Page 16 of 31 FirstFirst ... 69101112131415161718192021222326 ... LastLast
Results 196 to 208 of 396
  1. #196
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    4,378
    lol
    "The perfect Totalitarian State is one where the political bosses, and their army of managers, control a population of slaves, who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude"

  2. #197
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    1,241
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    An engineer or two? Articles in Structures magazine are peer reviewed by thousands of engineers world wide (don't take my word for it, RESEARCH something for yourself FOR ONCE), but thanks for exposing your level of knowledge on that matter for us. Very telling.

    And BTW, the charge made was that it CANNOT happen, that's what you think lends weight to your kook ideas. It certainly CAN happen.

    BTW, Mr. Science, ALL THEORIES are not facts. DUH!


    MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE that last line right there!

    BTW, I wonder if you have checked out the fate of some of YOUR experts after thier comments were not appreciated by the University he worked for (in other words - peer review). Suspended because your work is an embarressment? In fact, your "credentialed" experts are deserving of a whole post by themselves!
    Hey don't blame me for the fact that nowhere in your stupid little article did it explain how column 79 over the east penthouse gave way when it was one of the furthest away from the impact zone, a middle schooler (LOL) could see thats a legitimate question. This article was written to pose a theory of how it came down, not to explain exactly how it happened. Just because its possible doesn't make it likely. So how did column 79 give way Einstein?

    "BTW, I wonder if you have checked out the fate of some of YOUR experts after thier comments were not appreciated by the University he worked for (in other words - peer review). Suspended because your work is an embarressment? In fact, your "credentialed" experts are deserving of a whole post by themselves!"

    Why do you think more experts in the field have not come out? Because they will get ridiculed by the borg. You fail to realize the social aspect of this issue and I'm pretty sure you never will. You should read Atlas Shrugged, that would give you a clue as to how this whole thing works, but I highly doubt you'll give it a second thought. There is a reason why people in show business do not voice their opinions on 911 either. The zionist masterminds own hollywood completely. If an actor never wanted to work again they would speak out about 911.
    America; first we fight for our freedom,
    then we make laws to take it away.

    -Alfred E Newman

  3. #198
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    1,241
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    Ladies and gents. I rest my case.

    Looney tunes reign supreme.
    Hey listen up, just because have lost your powers of observation doesn't mean everyone else has. Clueless morons always look for a straw man or some little piece of dirt to attempt to discredit everything from the opposition. I don't care if those guys believe in Santa Claus, theres no mistaking what the guy in the video was talking about, even the likes of you can see that yet you "rest your case".
    America; first we fight for our freedom,
    then we make laws to take it away.

    -Alfred E Newman

  4. #199
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    3,384
    Scrog,
    After nearly two hundred posts I have noticed something about your “debating“ style, or should I say lack of debating style.

    I come from a family of Mechanical and Chemical Engineers. I am very familiar with someone who knows what they are talking about by them delving right in to and substantiating the subject matter. You on the other hand just keep telling us to read the links you provided and to hold the authors of this material in the highest regard because they were kept in check by other scientists. This is not how someone defends a position or wins a debate. As Liberty has already pointed out, you fail to defend your position.

    I apparently have not researched this topic nearly as well as Liberty has. I challenge you to stand toe-to-toe with him and answer his direct questions. Also, stop referring to the sanctity of the science industry. Do not mention peer review, white papers or my scientist is better than your scientist. Get right to the subject matter and stay on point.

    Now I’m going to hand this back to Liberty.

    BTW – His point about scientists not commenting on this topic because of political fallout is very real. But maybe not to you because you hold them in such high regard.

  5. #200
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    1,241
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyTree View Post
    LOL whenever there is a building collapse the debris is thoroughly studied to learn exactly why it happened and how to prevent it in the future. The architect of the damn building said that he designed it to withstand a plane crash so obviously the collapse was a surprise. It wasn't until way later that your beloved peer reviewed goons came out with the explanation. A thorough processing of the debris would have painted a clear picture, beyond the shadow of a doubt, of the exact reason ALL THREE skyscrapers went down. The site was locked down and the evidence destroyed. Don't try to play the irrelevance of the debris card, just makes you look bad.

