence (you would have a case if you had any and you don't)
    Even though I linked to the book, the "Third Truth", which has 127 pages of evidence (http://www.scribd.com/doc/35147197/D...ee-11-Chapters)

    Even though I linked to videos such as pentagon video.

    Even though I linked to videos of testimonies from people in the army.

    Even though I posted pictures pertinent to nuclear demolition such as large holes discovered under the towers

    Still this 'Pharisees' claims I don't have any evidence. Of course any evidence which falls outside their boundary simply doesn't exist to them.

    Randis, you won't debate this matter seriously because you can't. Why do you derail threads with your childish antics and prevent others, such as Raoul Duke and myself, from discussing the issue seriously? Don't you have something better to do?

    Maybe you're a kid and this is your rebellious phase.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  6. #184
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    bangkok/Berlin
    Posts
    2,588
    Thanks
    96
    Thanked 3,056 Times in 945 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by psyopjunkie View Post
    Even though I linked to the book, the "Third Truth", which has 127 pages of evidence (http://www.scribd.com/doc/35147197/D...ee-11-Chapters)
    Oh please...
    I didn't click your link because its probably some dumb site trying to sell me a DVD or a book.

    There is a common pattern to all of this, alien abductions, conspiracies, cults and all the other shit:

    - There us always a large group of dumb or confused (or a combination of both) followers and a small group of smart people who sell the followers DVDs, books, shirts, con tickets and other shit.
    Even their argumentation has a common pattern and unless you are troubled or very naive you would spot it from miles away.

    There is NO real evidence, there never is.
    Only assumptions, weird testimonies, lots of blurry photos and lots and lots of speculations.
    None of it ever goes to court or is covered by the media, not because the government suppresses it (makes me lol every time i hear it), but simply because the claims have no substance or no evidence.

    It may sound like a 'Truth for some, to me it's a sales pitch.

    Currently working on my indie RPG , please check out
    DRAGON FIN SOUP on KICKSTARTER
    Please support my Project!
    - - - - - - - - - -
    My finished paintings and other work
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Randis For This Useful Post:


  8. #185
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    41
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Randis View Post
    Oh please...
    I didn't click your link because its probably some dumb site trying to sell me a DVD or a book.
    haha but I linked to a .pdf before, and the above link is to pdf hosted on SCRIBD, which I'm surprised you aren't familiar with. So your excuse for being willfully ignorant doesn't really stand up. This is a common technique for 'pharisees', to ignore ideas,evidence,people which fall outside the boundary. Of course they will never openly admit they are willfully ignorant, because 'pharisees' love posturing as intellectuals. For example:

    Quote Originally Posted by Randis View Post
    There is a common pattern to all of this, alien abductions, conspiracies, cults and all the other shit:

    - There us always a large group of dumb or confused (or a combination of both) followers and a small group of smart people who sell the followers DVDs, books, shirts, con tickets and other shit.
    Even their argumentation has a common pattern and unless you are troubled or very naive you would spot it from miles away.
    Basically he makes a generalization about 'truthers' but such a generalisation can probably be said about all institutions. For example, universities there are a bunch of dumb, confused and often drunk students and a small number of staff who are paid to speak at the students. One can make generalizations about pharisees themselves, as I have done repeatedly, such as all their arguments boiling down to "there's a vague boundary of what is valid and what is invalid, and I'm an authority on where this boundary is, and I say idea X falls outside it".

    But nonetheless I do agree that many conspiracy theorists are stupid etc. and even said so previously in this thread ("I understand when people do not like conspiracy theories and think they are crazy. This is because many are! "). But importantly I distinguish Dimitris book from that group, because he is a witness, not a conspiracy theorist ("The only way to know how a magic trick works is for the magician to tell you how he did it. That is what this book does essentially as the author was a confident of Mike Hararri who orchestrated the attacks"). The onus is on Randis to show that Dimitri's book does fall into his pattern of argumentation. Of course, to do so would require him to read the book. I doubt he will.

    Randis I hope you don't think your post was serious discussion. It was simply the Narnia comment except you dragged the name calling out much longer. Serious discussion would involve making a claim or counter claim as Duke did.


