ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 23rd November 2008, 10:52 AM   #81
psikeyhackr
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
It is very honest for you to admit that you lied. Seriously! Good on ya mate!

So in your link you lied about this: "The NIST says the tower that took longer to collapse did it in 11 seconds." Well, we all know that is false and you lied about it.

Here is what NIST actually said:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A)."

Thanks for pointing out where you lied.
So you are trying to tell us that 11 seconds is not longer than 9 seconds?

Is the NIST's verbosity causing your reading comprehension to malfunction?

Is this dude an escapee from The Twilight Zone.

It truly amazes me how many people come on the internet and advertise their stupidity and seem to not notice they are doing it.

psik
psikeyhackr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2008, 10:58 AM   #82
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
So you are trying to tell us that 11 seconds is not longer than 9 seconds?

Is the NIST's verbosity causing your reading comprehension to malfunction?

Is this dude an escapee from The Twilight Zone.

It truly amazes me how many people come on the internet and advertise their stupidity and seem to not notice they are doing it.

psik
You must have severe reading comprehension problems. Either that, or you are a flat out liar. Which one is it?

NIST does not say WTC1 collapsed in 11 seconds.
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2008, 11:41 AM   #83
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
So you are trying to tell us that 11 seconds is not longer than 9 seconds?

Is the NIST's verbosity causing your reading comprehension to malfunction?

Is this dude an escapee from The Twilight Zone.

It truly amazes me how many people come on the internet and advertise their stupidity and seem to not notice they are doing it.

psik
Hee hee!! First, the "first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated" does NOT EQUAL TOTAL COLLAPSE!!

Second, I was baiting you into showing that you do not understand anything about NIST's report. Here is what ELSE they said:

"From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse."

Actually new videos show it was probably longer than that. Thus the exterior panels falling in near free fall hit in 9 or 11 seconds and the total collapse lasted long after that!

It truly amazes me how many people come on the internet and advertise their stupidity and seem to not notice they are doing it.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2008, 12:13 PM   #84
Mangoose
Muse
 
Mangoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 921
If you synchronize the videos of the WTC2 collapse, you can easily see that ONE SECOND before the exterior panels first crashed into the ground, there were still columns standing as high as the 78th floor.
__________________
Steven Jones: "Witness testimony evidencing explosions accompanied by white dust clouds ... are physical indicators of the presence of energetic chemical reactions in the rubble at GZ." (source) Reality: The witness in question was actually describing the dust clouds accompanying the collapse of the South Tower. (source)
Mangoose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2008, 12:39 PM   #85
psikeyhackr
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 470
Quote:
, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A)."
We are supposed to believe wall panels created those seismic signals? ROFL

RIGHT!

I have just searched the NCSTAR1 report. The word seconds appears 144 times in 21 documents. They don't specify the collapse times there at all. VERY CURIOUS FOR A 10.000 PAGE REPORT supposedly explaining the collapses of two 400,000 ton buildings.

That summary also says this:
Quote:
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

If parts of the core were still standing and visible that means all of the material around the core was gone. The material above those portions of the core was also gone. So quibbling over trivia can get almost any time you want. So where is the data on the distribution of steel and concrete so we can figure out how that much mass could come down in less that 18 seconds. Why did what was left of the core collapse if it no longer had so much other weight to support? That is an interesting question in itself.

Maybe we need lawyers because the NCSTAR1 report and the NIST summaries were written by people deliberately quibbling with words. Just like lawyers.

psik
psikeyhackr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2008, 01:02 PM   #86
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Will you acknowledge that you were egregiously wrong about NIST saying the collapse took 11 seconds? Or should we just assume that you are an incompetent fraud meaning there no reason to even respond to anything that you say?
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2008, 01:02 PM   #87
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
We are supposed to believe wall panels created those seismic signals? ROFL

RIGHT!

So where is the data on the distribution of steel and concrete so we can figure out how that much mass could come down in less that 18 seconds. Why did what was left of the core collapse if it no longer had so much other weight to support? That is an interesting question in itself.

psik
I LOVE IT! This excercise began when I pointed out that you were lying in an earlier link. You concede it, excellent!

Next, yeah, pal? Doing a word search in a document rather than reading the freaking thing is pathetically lazy.

Why don't you answer your own question about why what was left of the core collapsed? Stop being wrong and dishonestly lazy

Last edited by The Big Dog; 23rd November 2008 at 01:05 PM.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2008, 02:00 PM   #88
psikeyhackr
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
Will you acknowledge that you were egregiously wrong about NIST saying the collapse took 11 seconds? Or should we just assume that you are an incompetent fraud meaning there no reason to even respond to anything that you say?
You may assume whatever you like. It's a free planet.

