9/11 Conspiracy

[daws101]

Must have been really bored to quote a post of mine made almost five months ago. . . . and it was made when this thread was first started in the I/P section.

hanjob gets limited computer time at the facility where he's confined...

 

[LA RAM FAN]

someone farted in here.^

 

[deep_space]

wow, the conspiracy discussion just nose dived into a deep pit of irrelevant sludge.
Silly me, I though were were here to discuss the facts about 9/11?

 

[Abishai100]

The Rise of the Agro-Daredevil


Hollywood (USA) released the film "Charlie Wilson's War" (2007) which looked at the international political intrigue surrounding talks and conflicts between America, Afghanistani rebels, and the Soviet Union.

Hollywood (USA) released the film "Munich" (2005) which looked at the terrorist attack on 1972 Summer Olympics Israeli athletes by the PLO and how Israeli counter-agents planned a response.

The media has been paying a great deal of special attention to the intricate meanderings of political decision-making and how it informs society and culture in our age of globalization (i.e., eTrade).

When the terrorists of the Taliban attacked the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, people took notice of a rising international dissatisfaction with America's dominance over free market catalyzed networking.

There were strange reports on 9/11 that various mobile phones in the USA were losing signals, which raised all kind of street-talk about the NSA creating electronic surveillance networks which were being infiltrated and undermined by foreign radicals intent on destabilizing 'pedestrianism economics.'

It seems that reports of modern-day airline narcotics rings and post-USSR Moscow crime syndicates are creating definitive underworld economics systems that reveal a new age 'intention' to foster 'dream-warrior daredevils.' Even Hollywood (USA) makes movies about Internet hackers...

This is why it is shockingly 'sane' to connect Taliban 9/11 talk to recent talk surrounding ISIS. Could the Taliban be working with ISIS and/or could their activities be connected through plans/blueprints created decades ago?

There is a theory that this new brand of 'daredevil' is motivated to attack assumptions about agro-economics stabilization in our age of virtual networking (i.e., Netgrocer, Amazon.com, etc.).

Can American goods-distribution companies such as Green Giant restore general 'mercantilism optimism?'






Munich film - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[psikeyhackr]

Ah, so you just question the official reports but have absolutely no interest in stacking those reports against any alternative scenarios. Well here's some 4-1-1 for you ... when compared to any of the dozens of 9/11 conspiracy theories, the NIST report is the only plausible explanation. I'll let 9/11 "Truth" UAlbany's co-founder, Mike Metzger, explain your CT M.O.:
"There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just a lot of theories, which eventually break down to 'hey, we're just asking questions' if someone questions the validity of such. No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers. Yet, most of my friends will try to explain the hard physics involved in structural collapses. None of these people are engineers, physicists, or even in a scientific field, for that matter. Someone's supposed to take their word over an expert's?

How did the NIST produce a 10,000 page report without specifying how much concrete was in the towers? But they provided that data for the steel. Didn't the designers have to know how much concrete was where to figure out how much steel to put where?

The 9/11 Affair is a scientific farce that can never go away. The physics of collapse should have been explained in 2002.

In 1940 the University of Washington only took 4 months to produce a model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in a wind tunnel that oscillated like the real bridge in the wind. So no matter what the truth of 9/11 is, why don't we have a model that can duplicate the collapse?

psik

 

[daws101]

ah... nostalgia ...

 

[LA RAM FAN]

someone farted in here.^

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Ah, so you just question the official reports but have absolutely no interest in stacking those reports against any alternative scenarios. Well here's some 4-1-1 for you ... when compared to any of the dozens of 9/11 conspiracy theories, the NIST report is the only plausible explanation. I'll let 9/11 "Truth" UAlbany's co-founder, Mike Metzger, explain your CT M.O.:
"There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just a lot of theories, which eventually break down to 'hey, we're just asking questions' if someone questions the validity of such. No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers. Yet, most of my friends will try to explain the hard physics involved in structural collapses. None of these people are engi/neers, physicists, or even in a scientific field, for that matter. Someone's supposed to take their word over an expert's?

How did the NIST produce a 10,000 page report without specifying how much concrete was in the towers? But they provided that data for the steel. Didn't the designers have to know how much concrete was where to figure out how much steel to put where?

The 9/11 Affair is a scientific farce that can never go away. The physics of collapse should have been explained in 2002.

In 1940 the University of Washington only took 4 months to produce a model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in a wind tunnel that oscillated like the real bridge in the wind. So no matter what the truth of 9/11 is, why don't we have a model that can duplicate the collapse?

psik

sayit/aka dawgshit troll here cant get around bld 7.the crux of the 9/11 coverup.

 

[daws101]

Ah, so you just question the official reports but have absolutely no interest in stacking those reports against any alternative scenarios. Well here's some 4-1-1 for you ... when compared to any of the dozens of 9/11 conspiracy theories, the NIST report is the only plausible explanation. I'll let 9/11 "Truth" UAlbany's co-founder, Mike Metzger, explain your CT M.O.:
"There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just a lot of theories, which eventually break down to 'hey, we're just asking questions' if someone questions the validity of such. No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers. Yet, most of my friends will try to explain the hard physics involved in structural collapses. None of these people are engi/neers, physicists, or even in a scientific field, for that matter. Someone's supposed to take their word over an expert's?