    Also, I want to point out that you never debate specific points. You just take big broad strokes and parrot words like "science" and "peer review".
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    Bull crapio. How about posting some support for these misguided comments about debris? I mean from the science community, not you tube.
    Haha how do they know what caused buildings to collapse Einstein? Search for collapsed buildings and ask yourself how they have come to a conclusion for the cause of failure in most cases. Sometimes its pretty obvious (Hartford Civic Center, Grover Shoe factory) but many others needed further study of debris to verify cause of collapse (Kemper Arena, Hyatt Regency Walkway, 2003 Chicago Balcony Disaster, to name a few) To assume that investigators do not look at debris to determine cause of failure is asinine. Sorry I don't have a peer reviewed white paper on structure failure investigation but I do have this:

    http://www.exponent.com/structural_failures/

    One of my favorite lines "Quick response to failures to assist with stabilization of the debris, preservation of important evidence, and working with oversight agencies such as OSHA or local jurisdictions."

    Want more?

    http://www.lwgconsulting.com/forensi...tructural.aspx

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_engineering

    http://books.google.com/books?id=vxm...gation&f=false

    http://www.asce.org/Product.aspx?ID=...ProductID=5702

    http://www.ctlgroup.com/OurExpertise...ices/Detail/29

    Want me to buy you this book?
    http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=vxmPC-WcB3QC

    http://www.structint.com/what-we-do/...ion-management
    :
    America; first we fight for our freedom,
    then we make laws to take it away.

    -Alfred E Newman

  6. #201
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    1,241
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    Only problem is, since you don't actually check something out for yourself, you will never understand anything.

    Check the design spec and please come back and tell exactly what aircraft it was designed to withstand. Was that the aircraft that hit?

    Again, shoddy, shoddy, shoddy. Par for the course for you.

    You do know the difference between a 707 and what hit, yes?

    Thanks for continually demonstrating that not only do you not have a clue, but why you don't.
    What are you smoking? The buildings were designed to to take a 707, they were hit with a 767. The 767 is slightly heavier and slower than the 707. Not a huge difference in fuel capacity either. The north tower was within the limits of design, south tower was only about 10% over limit for a 707 impact. From an engineering standpoint the difference between 707 and 767 is negligible, at least for the north tower. I like how you try to make me look like an a$$ by citing differences between the plane that hit and the plane that it was designed to withstand while your beloved peer reviewed experts think its a non issue and that lack of fireproofing was the cause...
    America; first we fight for our freedom,
    then we make laws to take it away.

    -Alfred E Newman

  7. #202
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SW MO.
    Posts
    5,212
    If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to fly a plane into it, was it really a conspiracy afterall.
    Discipline your child so that other parents don't have to.

    We're awl pawthetic and kweepy and can't get giwrls. That's why we fight wobots.

  8. #203
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,656
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian GC View Post
    Scrog,
    After nearly two hundred posts I have noticed something about your “debating“ style, or should I say lack of debating style.

    I come from a family of Mechanical and Chemical Engineers. I am very familiar with someone who knows what they are talking about by them delving right in to and substantiating the subject matter. You on the other hand just keep telling us to read the links you provided and to hold the authors of this material in the highest regard because they were kept in check by other scientists. This is not how someone defends a position or wins a debate. As Liberty has already pointed out, you fail to defend your position.
    I'm not defending anything. I'm showing you what science says. Most of what you argue is already refuted IN THOSE PAPERS, but it's hard to know that when YOU WON'T READ THEM OR REFUTE THIER POINTS. That's your idea of debate? And as pointed out already, the claims you make are errant at best, flat out lies at worst.

    Did you see the photo evidence I presented? Buldings DID NOT fall thier footprint as you said. You ignore it and move on.

    What have you done? Whine, change the subject, and violate about every rule of formal logic there is with just about every post.

    There was NO MOLTEN STEEL. I already addressed that charge too. You ignore and move on.

    So, I guess you guys missed that. Also, again, the idea of posting links is not to say the argument is over. It is for you to read, consider, and respond to.

    This you ALSO have not done.