I had seen videos of the remains of the cores still standing after most of the building was gone plenty of times before now. So if someone wants to insist that the collapse time is what it took for all of that to come down then obviously it was longer than 11 seconds.

Thanks for making me search the NICSTAR1 report for "seconds" though. I didn't know that they NEVER bothered to try to specify the collapse time in their 10,000 pages.

"Egregious" NO. Skipping over details that some people want to make a big deal of YES.

psik
psikeyhackr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2008, 02:03 PM   #89
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
OK, got it. You are an incompetent fraud. Thanks for making that clear.
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2008, 02:54 PM   #90
jmcvann
Navel Gazer
 
jmcvann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 660
dtugg and 16.5: I guess I just don't have the patience to deal with people like psik, but I'm sure glad you do. That was some fun reading!
jmcvann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2008, 06:46 AM   #91
psikeyhackr
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 470
Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah!

Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
OK, got it. You are an incompetent fraud. Thanks for making that clear.
Here is Dr. Sunder Dunderhead of the NIST:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

Notice he also says they came down so fast because they were 70% air by volume. That comes to 15 tons of air per level by the way. Who cares about an AVERAGE of 800 tons of steel per level? Who knows what the average for concrete was? So why don't we have a table specifying the distribution of steel and concrete after SEVEN YEARS?

Now has REALITY changed because of the words of one official nitwit.

You people want to argue on the basis of WORDS instead of comprehension of the physics of the event. Now you can tell Dr. Sunder he was wrong about the time.

ROFLMAO

psik

PS - Dr. Sunder Dunderhead is definitely an incompetent fraud by the way.

PS2 - What does that say for people who need THE VOICE OF AUTHORITY instead of comprehending the physics for themselves?

Last edited by psikeyhackr; 24th November 2008 at 06:54 AM. Reason: NYAH!
psikeyhackr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2008, 07:04 AM   #92
GStan
Graduate Poster
 
GStan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,350
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
Here is Dr. Sunder Dunderhead of the NIST:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

Notice he also says they came down so fast because they were 70% air by volume. That comes to 15 tons of air per level by the way. Who cares about an AVERAGE of 800 tons of steel per level? Who knows what the average for concrete was? So why don't we have a table specifying the distribution of steel and concrete after SEVEN YEARS?

Now has REALITY changed because of the words of one official nitwit.

You people want to argue on the basis of WORDS instead of comprehension of the physics of the event. Now you can tell Dr. Sunder he was wrong about the time.

ROFLMAO

psik

PS - Dr. Sunder Dunderhead is definitely an incompetent fraud by the way.

PS2 - What does that say for people who need THE VOICE OF AUTHORITY instead of comprehending the physics for themselves?
Many people here, unlike yourself, do understand physics and have read the entire NIST report, both of them, and the entire FEMA report, and many other documents published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. They have done so because, unlike yourself, they have the knowledge and background to review and respond to them intelligently.

You, on the other hand, do a keyword search for the word "seconds" and declare the report to be a fraud, and then ROFLYAO. Great work!
__________________
On why one would debate truthers at JREF..."Kind of like holidaying with a cult, without the inconvenience of having to give away the deed to your house." - Confuseling
GStan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2008, 07:16 AM   #93
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Since you have exposed Sunder and NIST for the frauds that they are, I can expect to hear this in a paper that you submit to a scholarly journal, right?. I guess you will be the twoofer that finally proves to the world that 9/11 was inside job. I can't wait. Or perhaps you think that your time is better spent arguing on the internet with people that think you are an idiot.

I would say that Sunder is wrong when he said the collapses took 9 and 11 seconds. Or rather that he misspoke. It is pretty clear in the FAQ what those times mean.

BTW, why the hell are you arguing about this in this thread? There are plenty of threads that talk about NIST, the tower collapses, ect. Or start a new one if you really want to show us all how NIST and the debunkers don't know what they are talking about. Do it. I dare you.
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2008, 07:39 AM   #94
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,998
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
So why don't we have a table specifying the distribution of steel and concrete after SEVEN YEARS?
http://journalof911studies.com/volum...ssAndPeWtc.pdf

Gregory Urich, one of the few people I actually respect among those who doubt or disbelieve that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda with no US Government involvement, chose a slightly different approach to yours. Instead of spouting nonsense on Internet forums about how he hadn't been spoon-fed the detailed information that was of interest to him, he reviewed what information was actually available and analysed it. And guess what? He worked out the distribution of steel and concrete, from published information. He wasn't too lazy to work it out, or immature enough to complain that nobody had worked it out for him.