    Quote Originally Posted by Randis View Post
    There is NO real evidence, there never is.
    Again, just a flat out denial of evidence which is inconvenient. When I link to an article from a reputable newspaper on large holes, or long burning fires, do these holes and fires somehow never existed? You can see this 'pharisees' is resorting to word games. 'Evidence' is now changed to 'real evidence' which actually means 'evidence which incontrovertibly is inconsistent with the official story'. Of course when authorities somehow claim that a time of 10:03 and a empirically based confidence interval of 10:06 +- 5 seconds (?) are not inconsistent because seismic evidence is not 'definitive' - or that UV absorbers stop transmission of fires radiating mostly IR- or that large holes were caused by glaciers and weren't noticed when the originals buildings were constructed - it becomes obvious why there is no 'real evidence'. It's simply because authorities are willing to ignore evidence!

    Only assumptions, weird testimonies, lots of blurry photos and lots and lots of speculations.
    None of it ever goes to court or is covered by the media, not because the government suppresses it (makes me lol every time i hear it), but simply because the claims have no substance or no evidence.
    Dick Cheney is being sued over the pentagon attacks. http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/04/0...sive-911-case/

    A petition for a new inquiry helped by former senator Mike gravel made it to court in 2010 but was ruled invalid. if I remember right.

    A conspiracy theorist was sent to court over a 7/7 (a different false flag operation but similar) DVD and was acquitted.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7/7_Ripple_Effect

    Just because a full inquiry hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen, nor would it be unsuccessful. For example, "High-Level Officials Eager to Spill the Beans About What REALLY Happened on 9/11 … But No One In Washington or the Media Wants to Hear"

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/...s-to-hear.html

    So Randis if you are willing to have a serious discussion let me know. I can link to books on critical thinking if you need help.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  9. #186
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Kansas city, MO
    Posts
    1,167
    Thanks
    1,423
    Thanked 867 Times in 333 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Kamber Parrk View Post
    OK folks, the above, in defense of Nader's ACTUAL position, is what a REAL Straw Man argument looks like.

    I won't do your homework for you. But, Google a character named "Van Jones" and gauge the official White House position on his beliefs in regard to a Truther Petition that he signed that STILL has Nader's name on it.

    And, ask yourself what it was that ol' Van Jones was so desperately trying to back-pedal away from*.

    *sentence ended in a preposition out of intellectual laziness. . .
    You're not doing anyone's homework. Van Jones' story was mainstream news.
    I need to ask ,"How was my post on Naders video a straw man argument?" Am I representing "X" argument as "Y" and then attacking "Y"? Please plug in those variables. My post was actually a defense of Nader himself so I am unsure what you are talking about. Is the video that he's speaking in misleading as to his real position? Or is there more?

    "And, ask yourself what it was that ol' Van Jones was so desperately trying to back-pedal away from*. "

    Political ostracization in my opinion. Almost always are personal inconsequential beliefs not worth destroying your career.
    Quote Originally Posted by Raoul Duke View Post
    So long as this is up for debate I am going to ask again, until one of you truthers give a straight answer.

    Physically impossible
    Claim: 911 was physically impossible
    Counter Claim: Why use a sinister plot that could easily be proven physically impossible?

    Use all the rocket science you want, but this is not rocket science.
    I reject both of these claims by stating that 9-11 was possible and that your conclusion of "easy to prove impossible" is also false.

    Quote Originally Posted by NoSeRider View Post
    why did the banking system collapse if they're so smart?
    Just to entertain some answers since I do not agree with the premise. They're just smart enough not to actually lose anything. The "toxic assets" simply got pushed on the people. Anyone here vote on the bailouts? Heads they win, tails we lose. Pretty smart if you ask me. Common banking practices lead to bubbles bursting. Leaning how the government borrows money and banks create money might help understand this. I don't think bush's cronies are controlling Greece's banking systems right now. Yet similar issues keep popping up.

    Quote Originally Posted by NoSeRider View Post
    Why is the government trillions in dollars in dept to China? Why can't we balance a budget?
    Comparing apples to oranges imo but I'll bite.

    More toxic assets. The US might eventually default on its loans to the Fed and screw China. I mean if every single US citizen emptied their bank account and gave 100% of it to the Fed the U.S. would still be in debt. There's not even enough U.S. money in circulation to pay off the Fed. All in all it's not their money. It's the people's. If the money actually came straight from their own pockets then maybe we'd have a balanced budget. There just doesn't seem to be much accountability.

