quote:

Originally posted by culorut Humor you? you are humoring me you ****. Fuck off already.

another example of crazy, immature children with the capacity to swallow and regurgitate bullshit, but no capability to defend it.

don't worry, youre just the latest addition in a long line of people unable to plug the massive holes in their laughable opinions. good luck with that.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh and finally, if mr jones' hypothesis of laws of momentum in the tower's collapses is so scientifically sound, why has his paper STILL not received peer review? until that happens your side has exactly nothing at its foundation.

And what if it did? Would you still then refuse to believe it and accuse those that did of also being uneducated nutters?

To coin what of your so-often-used phrases, how about you "go and do your own research" and PROVE to us that the building fell down because it was made of matchsticks...

**

Some interesting stuff from the builder of the towers:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/pro...slie_robertson/

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Mikey Mike Social outcasts are often of the opinion that they must have a drink before being able to loosen up with their inhibitions, thus being able to have a good time. There's a word that sums up this sort of behaviour, and that word is 'reject.'

Last edited by _Ocean_Drive_ on Apr-24-2007 at 17:57

Good luck Ocean Drive, PKC's next post will look something like this,

You are all children, did you go to school? Are you successful and have experience in the real world? You realize you are posting lies, lies I tell you.

Nut bag.

Giuliani Caught In Bizarre Building 7 Lie

Claims WTC 7 collapsed in stages, Kerry Building 7 admission explodes on You Tube popularity charts


Rudy Giuliani has been caught in a bizarre lie about WTC 7, in which he claims the building collapsed in stages over a sustained period of time, when in reality the structure fell in under seven seconds. Giuliani also reveals that he expected the twin towers to collapse but "not in the way they did."

Giuliani was a speaker along with former Oklahoma City Mayor Ron Norick at an April 19th event held at the Oklahoma City Museum and National Memorial in Ahoma City, Oklahoma. The entire video can be viewed here courtesy of C-Span, but the pertinent clip is embedded below.

Giuliani is asked if he had expected the twin towers to collapse on 9/11. Here is his response.

"Yeah, but not in the way they did."

"It occurred to us all that they might ultimately collapse over....the way buildings usually collapse, which is in stages."

"It looked like at some point the top of the building would come off, and then maybe the middle of the building and then maybe there'd be a shell left....the way number 7 came down 4 or 5 o'clock in the afternoon - over a period of time - but the idea that it would implode, the implosion that took place, I actually didn't realize that until much later."

Building 7 collapsed in just 6.5 seconds - videos of the structure before its collapse show the building fully intact and suffering sporadic fires across a limited number of floors.

It has since also been proven to a reasonable degree that the smoke seen emanating from the area of Building 7 was mostly coming from Buildings 5 and 6, which had taken the direct brunt of the collapse of the twin towers and were completely ablaze.


WTC 7 imploded at near free fall speed and fell in its own footprint, barely even blocking the adjacent road. Giuliani's emergency command bunker was located in the building but he and his crew evacuated just before the collapse of the twin towers. Building 7 had been structurally reinforced to compensate for numerous floors to be taken out without compromising the integrity of the building.

For Giuliani to claim that Building 7 collapsed in stages is completely bizarre and totally inaccurate. One has to wonder if he is intentionally attempting to mislead with such a wildly false statement.

Is Giuliani attempting to re-write history in an attempt to deflect clearly documented accusations that Building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition?

In addition, his claims that the collapse of the twin towers, though not in the fashion they eventually fell (controlled demolition), was expected, completely contradicts the words of the very people who designed the World Trade Center, who are on the record on multiple occasions stating that the towers were designed to absorb airliner impacts without collapsing.

No steel framed building had collapsed from fire damage in history until September 11 2001 when three fell within the space of seven hours, so for Giuliani to have both expected the collapse and have received a warning immediately beforehand is highly suspicious.

In a related story, John Kerry's comments that Building 7 was deliberately demolished during an Austin Texas speaking event have gone viral since the You Tube video was posted and featured in our story on Monday. Despite receiving massive traffic, Google does not list the Prison Planet.com article in its search results nearly two days after the piece was first posted.

Just one version of the video has already received over 42,000 views and rising and features in multiple different You Tube most popular categories. The clip is currently the 5th most discussed video on You Tube today.