Now you have two choices. You can either accept that there is enough information in the public domain to work out the information you're demanding, or you can pretend that the information still doesn't exist and continue to complain about it. The latter course of action is unlikely to yield better public understanding of the events of 9/11.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 24th November 2008 at 07:41 AM.
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2008, 08:04 AM   #95
NobbyNobbs
Gazerbeam's Protege
 
NobbyNobbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,617
Originally Posted by finalmessenger View Post
Osama da Bomba must've arranged for the wargames that day.

How can the "truth" movement get anywhere when lawyers take control of the process? They're all on the same side. It's all just for show. Lawyers just want to make money off of it.

JREF doesn't even believe in free speech so how can forums like this help? So you all can get things off your chest?

Look, it's very simple. Wargames = diversion. How did Osama da Bomba know about the wargames? Who was/is feeding him info. Bhutto told David Frost he was dead (bin Laden, not Frost who is only almost dead). She named his killer.

There wasn't even a second plane folks. They just blew up the building and the media created the images of a plane impacting. They're fakes. Don't you youtube? I downloaded all the ones that I found. In one (Chan 4 chopper) the ladies commentating don't see the plane but they sure see an explosion when a fireball erupts from 2. Then there's the reporter who says, "I didn't see a plane go in! That just exploded!" Others said the same thing. Were they all in the same place behind the building?

Do you know anything about lines of perspective and scale? Of course no plane hit the tower if people who were outside there were saying they didn't see one. There was no second plane. They just blew up the building. Mossad operation all over it. Five dancing Israelis can't be wrong.

Do some research and you'll find the speech Kennedy made denouncing secret societies that are undermining open societies. Shortly thereafter, poof. Cap in the toque. Start connecting the dots.

The monarchy is a mix of inbred royals being manipulated by Zionists. It's an evil symbiosis that must be stopped before some authoritarian fool decides to push all the buttons. JREF isn't helping any by moving relevant posts because they include criticism of the attitude of someone who doesn't know the meaning of the word "Challenge". That would be JR.

This is just Masonic/Zionist baiting. There's no truth to lots of things you're told to believe.

That's why I plan to go to the police with Palm Pilot in palm and say, "Hey, officer, look at this. Did you see a plane? Did you hear them mention a plane? Neither did I. Hey, officer. I sued the government of Alberta for putting me in Alberta Hospital and the judge said I can't force people to believe me. I guess that's because I don't own a chain of media outlets."

That's right, officer. An extortion racket is our legal system. Do you think they'll shoot me or listen? Cuzzin ah gots lots ta say!!!

Remember to have that million smackers ready JREF. Like I said in the post that your automod moved, 26 years ago I was told by the woman who said she loved me and would marry me and then broke up with me when I needed her most because she was scared of an actors future, "You shouldn't care what other people think." And I don't care what you think. I only care about what I know. And I know I can prove that 17 days after 9-11 I saw the light of God with the songs I wrote about it.

You don't like criticism? Try being blamed for things you haven't even done and then being prevented from telling your own side of the story. Psychiatry is a fraud of the legal system. If lawyers don't want to help you defend yourself what good are they.

I walked into a lawyerís office about, oh, seven years ago now. I introduced myself and everything was going fine. That is, until I said the next thing. I looked at him, then sort of gestured to the ceiling in a general way. I said, "ďThis is not reality.Ē Thatís all. His reaction was somewhat startling. Suddenly, he was Mr. I Donít Wanna. When I asked him to look at my songs it was, ďI donít want to see them!Ē

He was afraid of me. Needless to say, I was not pleased. So a lawyer has the right to charge people money to defend their interests or even lives but if I donít have money I canít defend my sanity because an extortion racket member says so. Really. Why, thatís just sociopathic doublethink. That just robs me of the chance for legitimate commerce. Defend such to rob me of free speech and a living at your peril.
Poe's Law?

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
You mean the law can be broken if the system is not isolated?

psik

He means the law only applies to isolated systems. Being in an isolated system is part of the law. You can't apply it to unisolated systems. Etc.

The law is, "In an isolated system, momentum is conserved."
__________________
I wish someone would find something I wrote on this board to be sig-worthy, thereby effectively granting me immortality.--Antiquehunter
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted years on earth the time spent eating butterscotch pudding.
AMERICA! NUMBER 1 IN PARTICLE PHYSICS SINCE JULY 4TH, 1776!!! --SusanConstant
NobbyNobbs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2008, 12:28 PM   #96
psikeyhackr
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 470
Quote:
I would say that Sunder is wrong when he said the collapses took 9 and 11 seconds. Or rather that he misspoke. It is pretty clear in the FAQ what those times mean.
Yeah, this is what I expected from you JREFers. He mispoke but I LIED because I quoted him.