    Quote Originally Posted by NoSeRider View Post
    personally, I don't see anybody planning anything, unless you consider inept behavior planning?
    I feel it's more like preparing not planning. Like knowing the sky will fall in a week but telling everyone else that things are fine. youtube Peter Schiff if you get the chance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Bennett View Post
    It's like those who think the moon landings were faked:
    I'll let someone else start a thread on that one.

    Jay's CA.org Sketchbook:
    Jay's Conceptart.org sketchbook

    Check out my portfolio:
    http://jasonrossart.carbonmade.com

    Check out my blog:
    http://mind2pixels.blogspot.com

    "Practice" DOES NOT make perfect...
    "Perfect Practice" makes perfect...
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  10. #187
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    WA State
    Posts
    2,364
    Thanks
    796
    Thanked 1,273 Times in 887 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Jason's statement which I responded to is a blatantly false characterization of Nader's position. (That's the Straw Man).

    His remaining* signature on that petition, apart from whatever respect I may have had for him, makes him a shining example of an unhinged Truther nutcase. (That's the ACTUAL viewpoint of Nader).

    *Van Jones' reason for removing his signature from this petition makes Nader's position ABUNDANTLY clear.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  11. #188
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    So-Cal
    Posts
    3,427
    Thanks
    2,994
    Thanked 1,780 Times in 849 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Psyopjunkie
    I don't agree. There was a weapons inspectors who were willing to say that Iraq most likely did not have WMDs but the BBC put him on at 3AM. Even the journalists admit they were compromised by being 'embedded', but somehow we're supposed to believe it was a one off?
    Leading up to the invasion of Iraq it was well known the weapons inspectors did not believe there were any WMD. The public wrote off the weapon inspectors as incompetent.

    Jason Ross

    I reject both of these claims by stating that 9-11 was possible and that your conclusion of "easy to prove impossible" is also false.
    It took a 19 year old college sophomore to unravel this plot.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  12. #189
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Kansas city, MO
    Posts
    1,167
    Thanks
    1,423
    Thanked 867 Times in 333 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Kamber Parrk View Post
    Jason's statement which I responded to is a blatantly false characterization of Nader's position. (That's the Straw Man).

    His remaining* signature on that petition, apart from whatever respect I may have had for him, makes him a shining example of an unhinged Truther nutcase. (That's the ACTUAL viewpoint of Nader).
    The problem is your misuse of Straw man. I would need to distort your initial claim, and then falsify the distortion as if I falsified your original claim. I do no such thing if I did please quote my statement of "blatantly false characterization of Nader's position". Calling Nader a "truther" demonstrates that regardless of how much of the official story you scrutinizes , that term is good enough (which is my original claim).
    That being said I'm willing to bet that you did not even read the Petition in question did you? If you actually read it I'm sure you would have copied and pasted the "portions" you find to be nutjob crackery. The Petition is prefaced by a Zogby poll of NY residents and then simply asked 12 questions concerning 9-11 followed by 4 requests to be taken by our government. Nowhere is blame laid, no planes, explosives, coverup, wtc7, bush did it, or anything of the sort. So in no way can one get the Actual Viewpoint of Nader based soley on questions. This type of reasoning is intellectually and logically dangerous. A host of logical fallacies are sure to follow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamber Parrk View Post
    *Van Jones' reason for removing his signature from this petition makes Nader's position ABUNDANTLY clear.
    So Van Jones' position became that of: "these questions I feel no longer need answering" whereas Naders position remained "these are questions that I feel need answering." That's the extent of any "position" that one can deduce merely from these questions. As a result my claim that regardless of how little or how much you scrutinize the official 9-11 claim...you're a truther.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raoul Duke View Post
    It took a 19 year old college sophomore to unravel this plot.
    It took a 19 year old college sophomore to think he/she unravel this plot.

    Jay's CA.org Sketchbook:
    Jay's Conceptart.org sketchbook

    Check out my portfolio:
    http://jasonrossart.carbonmade.com

    Check out my blog:
    http://mind2pixels.blogspot.com

    "Practice" DOES NOT make perfect...
    "Perfect Practice" makes perfect...
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  13. #190
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    WA State
    Posts
    2,364
    Thanks
    796
    Thanked 1,273 Times in 887 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    From: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNNQ19IR6U.DTL


    Meanwhile, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., called for an investigation of Jones, who signed a 2004 petition by 911Truth.org, which wants attention paid to "unanswered questions that suggest that people within the (Bush) Administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."