Calls to Kerry's office for a further clarification on his comments were not returned.

http://digg.com/politics/Giuliani_Caught_In_Bizarre_Building_7_Lie

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Good luck Ocean Drive, PKC's next post will look something like this, You are all children, did you go to school? Are you successful and have experience in the real world? You realize you are posting lies, lies I tell you. Nut bag.

Yeah that's it alright. This thread is about 9/11 and not a few trolls that name call and offer non-informative dialog. It's best just to use the ignore feature. It really works.

Trolls keep pushing the interest in the thread as long as they keep replying. Thumbs up trolls. What a way to bring up postcounts.

BTW the trolls are just gonna say "I don't have to prove anything because ABCNNBCBS say 9/11 happened just like they said it happened".

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ And what if it did? Would you still then refuse to believe it and accuse those that did of also being uneducated nutters? To coin what of your so-often-used phrases, how about you "go and do your own research" and PROVE to us that the building fell down because it was made of matchsticks...

what if it did? then yeah, id listen more closely to what he was saying, despite his complete lack of credentials in analysing the collapse. but it still hasn't so again you've got nothing.

here we go. here's a BUNCH of structural engineering analysis that has received peer review. enjoy your scientifically credible reading.

quote:

Below is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy... For those who may think that no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is... "Walter P. Murphy Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science Northwestern University The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

quote:

The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News: Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001). That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors. I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove its hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "theory of intelligent design" except on Christian web sites, there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books."

quote:

Editor: Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder [email protected] http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/facult...ple.cgi?corotis Editorial Board: Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego http://kudu.ucsd.edu/ Henri Gavin, Duke University http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/ Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/ Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/ Nicos Makris, University of Patras http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep...en.asp?profid=5 Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calenda...ademicAlpha.htm Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/facul...aculty_list.htm Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592 George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff...iadjis_Gbio.htm Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/facult...e/people.cgi?xi Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/ James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/ Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354...ategory&op=show Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact Journal of Engineering Mechanics

other engineering links here

but i know none of you deniers are likely to read contrary viewpoints. but your lack of commitment is something you will have to deal with. im sure you're all happy with your one-eye open approach to research.

where's colonel crisp to make you all look like fools again? nothing like having an engineer in here towing the "official" line. haha. you guys still got nothing

there's more expert analysis listed ^^ than in the ENTIRE truth movement. im really surprised you guys haven't managed to at least fabricate a structural expert to agree with you. i mean it HAS been 6 years. tsk tsk.

___________________

quote:

there's more expert analysis listed ^^ than in the ENTIRE truth movement. im really surprised you guys haven't managed to at least fabricate a structural expert to agree with you. i mean it HAS been 6 years. tsk tsk.

Sure what ever you say, it's more like the other way around in reality.

Many engineers and many other professionals at the top of their game do not agree with the official story.


Architect, Richard Gage explores the flawed conclusions of the 911 Commission report and NIST




Part 2

[[ LINK REMOVED ]]


Part 3

[[ LINK REMOVED ]]

^^ i dont have the time to watch hour long documentaries. if you have a peer-reviewed paper that he's published im more than happy to have a look at that instead.

oh, and serious LOL @ "it's more like the other way around in reality". no, no its not child. i could paste you another snippet of who makes up, say, the "scholars for 9/11 truth" movement but you wouldnt read that either.

suffice it to say, the world's structural engineers and demolition experts agree (more or less) with the findings of the NIST report.

___________________

Your problem then.

PART 2 shows NIST blatantly lying about the molten steel found under WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.

I will take the rescue workers reports over what they saw at the crime scene over "peer reviewed papers" any day.

That is the reality of 9/11.

well, how about you paraphrase for me?

what about the molten metal (not steel necessarily btw) that was seen at ground zero at clean up?

also, in case youre wondering, thermite creates molten iron. not steel.

___________________

Yes molten metal, correct. Regardless your nitpicking over nonsense.

NIST denies it was there and the rescue workers say they saw it flowing at ground zero. Hard to guess who to believe on this one.

Like I said PART 2, 10-15 mins in more or less. If you do not want to watch the real facts then your problem, spoon feeding individuals who wish to not open their eyes is a waste of time.