Did he misspeak by saying the buildings came down so fast because they were 70% air by volume? Anyone that read the entire NCSTAR1 report is STUPID. Just understanding basic physics means you must know the importance of the vertical distribution of steel and concrete in the towers. But the NIST only admits that in two places. And they don't even specify the total amount of concrete though they did it for steel in three places.

On the matter of mass distribution of the towers the NIST says this:

Quote:
2.4.3 Single Impulse Excitations

Accurate estimation of the towerís motion during the airplane impact required detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and impact velocity of the aircraft, as well as detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and structural strength of the tower. At the time of this test series (fall 2003), much of this information was unknown, and the impact motion could only be roughly estimated. To allow this estimate to be made quickly, many simplifying assumptions were made regarding the nature of the impact.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5D.pdf page 74


Since people don't just accidentally decide how much steel and concrete to put on every level of a 1360 foot building that can withstand 100+ mph winds the above statement is not surprising. The peculiar thing is that this was not discussed A LOT in preparing to analyze the event back in 2001.

I don't understand why they couldn't have had that info on the building by fall 2003 though and I certainly don't understand why we don't have it now. WTF

I love the jargon they have to come with for these kind of reports, " Single Impulse Excitations". You have to stop and think, "What the hell does that mean?" Oh. it was hit real hard one time and started vibrating. DUH! 500 mph airliners do that, but only once.

The south tower moved 12 inches at the 70th floor which was 130 feet below the impact at the 81st floor. The tower oscillated for FOUR MINUTES.



Quote:
These are physical data, showing a characteristic nearly exponential decay (damping) of the oscillation. Observed oscillation of the WTC 2 Tower provides compelling empirical evidence that it was hit by a fast-moving jetliner. Any claim to the contrary must confront these published data or the analysis thereof.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5.pdf p. 26 It will not do in scientific inquiry to ignore data like this Ė even if one does not trust the source for some reason. In other words, the argument must be to the DATA, not to the source (ad hominem).
http://stj911.org/jones/Jones_Replyt...olds_Wood.html

So that Single Pulse Excitation was caused by a lot of kinetic energy from the plane and the amount of energy which produced structural damage cannot be computed from the total energy of the aircraft without calculating how much went to producing this behavior in the building and that requires reasonably accurate distribution of steel and concrete information. But where does the NIST show that data and do those calculation?

I have searched the NCSTAR for more statements containing "weight distribution". "mass distribution", "distribution of weight" and "distribution of mass" but that "2.4.3 Single Impulse Excitations" is the only instance that clearly stated the relevance of the vertical distribution of mass to analyzing the impact. My impact demonstration was intended to make the importance of that information obvious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

So I guess we need lots of lawyers to sort out this misspeaking from lying so we can drag this out another SEVEN YEARS on a problem that should have been settled in LESS THAN ONE. If the planes could do that the NIST should have been able to explain it in less than 500 pages.

psik

PS - This site didn't let me specify the width and height of the graph so it would not stretch the post.
psikeyhackr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2008, 12:59 PM   #97
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
Yeah, this is what I expected from you JREFers. He mispoke but I LIED because I quoted him.
You never said that you were quoting Sunder earlier. It probably would have cleared a lot up. I doubt you had even knew that he said that. You probably just got lucky and found this video to throw in our faces.

As for the rest of your gibberish, it doesn't concern me at all that NIST didn't go into extreme detail about the motion from the impact and figure out the exact mass distribution of the towers since they were tasked with finding out how the collapse initiated. They did do that. Do you how the collapse started according to NIST? And after it happened it was all over making your quibbling about mass distribution unimportant. This is proven by math and physics. Also common sense which dictates that the floor below the collapse wasn't designed to hold the dynamic load of millions of pounds crashing down on it. Same for the floor below that and so on. NIST didn't really go into detail about exactly what happened after the collapse started because it was too complex to model.

You should really start another thread this if this really concerns you since this is totally off topic.

Also, I have to wonder what you are doing arguing with us if you are so sure that NIST is a bunch of liars. You should go expose them to the world or something.

Last edited by dtugg; 24th November 2008 at 01:13 PM.
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2008, 01:18 PM   #98
psikeyhackr
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 470
Hang 'em High

Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
You never said that you were quoting Sunder earlier. It probably would have cleared a lot up. I doubt you had even knew that he said that. You probably just got lucky and found this video to throw in our faces.