    Jones, a Yale Law School graduate, said in a statement Friday, "I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever."(Emphasis).

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  14. #191
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Kansas city, MO
    Posts
    1,167
    Thanks
    1,423
    Thanked 867 Times in 333 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Kamber Parrk View Post
    From: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNNQ19IR6U.DTL


    Meanwhile, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., called for an investigation of Jones, who signed a 2004 petition by 911Truth.org, which wants attention paid to "unanswered questions that suggest that people within the (Bush) Administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."
    Look at that nonsense. "unanswered questions that suggest that people within the (Bush) Administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war." This is called "Poisoning the Well". The suggestion is merely inferred through generalized speculation. The only part they got right was " unanswered questoins..." The rest was well poisoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamber Parrk View Post
    Jones, a Yale Law School graduate, said in a statement Friday, "I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever."(Emphasis).
    So? His position in no way reflects what the other signators must be. I don't understand why that's so hard to understand.

    Jay's CA.org Sketchbook:
    Jay's Conceptart.org sketchbook

    Check out my portfolio:
    http://jasonrossart.carbonmade.com

    Check out my blog:
    http://mind2pixels.blogspot.com

    "Practice" DOES NOT make perfect...
    "Perfect Practice" makes perfect...
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  15. #192
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    WA State
    Posts
    2,364
    Thanks
    796
    Thanked 1,273 Times in 887 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Ross View Post
    Look at that nonsense. "unanswered questions that suggest that people within the (Bush) Administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war." This is called "Poisoning the Well". The suggestion is merely inferred through generalized speculation. The only part they got right was " unanswered questoins..." The rest was well poisoning.


    So? His position in no way reflects what the other signators must be. I don't understand why that's so hard to understand.
    Um, that "nonsense" is language directly from the Petition!

    Indeed, his position "in no way reflects what [Nader's] must be."

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  16. #193
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Kansas city, MO
    Posts
    1,167
    Thanks
    1,423
    Thanked 867 Times in 333 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Kamber Parrk View Post
    Um, that "nonsense" is language directly from the Petition!
    Indeed, his position "in no way reflects what [Nader's] must be."
    Yep well you got me there. I'm wrong in regards to positions held by the signators (including Nader) of that petition. So their position would be that of: "These unanswered questions suggest that people within the bush administration allowed the attacks to happen so they could go to war."
    So Nader is just truther like psyopjunkie, and myself.

    Jay's CA.org Sketchbook:
    Jay's Conceptart.org sketchbook

    Check out my portfolio:
    http://jasonrossart.carbonmade.com

    Check out my blog:
    http://mind2pixels.blogspot.com

    "Practice" DOES NOT make perfect...
    "Perfect Practice" makes perfect...
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  17. #194
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,351
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 120 Times in 71 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I'm just wondering why people can't accept the simple explanation that a dozen or so Saudi Arabians, probably educated that America is the devil in Muslim Madrasas Schools, were capable of planning, hijacking and suicide crashing bus planes?

    Security was lax. The 'hijack edict' at that time was non confrontational. People assume the hijacker wants to live just as much as the hostages.

    These were low tech strategies to accomplish a goal, destroy the World Trade Center, again, and they finally succeeded.



    This is a skyscraper fire of concrete reinforced steel in Madrid Spain. The steel structure is obviously collapsing.



    The Madrid tower did not totally collapse, but the WTC building 7 did, and it was not struck by a plane. Witnesses stated that debris from the Twin towers took out 25 percent of the skyscraper foundation. The fire weakened the load bearing steel and the building collapsed.

    We have 3 towers that prove if you take out the load bearing steel beams and set it ablaze it will collapse....as opposed to somebody put some C4 in the building and blew it up.

    Last edited by NoSeRider; September 26th, 2011 at 01:21 AM.
    My New Neglected Sketchbook
    You Ain't no Nina!.....

    "Too often we... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
    "My mind is made up. Don't confuse it with facts." -- Terence McKenna
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to NoSeRider For This Useful Post:


  19. #195
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    41
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NoSeRider View Post
    I'm just wondering why people can't accept the simple explanation that a dozen or so Saudi Arabians, probably educated that America is the devil in Muslim Madrasas Schools, were capable of planning, hijacking and suicide crashing bus planes?