How did the NIST produce a 10,000 page report without specifying how much concrete was in the towers? But they provided that data for the steel. Didn't the designers have to know how much concrete was where to figure out how much steel to put where?

The 9/11 Affair is a scientific farce that can never go away. The physics of collapse should have been explained in 2002.

In 1940 the University of Washington only took 4 months to produce a model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in a wind tunnel that oscillated like the real bridge in the wind. So no matter what the truth of 9/11 is, why don't we have a model that can duplicate the collapse?

psik

sayit/aka dawgshit troll here cant get around bld 7.the crux of the 9/11 coverup.

right ......lol! bld 7 was an empty barn that burned down ...

 

[psikeyhackr]

Ah, so you just question the official reports but have absolutely no interest in stacking those reports against any alternative scenarios. Well here's some 4-1-1 for you ... when compared to any of the dozens of 9/11 conspiracy theories, the NIST report is the only plausible explanation. I'll let 9/11 "Truth" UAlbany's co-founder, Mike Metzger, explain your CT M.O.:
"There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just a lot of theories, which eventually break down to 'hey, we're just asking questions' if someone questions the validity of such. No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers. Yet, most of my friends will try to explain the hard physics involved in structural collapses. None of these people are engineers, physicists, or even in a scientific field, for that matter. Someone's supposed to take their word over an expert's?

It is not a matter of merely questioning the NIST report. It is only a matter of pointing out its absurdity that dummies who accept it ignore.

The NIST report does not explain the collapses. It simply CLAIMS that they were inevitable.

In three places they admit that they need to know the distribution of weight of the tower to analyse the movement due to the impact. But then they do not provide the data. The do not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers but they do it for the steel in three places.

They admit that the top of the south tower tilted 20 to 25 degrees but then say nothing about the center of mass, even though the core which they admit supported 53% of the weight was narrower than the whole building. Where was the center of mass relative to the core and why didn't the top fall down the side of the south tower? It is impossible to accurately compute the Potential Energy accurately without knowing the steel and concrete distributions. I pointed that out years ago in such a way that middle school children should be able to understand it.

International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Offer to the Truth Movement Let s Settle It

I do not give a damn about any cover ups or conspiracies. It is a physics problem. So no matter what it should have been solved in 2002.

psik

 

[SAYIT]

Ah, so you just question the official reports but have absolutely no interest in stacking those reports against any alternative scenarios. Well here's some 4-1-1 for you ... when compared to any of the dozens of 9/11 conspiracy theories, the NIST report is the only plausible explanation. I'll let 9/11 "Truth" UAlbany's co-founder, Mike Metzger, explain your CT M.O.:
"There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just a lot of theories, which eventually break down to 'hey, we're just asking questions' if someone questions the validity of such. No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers. Yet, most of my friends will try to explain the hard physics involved in structural collapses. None of these people are engineers, physicists, or even in a scientific field, for that matter. Someone's supposed to take their word over an expert's?

It is not a matter of merely questioning the NIST report. It is only a matter of pointing out its absurdity that dummies who accept it ignore.

The NIST report does not explain the collapses. It simply CLAIMS that they were inevitable.

In three places they admit that they need to know the distribution of weight of the tower to analyse the movement due to the impact. But then they do not provide the data. The do not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers but they do it for the steel in three places.

They admit that the top of the south tower tilted 20 to 25 degrees but then say nothing about the center of mass, even though the core which they admit supported 53% of the weight was narrower than the whole building. Where was the center of mass relative to the core and why didn't the top fall down the side of the south tower? It is impossible to accurately compute the Potential Energy accurately without knowing the steel and concrete distributions. I pointed that out years ago in such a way that middle school children should be able to understand it.

International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Offer to the Truth Movement Let s Settle It

I do not give a damn about any cover ups or conspiracies. It is a physics problem. So no matter what it should have been solved in 2002.

psik

Ah ... a pseudoscientist! We know the Towers were hit by large passenger jets loaded with jet fuel at hundreds of MPH. We know the collapsing Towers hit WTC7. We saw the fires and the people jumping to their deaths. We know those buildings collapsed. The entire 9/11 CT Movement is just foil-hatted masturbation.
You have a good time!

 

[psikeyhackr]

Ah ... a pseudoscientist! We know the Towers were hit by large passenger jets loaded with jet fuel at hundreds of MPH. We know the collapsing Towers hit WTC7. We saw the fires and the people jumping to their deaths. We know those buildings collapsed. The entire 9/11 CT Movement is just foil-hatted masturbation.
You have a good time!

What does "loaded" mean?

The fuel capacity was 24.000 gallons but the NIST says there was 10,000 gallons on the plane.

We know the buildings came down. We don't know airliner impacts and the resulting fires could cause it.

The absurd thing about 9/11 is that it is not nearly complicated enough to demand scientists but in almost 14 years the scientists have not mentioned the need for data on the distributions of steel and concrete or provided good information on the Potential Energy of the towers.