As for the rest of your gibberish, it doesn't concern me at all that NIST didn't figure out the exact mass distribution of the towers since they were tasked with finding out how the collapse initiated. They did do that. Do you know what they say?. After it happened it was all over and the mass distribution didn't really matter.

You should really start another thread this if this really concerns you since this is totally off topic.
ROFLMAO

You can doubt it all you want, but all you have to do is use Google to search on "psikeyhackr" and "dunderhead" to see how often I quoted him on that 70% air business. That has been in my bookmarks for over a year.

Here is one from April 2008 and the thread is locked so I can't change it.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/...794466#p794466

December 2007

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/view...568846#p568846

Don't you like being given enough rope to do what you do best?

Does what one man says, who happens to be at the NIST, affect the physics of what occurred on 9/11? You people think in terms of trusting in AUTHORITY rather than comprehending physics.

It never occurred to me that the information wasn't in the NCSTAR1 report though.

psik

Last edited by psikeyhackr; 24th November 2008 at 01:56 PM. Reason: older link
psikeyhackr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2008, 01:38 PM   #99
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Whatever dude, you have evidence one of the greatest frauds of all time and all you care about apparently is pwning debunkers. You should put your money where your mouth is and sue NIST, otherwise you are just another anonymous twoofer making noise on the Internet. Judy Wood, for example, even though she is insane, actually tried to do something about it (and failed epically but that is beside the point).

And no, what one man at NIST doesn't change the physics about what happened on 9/11. I understand it perfectly well myself, and there is nothing strange about the physics of the twin towers collapsing. Not unless you are an idiot twoofer looking for a conspiracy. I don't even care what he said in that one, short interview, it is likely that he was trying to simplify it for laymen.

But anyway, I am done with you. You are just another twoofer who thinks he was uncovered one of the biggest frauds of all time but won't leave his keyboard to do anything about it.
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2008, 02:08 PM   #100
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,694
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
Anyone that read the entire NCSTAR1 report is STUPID. .
Here we have the "truth" movement in a nut shell. Never actually read a report that would explain why you have no clue what your talking about (yes it's in there). That would kill the deluded fantasy.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2008, 02:10 PM   #101
psikeyhackr
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 470
Quote:
And no, what one man at NIST doesn't change the physics about what happened on 9/11. I understand it perfectly well myself, and there is nothing strange about the physics of the twin towers collapsing.
So you must have the distribution of steel and concrete.

I provided the quote and the link from the NCSTAR1 report where the NIST admitted that distribution of mass was necessary. Curiously that was the only report where they use the term "center of mass" but it was a report about suspended ceilings. WHAT!!!

That made no sense since the only video I have seen of anyone talking about things falling from the ceiling was in the basement. But the word basement is not in that report. Searches can be so useful. Wading through 10,000 pages of drivel would be so ridiculous.

We can insult each other forever but since a skyscraper must hold itself up and the Empire State Building was designed and constructed without computers why can't we just get the info on STEEL and CONCRETE on every level after SEVEN YEARS? And why shouldn't people who say they know so much about physics admit that it is important? Ever heard of "damped oscillation". Wouldn't the steel provide spring and mass and the concrete provide mass?

How much of the plane's kinetic energy went into starting that mass oscillating?

OOPS! That's right lawyers don't do laws of physics.

psik
psikeyhackr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2008, 05:52 PM   #102
psikeyhackr
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Here we have the "truth" movement in a nut shell. Never actually read a report that would explain why you have no clue what your talking about (yes it's in there). That would kill the deluded fantasy.
So was there any concrete in the towers?

Tell us where the NCSTAR1 report specifies the amount. They tell us there were "roughly 200,000 tons of steel" in three different places in the report. That is both towers combined of course though they are not very explicit about it. So why can't they do that with the concrete?

We must need some lawyers to force that information out of them.

psik
psikeyhackr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2008, 06:27 AM   #103
scott75
New Blood
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
Originally Posted by DGM
Quote:
Here we have the "truth" movement in a nut shell. Never actually read a report that would explain why you have no clue what your talking about (yes it's in there). That would kill the deluded fantasy.
So was there any concrete in the towers?

Tell us where the NCSTAR1 report specifies the amount. They tell us there were "roughly 200,000 tons of steel" in three different places in the report. That is both towers combined of course though they are not very explicit about it. So why can't they do that with the concrete?

