Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

9/11


PolyNewbie

Your apoinion on 911  

57 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Riverwind:This is where I gave up - this statement demonstrates how you are unable or unwilling to to read the English language correctly and understand the meaning of words. I don't see the point of having a discussion with someone on a message board who cannot understand a plain English sentence.

I understood perfectly what you said. In your incorrect knowledge and analysis you used the term "from an observer" which bears no relevance in Newtonian physics. Your lack of understanding is very clear when you use such language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Riverwind: (to drea)This is one of the reasons why people like you are not asked to design buildings. If you know nothing about building mechanics then you should look at what people who do know about building mechanics have to say. The overwhelming majority of people who do understand the science believe that fire+structural damage caused the collapse - not a controlled demolition. This includes people who have nothing to do with the US gov't.

Actually you will only find a handful of engineers willing to actively support the official version. These engineers are very dependent on government contracts and some have blood relations to people in the white house. These few write almost everything that supports the official version. Many conspiracy debunker sites and papers posted on the web do not have names associated with them - because the work is wrong and only there to confuse.

Their science has been shown to be fraudulent by people such as Jim Hoffman in particular. It doesn't take a Phd to see that they are just lying most of the time - about simple issues to do with science. The NIST report is nothing more than a whitewash and the first NIST version didn't even discuss wtc7 because its collapse wasn't shown on TV but twice the day of 911. One of the NIST heads is Philip Zelikow, he studies how to propogate and manitain propoganda

Most scientific minds - physics, applied math, & engineering support the version that explains the collapse using explosives. There are many people that support the idea that there MUST have been explosives in the building for this to happen the way it did.

Drea, People often think - "I am not an engineer or a phycisist and do not understand such things". You can catch a ball without ever studying projectile motion and you can walk around on two feet - something engineers cannot make machines do with their conventional control system theory. You have a lifetime of experience in knowing what makes sense and what doesn't - do not ever discount this. Just because you cannot write the equations does not mean you do not have an intuitive understanding of the physical world.

Science is where a little knowledge becomes dangerous, Riverwind is a perfect example. He repeatedly makes errors and still insists that he knows more than everyone else - including me - and continues to make serious elementary conceptual errors in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:This is one of the reasons why people like you are not asked to design buildings. If you know nothing about building mechanics then you should look at what people who do know about building mechanics have to say. The overwhelming majority of people who do understand the science believe that fire+structural damage caused the collapse - not a controlled demolition. This includes people who have nothing to do with the US gov't.

Name one structural engineer not associated with government that supports the official version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understood perfectly what you said. In your incorrect knowledge and analysis you used the term "from an observer" which bears no relevance in Newtonian physics. Your lack of understanding is very clear when you use such language.
If you understood you would not have made that idiotic comment. When a human watches a movie they see continuous motion - however, a movie is not continuous - it is actually a sequence of still images and only appear to be continuous from the perspective of human observer. Same thing happened with the WTC collapses - it appears to be a symmetric collapse because the time between the failure of supports was very short. However, what actually happened was an asymmetric collapse as a result of asymmetric damage.

The fact that you started babbling about relativity demonstrates that you are not willing or able to understand English.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:If you understood you would not have made that idiotic comment. When a human watches a movie they see continuous motion - however, a movie is not continuous - it is actually a sequence of still images and only appear to be continuous from the perspective of human observer. Same thing happened with the WTC collapses - it appears to be a symmetric collapse because the time between the failure of supports was very short. However, what actually happened was an asymmetric collapse as a result of asymmetric damage.

Don't talk to me about discretization of contiuous phenomen. You really just have no idea what you are talking about. Your above analysis is again, all wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the bottom of this page it clearly shows huge parts of the building flying upward during the collapse. It makes it obvious that explosives were used because things do not "fall up" they fall down.

Anybody can see there is a series of explosions that cause the collapse. You don't need an expert to tell you what is happening. Its plainly obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:ROTFL, I just wanted to capture that quote - it is perfect illustration of your obession with scientific buzzwords that you do not really understand.

How would you be able to make a determination like this ? You are just full of hot air.

Use your "expertise" to explain that the buildings did not go straight down. Then anyone reading this can see you are full of hot air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and the Pentagon. My god any idiot can see that a jetliner did NOT hit it.
By our own admission you do not understand the mechanics of aircraft collision so your opinion on whether a jetliner hit the building or not is not that useful. You are like people 200+ years ago that said something like 'any idiot knows steel boats can't float'.

Of course! Airplane wings must vanish into thin air when struck. *smacks palm on forehead*.

Take a look at the Pentagon pictures for goodness sake. An airliner did not hit it. An airliner would have made a much larger mess. Have you seen the Pentalawn 2000 --- google it and see for yourself.

Denial does not make reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take a look at the Pentagon pictures for goodness sake. An airliner did not hit it. An airliner would have made a much larger mess. Have you seen the Pentalawn 2000 --- google it and see for yourself.
Yet another person who attempts to analyze real events with the physics they learned from saturday morning cartoons. Real objects do not make neat cutouts in walls when they go though - they tend to collapse and deform on impact. The connection between the fuselage and the wings is relatively weak and would have caused the wings to fold back and snap off before they would go through re-enforced concrete. Furthermore, how do you know the exact shape of the damage to the pentagon? You can't get that information from videos - the only people with access to all of the information necessary to draw any conclusion are the people who cleaned up the mess.