    Please tell me Brian, what should I respond to. More DEMONSTRABLE lies and innaccuracies? Did you answer my direct question about Susan Wood?

    Pot meet kettle.

    A more intelllectually dishonest group cannot be found. Your experts hold no expertise in relevant fields. Susan Wood is a dental specialist. She has also left the group due to pressure put on her for NOT understanding the BASIC AND UNCHANGING laws of phyisics. One has been removed from his university, not because of consipracy, but because we don't want flat out liars teaching our kids.

    Susan Wood would not know physics if it whapped her in the head. AGAIN, ANYONE WHO READS THE SCIENCE CAN MAKE THIS DETERMINATION; YOUR SCIENCE IS FLAT OUT JUNK.

    I'm done trying to explain science to the clueless.

    So, let's review. You post links. I review them and contest what THEY said (not what YOU said). I post links. You ignore them. Then you charge that it is *I who doesn't know how to debate!!

    LMFAO!

    Just wanted to set the record straight there. Apparently you could use a reading comprehension class as well as a seventh grade science text.

    Now you can claim victory and move on, even though I've PLAINLY SHOWN at least two of your claims to be FLAT OUT WRONG or LIES. You just ignore like nothing at all happened, just like any intellectually dishonest person would do at this point.

    Shameful debating style. Absolutely shameful.

    No one can be this stupid. Therefore, I have concluded that your attempt to mislead is intentional.

    Ah, another case study on agenda and the human condition. A whole team of "experts" who are glory grabbing liars (one more time I ask, had you ever heard of any of them before the youtube film?), supported by those who wish to mislead to suit their little agenda.
    Last edited by scrogdog; 10-03-2012 at 09:02 AM. Reason: There was no molten STEEL not metal :)
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  9. #204
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    3,384
    Scrog,
    Do not direct your frustration at me. Rather direct it at Liberty by responding to ALL of his points. That is how you win a debate.

    Up to now you have been very transparent due to your substance less approach.

  10. #205
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,656
    Why respond?

    Like you responded to the CLEAR EVIDENCE that the buildings did not fall as you say?

    Or the CLEAR EVIDENCE that truthers don't even know what MOLTEN means?\

    Or the PLAIN FACT the Susan Wood has no clue about physics?

    Liberty is even more dishonest than you. You wish me to respond, yet YOU don't.

    As noted.

    Like I said, I'm done with the both of you.

    So, again, feel free to claim your intellectually dishonest victory, as is the usual case when things go like this with the dishonest and clueless among us.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  11. #206
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    3,384
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    Why respond?

    Like you responded to the CLEAR EVIDENCE that the buildings did not fall as you say?

    Or the CLEAR EVIDENCE that truthers don't even know what MOLTEN means?\

    Or the PLAIN FACT the Susan Wood has no clue about physics?

    Liberty is even more dishonest than you. You wish me to respond, yet YOU don't.

    As noted.

    Like I said, I'm done with the both of you.

    So, again, feel free to claim your intellectually dishonest victory, as is the usual case when things go like this with the dishonest and clueless among us.
    I don't blame you. I wouldn't want to go up against Liberty on this either.

    Best to run and hide.

  12. #207
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,656
    Keep in mind, folks, that these "truthers" had all the debris they wanted at the pentagon, yet concluded that it was hit by a missle.

    Need I say more?

    Keep in mind that these "truthers" intentionally used photographs of the wrong side of buiding 7 in a clearly dishonest effort to build thier agenda laden case.

    I really don't feel the need to respond to that brand of "truth", thanks. lol

    Con artistry often goes just like this.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  13. #208
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Dacula, GA
    Posts
    12,604
    Quote Originally Posted by scrogdog View Post
    Keep in mind, folks, that these "truthers" had all the debris they wanted at the pentagon, yet concluded that it was hit by a missle.

    Need I say more?

    Keep in mind that these "truthers" intentionally used photographs of the wrong side of buiding 7 in a clearly dishonest effort to build thier agenda laden case.

    I really don't feel the need to respond to that brand of "truth", thanks. lol

    Con artistry often goes just like this.
    Good job scrouge. You have

Page 16 of 31 FirstFirst ... 69101112131415161718192021222326 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event