We must need some lawyers to force that information out of them.
I sincerely doubt it's in there myself. -However-, truth movement web site 9/11 Research has apparently found the answer based on FEMA's description of the towers' construction:

True, others have mentioned other figures, but I trust 9/11 Research more then most sites. Here's the relevant excerpt from The North Tower's Dust Cloud page (can't put up URL's yet):
******************************
Jerry Russell estimated that the amount of energy required to crush concrete to 60 micron powder is about 1.5 KWH/ton. (See www(dot)911-strike(dot)com/powder(dot)htm.) That paper incorrectly assumes there were 600,000 tons of concrete in each tower, but Russell later provided a more accurate estimate of 90,000 tons of concrete per tower, based on FEMA's description of the towers' construction.
******************************

Last edited by scott75; 25th November 2008 at 06:28 AM.
scott75 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2008, 09:57 AM   #104
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,694
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
So was there any concrete in the towers?

Tell us where the NCSTAR1 report specifies the amount. They tell us there were "roughly 200,000 tons of steel" in three different places in the report. That is both towers combined of course though they are not very explicit about it. So why can't they do that with the concrete?

We must need some lawyers to force that information out of them.

psik
NCSTAR1-6D
Please try to read things that you choose to demonstrate your ignorance toward.

No NIST does not spoon feed the ignorant the totals but anyone can calculate (as they did) them if they really cared (or needed) to know.

Have you checked out what Gregory Urick has done (like we suggested)? Why are you so lazy about something you claim to care about?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2008, 10:06 AM   #105
psikeyhackr
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 470
Conspiracies, YAWN

Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
Whatever dude, you have evidence one of the greatest frauds of all time and all you care about apparently is pwning debunkers.

Not unless you are an idiot twoofer looking for a conspiracy. I don't even care what he said in that one, short interview, it is likely that he was trying to simplify it for laymen.

But anyway, I am done with you. You are just another twoofer who thinks he was uncovered one of the biggest frauds of all time but won't leave his keyboard to do anything about it.
Saying the buildings came down so fast because they were 70% air by volume is making things simple for the laymen? That is nothing but a stupid lie.

I don't give a damn about any conspiracies. The nation that put men on the moon can't tell the entire world the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of buildings designed before the moon landing. And so called debunkers claiming to know physics don't even ask such obvious questions.

That is HILARIOUS!

The laws of physics could not care if the planes were flown by drunken Hell's Angels snorting coke. Or lawyers snorting coke for that matter.

psik
psikeyhackr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2008, 10:16 AM   #106
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,603
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
NCSTAR1-6D
Please try to read things that you choose to demonstrate your ignorance toward.

No NIST does not spoon feed the ignorant the totals but anyone can calculate (as they did) them if they really cared (or needed) to know.

Have you checked out what Gregory Urick has done (like we suggested)? Why are you so lazy about something you claim to care about?
Don't bother, as he will never learn. He has spouted the same nonsense for at least 90% of his posts, and he hasn't learned anything yet.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2008, 01:24 PM   #107
psikeyhackr
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
Don't bother, as he will never learn. He has spouted the same nonsense for at least 90% of his posts, and he hasn't learned anything yet.
I have Gregory Urich's data on my hard drive. Urich admits that his data on the perimeter columns is INTERPOLATED which means it is wrong.

The NIST admits that there were 12 different types of perimeter wall panels. They do not tell us the number and weights of each type of panel. But they tell us that the original design called for 14 types and two types were upgraded so only 12 were used. What good does it do to know the original design was 14? All that matters is waht was actually on the building on 9/11. The NIST bombards us with trivial crap but not important distilled info. Why Urich defends them I don't know.

We only know that the heaviest wall panel was 22 tons because it was in an engineering article from 1970, but we don't know how many there were. So lots of NIST worshipers will study shallow drivel. How many tons of steel and tons of concrete were on the 70th level to move 12 inches as a result of the impact. The NIST tells us about the 12 inches, why not the rest?

Skyscrapers do have to be strong enough on every level to hold themselves up don't they? The curious thing is I can't find that information on ANY SKYSCRAPER. You would think this is some kind of guild secret. Considering how old the Empire State Building is why would anyone give a damn if it weren't for 9/11? Curious that Richard Gage and his buddies don't make a stink about this I emailed him in June of 2007 about Frank Greening and his peculiar potential energy calculations.

So I guess we are back to needing lawyers to get the information necessary to solve a grade school physics problem.

psik
psikeyhackr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2008, 10:33 PM   #108
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,998
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
The curious thing is I can't find that information on ANY SKYSCRAPER.
So what you're saying is that the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy has cunningly concealed information about the tons of steel and concrete on every level of the WTC towers by concealing information on the tons of steel and concrete on every level of every skyscraper everywhere in the world ever, except for the WTC where it's published all the information except for the perimeter column masses, which had to be interpolated? A thorough, if somewhat unfathomable, approach, to be sure.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2008, 05:36 AM   #109
psikeyhackr
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
So what you're saying is that the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy has cunningly concealed information about the tons of steel and concrete on every level of the WTC towers by concealing information on the tons of steel and concrete on every level of every skyscraper everywhere in the world ever, except for the WTC where it's published all the information except for the perimeter column masses, which had to be interpolated? A thorough, if somewhat unfathomable, approach, to be sure.