    Security was lax. The 'hijack edict' at that time was non confrontational. People assume the hijacker wants to live just as much as the hostages.

    These were low tech strategies to accomplish a goal, destroy the World Trade Center, again, and they finally succeeded.



    This is a skyscraper fire of concrete reinforced steel in Madrid Spain. The steel structure is obviously collapsing.



    The Madrid tower did not totally collapse, but the WTC building 7 did, and it was not struck by a plane. Witnesses stated that debris from the Twin towers took out 25 percent of the skyscraper foundation. The fire weakened the load bearing steel and the building collapsed.

    We have 3 towers that prove if you take out the load bearing steel beams and set it ablaze it will collapse....as opposed to somebody put some C4 in the building and blew it up.
    Again we see the phraisees form of argumentation. He/she knows the official story falls within the boundary of acceptability, and implying dissenters have some irrational distaste for simplicity. However if we express his/her argument in the form of the disciplined thinker, the deception is obvious:


    ISSUE 5 Problems with official account

    Claim: The official story is inconsistent with laws of Physics
    Counterclaim: But it's simple

    So we see that the official account is only simple if you accept the laws of Physics took a holiday on 911. Simplicity itself is not the only determinant of truthfulness for a disciplined thinker, plausibility, falsifiability etc. are also important. But I disagree the official 911 is simple, even excluding that the laws of physics took a holiday. For example, nuclear demolition explains both the building pulverization and the large holes found underneath them. The official story does not explain the large holes, they are simply a unlikely coincidence. How many unlikely coincidences are there in the official story. Such as Norad doing training exercises involving plane hijackers on the same day.

    I cannot see the pictures of the partial building collapse but I don't see how it proves anything. It is easy to find pictures consistent with a story. Here are some consistent with nuclear demolition, for example:

    Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth.

    Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth.

    Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth.

    Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  20. #196
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,351
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 120 Times in 71 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0


    The conclusion is simple if you relate the falling of a tower to a stack of cards as opposed to a falling tree. A tree is a rigid solid structure. A stack of cards is a network of catacomb structures with tentative supporting links.

    Does a tower resemble a tree or a stack of cards?

    I'm just putting this up because I think it's funny....and still shows a scale model of the physics involved.


    Last edited by NoSeRider; September 26th, 2011 at 02:04 AM.
    My New Neglected Sketchbook
    You Ain't no Nina!.....

    "Too often we... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
    "My mind is made up. Don't confuse it with facts." -- Terence McKenna
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  21. #197
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Kansas city, MO
    Posts
    1,167
    Thanks
    1,423
    Thanked 867 Times in 333 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NoSeRider View Post
    I'm just wondering why people can't accept the simple explanation that a dozen or so Saudi Arabians, probably educated that America is the devil in Muslim Madrasas Schools, were capable of planning, hijacking and suicide crashing bus planes?

    Security was lax. The 'hijack edict' at that time was non confrontational. People assume the hijacker wants to live just as much as the hostages.

    These were low tech strategies to accomplish a goal, destroy the World Trade Center, again, and they finally succeeded.



    This is a skyscraper fire of concrete reinforced steel in Madrid Spain. The steel structure is obviously collapsing.



    The Madrid tower did not totally collapse, but the WTC building 7 did, and it was not struck by a plane. Witnesses stated that debris from the Twin towers took out 25 percent of the skyscraper foundation. The fire weakened the load bearing steel and the building collapsed.

    We have 3 towers that prove if you take out the load bearing steel beams and set it ablaze it will collapse....as opposed to somebody put some C4 in the building and blew it up.
    Well I would watch the OP video or just watch Loose Change 2 or 3. The basic conspiracy theory started imo with those guys. All lot of your questions are "answered" there.

    The Madrid Windsor building is not obviously collapsing though chunks of concrete were falling. That building was a torch for over 24 hours. Top to bottom and the steel framing did not collapse. The key is the steel framing. You have to see a video of how it looked after the flames died out. I posted it in this thread somewhere.

    Jay's CA.org Sketchbook:
    Jay's Conceptart.org sketchbook

    Check out my portfolio:
    http://jasonrossart.carbonmade.com

    Check out my blog:
    http://mind2pixels.blogspot.com

    "Practice" DOES NOT make perfect...
    "Perfect Practice" makes perfect...
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  22. #198
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    41
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NoSeRider View Post


    The conclusion is simple if you relate the falling of a tower to a stack of cards as opposed to a falling tree. A tree is a rigid solid structure. A stack of cards is a network of catacomb structures with tentative supporting links.