I suggest you take the time to read the numerous sites like 911myths.com before you start lecturing people on denial. This artical is quite good: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...842.html?page=1

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:Yet another person who attempts to analyze real events with the physics they learned from saturday morning cartoons

Stop insulting people with your stupid remarks. The worst kind is the kind that tries to pass themselves off as an expert but then is consistently wrong. Thats you. You are getting frustrated because you can't answer any questions.

As far as the Pentagon goes, plenty of 911 truthers think and airplane hit it & plenty of truthers think it was a missile.

Drea, if you want the straight poop on this go to 911Research.wtc7.net. Jim Hoffman, a well published physicist thinks an airplane hit the pentagon. Webster Tarplay, a well known and respected researcher does not think a plane hit the Pentagon. Its a tough call and one I usually stay away from because I think it was a missile - for the same reason you do.

Popular mechanics is full of lies and misinformation and uses a "straw man" techique to attempt top discredit the movement. Chertoff is related to the Chertoff in the White House and distantly to Bush. They are also owned by people who make great profits from the wars - I think that is Haliburton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not much of a police state if it can't keep Streisand and David Lynch quiet.

They can pick the two of them up any time, take them away and shoot them without telling anyone - legally.

Just because they haven't done it yet doesn't mean they can't do it. They are in so much trouble in Iraq right now that they cannot aford to start dissapearing people.

From a law professor with an audio link interview below:

"So in other words they are taken the position that in some point in time if they want to, they can unilaterally round up United States native born citizens, as they did for Japanese Americans in World War Two, and stick us into concentration camps. That is correct. They haven't actually yet done it but my guess is that the papers have been drawn up... and we know that the FEMA camps are out there.

So it's clear that the Bush people, I guess they are waiting for some other terrorist attack, another anthrax attack, who knows what, and then they will proceed to invoke these emergency orders."

Re 911 Attacks:

"They let it happen because they wanted a war and they wanted a police state, all the elements for a war against Afghanistan were there in place, even the military force in the gulf were there on the scene, there were massive military forces in the gulf, in the Atlantic, in the Mediterranean, in the Arabian Ocean before September 11th poised for an attack, whether it was going to be Afghanistan or Iraq would be decided by Bush and the rest of them."

See http://www.infowars.net/articles/december2...191206Boyle.htm

He also talks about the The Patriot Act being on Bushes desk on Sept 10 /2001 and the anthrax attacks using super high tech military grade anthrax being an inside job.

You can listen to the interview from this page for free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop insulting people with your stupid remarks. The worst kind is the kind that tries to pass themselves off as an expert but then is consistently wrong. Thats you. You are getting frustrated because you can't answer any questions.
Answer your questions? You are the one who starts babbling about relativity when his arguements have been ripped to shreds.
Drea, if you want the straight poop on this go to 911Research.wtc7.net. Jim Hoffman, a well published physicist thinks an airplane hit the pentagon.
Look at this - even conspiracy nuts are debunking Hoffman! http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/hoffman_rebuttal.htm
Popular mechanics is full of lies and misinformation and uses a "straw man" techique to attempt top discredit the movement. Chertoff is related to the Chertoff in the White House and distantly to Bush. They are also owned by people who make great profits from the wars - I think that is Haliburton.
What a crock - you cannot rebut the arguments presented so you claim unproveable 'bias'. Just shows how weak your arguments are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can pick the two of them up any time, take them away and shoot them without telling anyone - legally.

No they can't, find me the legal precedence that allow's this to happen. As well nothing in the law currently allow's the government to kill people who are innocent of crimes on American soil, if you can't find the statute, then you can't make that statement.

From a law professor with an audio link interview below:

"So in other words they are taken the position that in some point in time if they want to, they can unilaterally round up United States native born citizens, as they did for Japanese Americans in World War Two, and stick us into concentration camps. That is correct. They haven't actually yet done it but my guess is that the papers have been drawn up... and we know that the FEMA camps are out there.

Who is the law professor, and this seem's to be no different from the War Measures Act which was enacted by Trudeau during the October Crisis. I have allready addressed the problem's with the FEMA camp's, and you haven't answered yet, despite the fact I am the only one currently on this topic with any experience in the military.

"They let it happen because they wanted a war and they wanted a police state, all the elements for a war against Afghanistan were there in place, even the military force in the gulf were there on the scene, there were massive military forces in the gulf, in the Atlantic, in the Mediterranean, in the Arabian Ocean before September 11th poised for an attack, whether it was going to be Afghanistan or Iraq would be decided by Bush and the rest of them."

Their has always been a military presence in the Gulf region. Clinton authorized air strikes on Iraq during his presidency. This doesn't prove anything as their is a military presence constantly in those region's.

He also talks about the The Patriot Act being on Bushes desk on Sept 10 /2001 and the anthrax attacks using super high tech military grade anthrax being an inside job.