Dave
Why don't you stop throwing the word conspiracy around and try finding the information on any skyscraper yourself?

I worked for IBM for four years and never saw the term "von Neumann machine" on any documenataion or heard anyone use it. von Neumann worked for IBM as a consultant in the early 50s and almost all computers are von Neumann machines. Try finding a good explanation of how one works though.

I would suggest chapter chapter 10 of The Art of Electronics. But the curious thing is they never use the term von Neumann machine. There is a kind of Gresham's Law of information. Important information habitually disappears. Trivial MBE is everywhere.

psik
psikeyhackr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2008, 09:35 AM   #110
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
Why don't you stop throwing the word conspiracy around and try finding the information on any skyscraper yourself?

I worked for IBM for four years and never saw the term "von Neumann machine" on any documenataion or heard anyone use it. von Neumann worked for IBM as a consultant in the early 50s and almost all computers are von Neumann machines. Try finding a good explanation of how one works though.

I would suggest chapter chapter 10 of The Art of Electronics. But the curious thing is they never use the term von Neumann machine. There is a kind of Gresham's Law of information. Important information habitually disappears. Trivial MBE is everywhere.

psik
No one cares, its irrelevant. You are mistaken on what is important.

NIST December 2007 FAQ's tell you all you need to know about why the collapse progressed once it started.
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2008, 10:11 AM   #111
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,998
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
Why don't you stop throwing the word conspiracy around and try finding the information on any skyscraper yourself?
I'm quite happy to accept your findings that detailed lists of the structural weights of skyscrapers are not generally released into the public domain. Let's see what the differences are in the conclusions you and I draw from this.

You: Detailed structural weights are not available for the WTC. This is suspicious, because you think they ought to be. Detailed structural weights are not available for any other skyscraper either. Given that you have decided in advance that the unavailability of detailed structural weights for the WTC is suspicious, you conclude that this further absence is therefore even more suspicious.

Me: Detailed structural weights are only partially available for the WTC. This may or may not be suspicious. Detailed structural weights are not available for any other skyscraper either. Given that I have not decided that the unavailability of detailed structural weights for the WTC is suspicious, this further absence is therefore an indication that it is normal not to make this information available. In the light of that indication, this suggests that the absence of the information for the WTC is not suspicious.

The big difference is that I'm not reasoning backwards from a conclusion that I refuse to re-examine.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2008, 04:44 PM   #112
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
psikeyhackr your complaint about the weight of concrete and steel per floor being publicly available is irrelevant to the question of the strength of the towers, it is the shape of the structural members, the distribution of columns. the spans, the connections, the dampers, that are important and determine the amount a structure will sway from impact. Using mass alone wont get you there. if you were to take the exact same weight of steel and concrete per floor and instead built a skyscraper in a typical grid or boxed bay method of construction the towers would have been a lot less resistant to sway.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Donít get me lolín off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2008, 06:17 AM   #113
psikeyhackr
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
psikeyhackr your complaint about the weight of concrete and steel per floor being publicly available is irrelevant to the question of the strength of the towers,... Using mass alone wont get you there.
WOW! You're such a genius for pointing out the obvious. I'm SO Impressed!

But how do you get the strength of steel without the weight? Do architects decide how much steel to put into a building on the basis of the weight?

My point is that the EXPERTS who expect us to believe that the buildings underwent gravitational collapse haven't been telling us the weights. Doesn't weight have something to do with gravity? Do you have some other circularly obvious trivia to tell us to demonstrate how smart you are?

My model showed the behavior changed under impact simply by changing the weight and its distribution. If I had altered the arrangement of the metal providing the spring tension that would have changed the behavior also but my only intent was to demonstrate to LAYMEN that we were missing IMPORTANT and NECESSARY information.

psik
psikeyhackr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2008, 10:00 AM   #114
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
Do architects decide how much steel to put into a building on the basis of the weight?
No. they don't. You really don't know the difference between architects and engineers do you?
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Donít get me lolín off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2008, 07:32 PM   #115
psikeyhackr
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
No. they don't. You really don't know the difference between architects and engineers do you?
YAWN!

My pledge father was an architect. We had a joke at IIT that architecets studied funny physics and funny math. Since then I have gotten a lot more cynical about school. They compartMENTALIZE knowledge and make subjects much more difficult than they really are. Make knowledge expensive and difficult to obtain.