    Does a tower resemble a tree or a stack of cards?

    I'm just putting this up because I think it's funny....and still shows a scale model of the physics involved.
    But the onsite construction manager, prior to 911 (he died that day) also had a physical model of the towers being hit by a plane. Like the stack of cards, it was conceptually simple and based on real life items:


    The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.


    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

    And like I said simplicity of itself doesn't determine truthfulness, for example the planets following circular orbits around earth is conceptually simpler than the planets following elliptical paths around the sun.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  23. #199
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,351
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 120 Times in 71 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth.http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

    The observation that the Windsor Building is the only skyscraper to have suffered even a partial collapse as a result of fire suggests that the use of steel-reinforced-concrete framing was responsible. A closer look at the incident shows reality to be more complex. The portion of the building that collapsed consisted of the outer portions of floor slabs and perimeter walls throughout the upper third of the building (the 21st through 32nd floors). The outer walls consisted of steel box columns arranged on 1.8 meter centers and connected by narrow spandrel plates. The columns had square cross-sections 120mm on a side, and were fabricated of C-sections 7mm thick welded together. (these had a fraction of the dimensions, and were spaced about twice as far apart as the perimeter columns of the Twin Towers.) The perimeter columns lacked fireproofing throughout the upper third of the Windsor building.
    The Windsor Building had a partial collapse where the steel was not reinforced with concrete, where concrete serves as fire proofing.

    WTC were fire proofed with some sort of sprayed on fire retardant that did not have the rigidity of concrete. The fire retardant in the WTC would have been blown off by the impact of the plane.

    My New Neglected Sketchbook
    You Ain't no Nina!.....

    "Too often we... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
    "My mind is made up. Don't confuse it with facts." -- Terence McKenna
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  24. #200
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    bangkok/Berlin
    Posts
    2,588
    Thanks
    96
    Thanked 3,056 Times in 945 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by psyopjunkie View Post
    So Randis if you are willing to have a serious discussion let me know. I can link to books on critical thinking if you need help.

    You do not have a base for a serious discussion and your so called 'evidence' is made out of googled photos, random testimonies, interpretation of random video snippets, claims, more claims, bullshit, pseudo science and the book you are trying to advertise.

    Do not even start talking about critical thinking, most of your claims simply fail on the most simple logical level and can not be takes seriously.
    You maybe did read about the concept of critical thinking on the backside of some book cover but clearly you lack the capacity to apply it in your own thinking process. Conspiracy nutters are not exactly role models in critical thinking if you know what i mean.
    You have a distorted paradigm, you see only what you want to see.

    You merely consume information and take into account solely the fragments that confirm your existing beliefs but you fail at filtering and rationalizing observations that do not fit in.
    You ignore established facts and feedback from the outside and constantly fall back into your pattern of quotations and repetitive responses to certain questions that you can not answer.
    In other words, your bullshit filter is broken.

    Currently working on my indie RPG , please check out
    DRAGON FIN SOUP on KICKSTARTER
    Please support my Project!
    - - - - - - - - - -
    My finished paintings and other work
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  25. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Randis For This Useful Post:


  26. #201
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    41
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Fantastic work NoSeRider you've switched from the Pharisees mentality to being a disciplined thinker. Being a disciplined thinker doesn't mean you have to take one position or anything, you just need to debate using evidence and logic.

    Let's summarise:

    NoSeRider claim: 911 collapses were similar to madrid collapse
    Jason Ross counterclaim: madrid was only a partial collapse, and conditions were different
    NoSeRider countercounterclaim: the partial collapse in madrid was due to an absence of fireproofing, and a different absence of fireproofing led to the total collapse of the WTC

    See how NoSeRiders position can be evaluated objectively. Did an absense of fireproofing occur in Madrid? Did it occur in the two towers? (according to NIST it did) etc. Even if we don't all agree we're still learning about interesting things like concrete, how does it work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Randis View Post
    You do not have a base for a serious discussion
    Disciplined thinkers know to define terms. What is the 'base' for a serious discussion? A knowledge of science? Logic? Etiquette?