Why would the US need to use anthrax after pulling off September 11th which would be reason enough to bring in the Patriot Act.

Stop insulting people with your stupid remarks. The worst kind is the kind that tries to pass themselves off as an expert but then is consistently wrong. Thats you. You are getting frustrated because you can't answer any questions.

You have constantly refused to answer my question's with regards to the statements you have made regarding Prescott Bush and Lyndon Larouche. All of which have been proven to be false, and the fact that you are a supporter of someone who is known to harbour extremist view's by the ADL.

Of course! Airplane wings must vanish into thin air when struck. *smacks palm on forehead*.

Take a look at the Pentagon pictures for goodness sake. An airliner did not hit it. An airliner would have made a much larger mess. Have you seen the Pentalawn 2000 --- google it and see for yourself.

Denial does not make reality.

According to the mainstream scientific community your wrong, when a plane would strike chance of two wing's being on the lawn is unlikely due to the damage inflicted and the high speed of the aircraft.

How would you be able to make a determination like this ? You are just full of hot air.

Use your "expertise" to explain that the buildings did not go straight down. Then anyone reading this can see you are full of hot air.

You've made comment about the Lucifarian's which have proven to be false, and nothing more than hate mongering based on unfounded accusation's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:You've made comment about the Lucifarian's which have proven to be false, and nothing more than hate mongering based on unfounded accusation's.

As for the unquoted part of your post I will take the law proffessors opinion about the law over yours. I have heard several interviews with different law professors all saying the same thing. If you want his name then listen to the interview.

You are afraid to listen to the interview aren't you. :angry:

You haven't proven that Luceferians do not exist because its impossible to prove a negative like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As well in reference to this thread let's look back at the 60's and 70's at two event's the Vietnam War and Watergate, both were covered by the press and both resulted in division in the country, and one lead to the president resigning. If their was a conspiracy for the last few centuries I would imagine they would want to keep a tighter hold on the media. When a reporter has found a story that could turn into the story of the century they'll publish it based on facts. What's happening here is no different from any other national tragedy, people will always try to find an external source to blame. People have been doing this throughout the centuries which is why it's important for people to remain vigilante against them. The last thing we want to see is people believing some conspiracy theory with no merit and no real people who are believed to be at fault. PN has claimed the media and the bank's are responsible for all of the world's problem's, but I've heard the same argument from people from the National Alliance, and the Aryan Nation's. PN still doesn't get the point that he is buying into the same line of thinking as these people. Poly refuses to answer any question's regarding his support of Lyndon Larouche who is considered mentally unstable and anti-semitic, and I doubt we'll hear anything from him yet.

You are afraid to listen to the interview aren't you.

You haven't proven that Luceferians do not exist because its impossible to prove a negative like that.

No, you have to provide your own facts, not the person debating you. I have constantly shown you facts which have been collected and researched. As for the Lucefarian's, they do exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luciferianism...n_Luciferianism

Modern Luciferianism and Modern Satanism share many primary aspects. In both, practitioners self-identify with a super-personal essence that they view as embodying desirable characteristics. Both work towards employing these characteristics as a means of bettering the Self. However, these two groups differ in that Modern Satanists, particularly younger ones, are believed to actively engage in the sinister or diabolical aspects traditionally associated with the biblical Satan due to criticism received by people who do not know a great deal about Satanism. It is therefore incorrect that crimes, such as child kidnapping, human sacrifices, vandalism, and so forth, are committed by true Satanists. Contrary to popular belief, many Luciferians and Satanists alike do not worship the devil, but rather worship nothing except the divinity within themselves.

As well you haven't found the statute which allow's people to be executed by the government, all that has been brought up is something similar to the War Measures Act.

As for the unquoted part of your post I will take the law proffessors opinion about the law over yours. I have heard several interviews with different law professors all saying the same thing. If you want his name then listen to the interview.

As have I, and the I agree that the Patriot Act goes too far, as does the act which can suspend habeas corpus, however nothing in law says the government can execute a person for dissent against the government. I believe that you are corrupting what has been said to pursue your own argument, even if it might be untrue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:You have constantly refused to answer my question's with regards to the statements you have made regarding Prescott Bush and Lyndon Larouche. All of which have been proven to be false, and the fact that you are a supporter of someone who is known to harbour extremist view's by the ADL.

Larouche wants to (1) Nationalize the banks (2) rebuild the USA infrastructure with non interest bearing currency.

These two things are strongly against the Bush doctrine which is too destroy the manufactering capability of the USA and to let private bankers take over. So Bush and his gang do everything they can to discredit LaRouche. LaRouche is not in the pockets of the international bankers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CanadianBlue:PN has claimed the media and the bank's are responsible for all of the world's problem's, but I've heard the same argument from people from the National Alliance, and the Aryan Nation's

So what ? Just because you have heard this arguement from them doesn't mean its wrong. If you dissagree that the banks own the USA you are in dissagreement with just about every economist on the planet!

Private bankers print off interest bearing fiat currency and lend it to the government at face value. The only way a government would do this is if they were owned and operated by private bankers.

Even John Kenneth Galbraith admits that the private bankers control the USA in his book Money. He only gives the topic one paragraph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...