International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Offer to the Truth Movement Let s Settle It

So we get morons endlessly talking bullsh!t about a simple problem.

psik

 

[SAYIT]

Ah ... a pseudoscientist! We know the Towers were hit by large passenger jets loaded with jet fuel at hundreds of MPH. We know the collapsing Towers hit WTC7. We saw the fires and the people jumping to their deaths. We know those buildings collapsed. The entire 9/11 CT Movement is just foil-hatted masturbation.
You have a good time!

What does "loaded" mean?
The fuel capacity was 24.000 gallons but the NIST says there was 10,000 gallons on the plane.
We know the buildings came down. We don't know airliner impacts and the resulting fires could cause it...

Ah, but that's the thing ... we do know that the impact and resulting fires could cause the buildings to collapse (because it did) and as already mentioned, the entire 9/11 CT Movement was just foil-hatted masturbation.

 

[Hollie]

Ah, so you just question the official reports but have absolutely no interest in stacking those reports against any alternative scenarios. Well here's some 4-1-1 for you ... when compared to any of the dozens of 9/11 conspiracy theories, the NIST report is the only plausible explanation. I'll let 9/11 "Truth" UAlbany's co-founder, Mike Metzger, explain your CT M.O.:
"There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just a lot of theories, which eventually break down to 'hey, we're just asking questions' if someone questions the validity of such. No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers. Yet, most of my friends will try to explain the hard physics involved in structural collapses. None of these people are engineers, physicists, or even in a scientific field, for that matter. Someone's supposed to take their word over an expert's?

How did the NIST produce a 10,000 page report without specifying how much concrete was in the towers? But they provided that data for the steel. Didn't the designers have to know how much concrete was where to figure out how much steel to put where?

The 9/11 Affair is a scientific farce that can never go away. The physics of collapse should have been explained in 2002.

In 1940 the University of Washington only took 4 months to produce a model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in a wind tunnel that oscillated like the real bridge in the wind. So no matter what the truth of 9/11 is, why don't we have a model that can duplicate the collapse?

psik

You're mistaken to believe that practicing scientists/engineers are under any obligation to refute every conspiracy theory invented by conspiracy theory loons.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Ah, but that's the thing ... we do know that the impact and resulting fires could cause the buildings to collapse (because it did) and as already mentioned, the entire 9/11 CT Movement was just foil-hatted masturbation.

So you do not comprehend the difference between Knowing and BELIEVING.

That is the trouble with the 9/11 Religion.

In 1940 it only took 4 months to build a physical model to duplicate the oscillating behavior of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. But now that we have all of these great computers we can't make a virtual or physical model of the north tower collapse in almost FOURTEEN YEARS!

It is called technological advance.

Quite ironic considering that the WTC was one of the first buildings to be designed with the help of computers.

psik

 

[daws101]

Ah, but that's the thing ... we do know that the impact and resulting fires could cause the buildings to collapse (because it did) and as already mentioned, the entire 9/11 CT Movement was just foil-hatted masturbation.

So you do not comprehend the difference between Knowing and BELIEVING.

That is the trouble with the 9/11 Religion.

In 1940 it only took 4 months to build a physical model to duplicate the oscillating behavior of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. But now that we have all of these great computers we can't make a virtual or physical model of the north tower collapse in almost FOURTEEN YEARS!

It is called technological advance.

Quite ironic considering that the WTC was one of the first buildings to be designed with the help of computers.

psik

I do it's obvious you and your anything but the facts minions do not.

 

[SAYIT]

Ah, but that's the thing ... we do know that the impact and resulting fires could cause the buildings to collapse (because it did) and as already mentioned, the entire 9/11 CT Movement was just foil-hatted masturbation.

So you do not comprehend the difference between Knowing and BELIEVING.
That is the trouble with the 9/11 Religion.
In 1940 it only took 4 months to build a physical model to duplicate the oscillating behavior of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. But now that we have all of these great computers we can't make a virtual or physical model of the north tower collapse in almost FOURTEEN YEARS!
Quite ironic considering that the WTC was one of the first buildings to be designed with the help of computers.

The irony is thick but certainly you can't see it.
It's not the "9/11 religion" but rather the "9/11 CT religion" that has snagged you foil hatters. We know those buildings were hit by large, fast-moving passenger jets. We know chaotic fires were set by the impact and jet fuel. We know lots of stuff burned and the Towers eventually collapsed. None of that is in question but some can't seem to understand the connection between those factors because they conflict with their CT religious beliefs.
Building a computer model of those buildings wasn't a problem ... determining precisely how the impact and ensuing fires brought them down was the tricky part.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

someone farted in here.^

 

[psikeyhackr]

We know those buildings were hit by large, fast-moving passenger jets.

If you know so much why don't you tell us how much the building deflected due to the impact?

psik

 

[LA RAM FAN]

We know those buildings were hit by large, fast-moving passenger jets.

If you know so much why don't you tell us how much the building deflected due to the impact?

psik

WHY do you do it? these are paid shills sent here to troll the boards and waste your time and you keep feeding them.