    Again usual 'Pharisees' argument, you fall within the boundary, I don't, and you don't have to explain why, you'll just throw some big words around like 'paradigm'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Randis View Post
    and your so called 'evidence' is made out of googled photos, random testimonies, interpretation of random video snippets, claims, more claims, bullshit, pseudo science and the book you are trying to advertise.
    I think photos, witness testimonies are typically considered 'evidence'. As for the pseudo-science claim, a lot of the theory for nuclear demolition is in peer review journal articles. For example: "The Containment of Soviet Underground Nuclear Explosions" "Nuclear" Bunker Busters" Would More Likely Disperse than Destroy Buried Stockpiles of Biological and Chemical Agents" Try using google scholar and getting more informed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Randis View Post
    Do not even start talking about critical thinking, most of your claims simply fail on the most simple logical level and can not be takes seriously.
    Can you give an example? For instance, I pointed out Kev's Pearl Harbour argument was illogical, though according to this articles terminology it might have been better to say it was 'unsound' http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_...tical_thinking . Maybe you should read that article and apply some of the principles instead of resorting to pathetic name calling: "
    You maybe did read about the concept of critical thinking on the backside of some book cover "? lol for you it was clearly the back of a cornflakes box

    You merely consume information and take into account solely the fragments that confirm your existing beliefs but you fail at filtering and rationalizing observations that do not fit in.
    You ignore established facts and feedback from the outside and constantly fall back into your pattern of quotations and repetitive responses to certain questions that you can not answer.
    In other words, your bullshit filter is broken.
    Again you can't give examples so this is just generalizations and prejudice about conspiracy theorists. I distinguished Dimitri's book from other conspiracy theorists and said IT WAS UP TO YOU TO SHOW HIS BOOK CONFORMED TO THE PATTERN, and to do that you'd need to READ IT. And I implied you were too thick to read. And you just keep on spouting those generalisations, confirming that. Will Smith didn't get to you early enough with his running and reading program, did he?

    Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth.

    In other words, your bullshit filter is broken.
    No WMD in Iraq shows many people lack a bullshit filter for official information.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  27. #202
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Slovenia, Europe
    Posts
    490
    Thanks
    1,004
    Thanked 61 Times in 49 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by psyopjunkie View Post
    Will Smith didn't get to you early enough with his running and reading program, did he?

    Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth.

    Hey bro, THAT'S RACIST !

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  28. #203
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    41
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahim View Post
    Hey bro, THAT'S RACIST !
    This was the only image I could find from Will Smith's running and reading program:

    Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth.

    Not very inspirational, unlike the reading rainbow. Maybe this image is to do with the running and reading program too, like don't do both at the at the same time, could run through a window and hurt yourself:

    Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  29. #204
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    bangkok/Berlin
    Posts
    2,588
    Thanks
    96
    Thanked 3,056 Times in 945 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Psyopjunkie, do you get a commission for the book sales or is the writer your BF or something?

    Currently working on my indie RPG , please check out
    DRAGON FIN SOUP on KICKSTARTER
    Please support my Project!
    - - - - - - - - - -
    My finished paintings and other work
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  30. #205
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,351
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 120 Times in 71 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0


    The purpose of a blast furnace is to chemically reduce and physically convert iron oxides into liquid iron called "hot metal". The blast furnace is a huge, steel stack lined with refractory brick, where iron ore, coke and limestone are dumped into the top, and preheated air is blown into the bottom. The raw materials require 6 to 8 hours to descend to the bottom of the furnace where they become the final product of liquid slag and liquid iron. At furnace temperatures of about 1800 °C, give or take 200 degrees, these liquid products are molten and trickle down to collect in the base of the furnace, or hearth, where they are extracted at regular intervals. The hot air that was blown into the bottom of the furnace ascends to the top in 6 to 8 seconds after going through numerous chemical reactions.
    http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/JohnChu.shtml



    http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm#molten


    Steel has remained the veritable backbone of the building industry since it became easier to produce the alloy in the 17th century. But the heating process that allows engineers to create steel can also be its undoing: Above 750 F, steel starts to lose its structural integrity, and at 1100 F, steel loses 50 percent of its strength.
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...4244302?page=2

    Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth.

    Last edited by NoSeRider; September 26th, 2011 at 12:23 PM.
    My New Neglected Sketchbook
    You Ain't no Nina!.....

    "Too often we... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
    "My mind is made up. Don't confuse it with facts." -- Terence McKenna
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to NoSeRider For This Useful Post:


  32. #206
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Vangroovy Island, BC
    Posts
    929
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 189 Times in 112 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Just out of curiousity, doesn't the 3 WTC buildings free falling (0 resistance) at least seem out of character? They aren't physically supposed to do that based on the damage they took that day and the subsequent evidence provided. And I'm in no way debating about what hit the towers. But I have experts on one side who say it's one way and I have experts on the other side who say, well, no, that's not 100% correct.

    Grave Sight Graphics: The Art of Eric Lofgren.
    elofgren@ telus.net (to use e-mail address please remove space between the '@' and 'telus')

    My Art Blog
    My Online Portfolio (Updated Jan. 30/ 2011)
    ~NiNjA~^~mOuNtAiN~^~PoDcAsT~(Working illustrators talking illustration)
    Eric Lofgren's licensible rpg art resource
    Art Director for New Gods of Raanon
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  33. The Following User Says Thank You to Eric Lofgren For This Useful Post:


  34. #207
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,351
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 120 Times in 71 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Why do you accept what you were told as opposed to what you see?

    Why do you believe the towers should not have fallen the way they did based on what you were told?

    An educated guess can still be a guess.

    I'd rather believe in hippie bullshit then conspiracy bullshit.


    Last edited by NoSeRider; September 26th, 2011 at 01:39 PM.
    My New Neglected Sketchbook
    You Ain't no Nina!.....

    "Too often we... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
    "My mind is made up. Don't confuse it with facts." -- Terence McKenna
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  35. #208
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,351
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 120 Times in 71 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0




    My New Neglected Sketchbook
    You Ain't no Nina!.....

    "Too often we... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
    "My mind is made up. Don't confuse it with facts." -- Terence McKenna
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  36. #209
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,351
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 120 Times in 71 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0


    Newtonian Physics F=ma

    He states it was a demolition at the end, however if you knock the supports at the bottom what direction should it fall?

    MIT lecture, the professor is questioning more then conclusions.


    This video seems to state that the Force of Mass times Accelaration caused the destruction and planting explosives at the point of impact just 45 minutes after the crash is impossible.


    Last edited by NoSeRider; September 26th, 2011 at 03:09 PM.
    My New Neglected Sketchbook
    You Ain't no Nina!.....

    "Too often we... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
    "My mind is made up. Don't confuse it with facts." -- Terence McKenna
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  37. The Following User Says Thank You to NoSeRider For This Useful Post:


  38. #210
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Kansas city, MO
    Posts
    1,167
    Thanks
    1,423
    Thanked 867 Times in 333 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I'm pretty sure that they are referring to the Ground Zero clean up which took place some time after.


    There were also similar temperatures under WTC 7 as well.

    Molten aluminum gernerally turns silvery very quickly when poured. "Sometimes" the orange hue of molten aluminum is simply the reflection of the inner container. Skip to 1:38 on the first vid. It's not a strong enough argument for me to endorse, as molten aluminum can glow red/orange as well (2nd vid).


    Noserider. I would say watch a controlled demolition that has gone wrong. Events need to go very precise in order to achieve a straight down collapse. I don't think that random ununiform damage could create what a controlled collapse could. In response to your jenga or "house of cards" analogy. I would say superglue all the cards together at the joints and then see see how they fall. A gradual weakening of the steel wouldn't cause such an event to happen. Same with the Jenga pieces ( I'd be soooo pissed off at that reporter), if the jenga pieces were glued together the building would have toppled and maybe broke when it hit the floor. It would not have collapse straight down. The cards/jenga pieces free falling would be reminiscent of the joints in a building being severed very rapidly.

    Last edited by Jason Ross; September 26th, 2011 at 03:08 PM.
    Jay's CA.org Sketchbook:
    Jay's Conceptart.org sketchbook

    Check out my portfolio:
    http://jasonrossart.carbonmade.com

    Check out my blog:
    http://mind2pixels.blogspot.com

    "Practice" DOES NOT make perfect...
    "Perfect Practice" makes perfect...
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast
  • 424,149 Artists
  • 3,599,276 Artist Posts
  • 32,941 Sketchbooks
  • 54 New Art Jobs
Art Workshop Discount Inside
Register

Developed Actively by vBSocial.com
The Art Department
SpringOfSea's Sketchbook