This WTC business should have been settled in less than a year.

Everybody wants to guard their little piece of knowledge and pretend it is so difficult to understand. You still can't separate the strength of steel from the weight of the steel.

psik

PS - Spending 5 years to become an architect and still not knowing the engineering was ridiculous. Need to trash all of that elective garbage we had to take. The Empire State building was designed without computers. How much could structural engineers be eliminated today because all of that stuff could be built into the architectural software? ROFLMAO Electronics simulators practically didn't exist when I was in school. We were doing our programming with keypunch machines.
psikeyhackr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2008, 07:50 PM   #116
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
YAWN!

My pledge father was an architect. We had a joke at IIT that architecets studied funny physics and funny math. Since then I have gotten a lot more cynical about school. They compartMENTALIZE knowledge and make subjects much more difficult than they really are. Make knowledge expensive and difficult to obtain.

This WTC business should have been settled in less than a year.

Everybody wants to guard their little piece of knowledge and pretend it is so difficult to understand. You still can't separate the strength of steel from the weight of the steel.

psik

PS - Spending 5 years to become an architect and still not knowing the engineering was ridiculous. Need to trash all of that elective garbage we had to take. The Empire State building was designed without computers. How much could structural engineers be eliminated today because all of that stuff could be built into the architectural software? ROFLMAO Electronics simulators practically didn't exist when I was in school. We were doing our programming with keypunch machines.
And therefore 9/11 was an inside job?

Do you really not know how to calculate the weight of the concrete if that's so damned important to you? Shouldn't be that difficult. You know the area of each floor, and the area used up by elevators. You know the thickness of the concrete, and the composition.

Doesn't take a hell of a lot of brains to figure that out. And you say you can't do that, eh?
__________________
Vive la libertť!

Last edited by WildCat; 27th November 2008 at 07:51 PM.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2008, 07:52 PM   #117
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
You should have been paddled by your pledge father

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
YAWN!

My pledge father was an architect. We had a joke at IIT that architecets studied funny physics and funny math. Since then I have gotten a lot more cynical about school. They compartMENTALIZE knowledge and make subjects much more difficult than they really are. Make knowledge expensive and difficult to obtain.

This WTC business should have been settled in less than a year.

Everybody wants to guard their little piece of knowledge and pretend it is so difficult to understand. You still can't separate the strength of steel from the weight of the steel.

psik

PS - Spending 5 years to become an architect and still not knowing the engineering was ridiculous. Need to trash all of that elective garbage we had to take. The Empire State building was designed without computers. How much could structural engineers be eliminated today because all of that stuff could be built into the architectural software? ROFLMAO Electronics simulators practically didn't exist when I was in school. We were doing our programming with keypunch machines.
Good grief PSi. you cant even spell Architects. Let me clue you in. architects consult with the client, determine the clients needs and design the concept. Engineers take that concept and determine how it can be built structurally. Two different disciplines. if you were studying architecture for five years hoping to be an engineer. you were an idiot.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Donít get me lolín off my chesterfield dude.

Last edited by A W Smith; 27th November 2008 at 08:31 PM.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2008, 08:43 AM   #118
psikeyhackr
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
Good grief PSi. you cant even spell Architects. Let me clue you in. architects consult with the client, determine the clients needs and design the concept. Engineers take that concept and determine how it can be built structurally. Two different disciplines. if you were studying architecture for five years hoping to be an engineer. you were an idiot.
Dude, that isn't the first time I used the word on this page. If the most you can do is make a big deal of a typing error you are a total waste of time.

I never said I was studying architecture.

psik

Last edited by psikeyhackr; 28th November 2008 at 08:48 AM.
psikeyhackr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2008, 11:06 AM   #119
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,955
Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
If the most you can do is make a big deal of a typing error you are a total waste of time.
Maybe you missed the part where he demonstrated you don't know the difference between an architect and a structural engineer.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2008, 11:09 AM   #120
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Bump!

It seems our little truthy lawyer has gone running to the last bastion of honest, good clean government and protectors of human rights left on the planet to help him get out The TruthTM.

Of course, I'm speaking of Iran. From the Tehran Times:
Quote:
Mark my words. President Obama will follow in the footsteps of his predecessors by not holding his predecessor, George W. Bush and members of his administration, liable for violating the United States Constitution and criminally responsible for treason, 9/11, financial fraud, mass murder and war crimes.


Along the same lines as his predecessors, President Obama will deal with the current financial crisis by pointing his finger at everyone except the real culprit, the Federal Reserve Bank, the U.S. executive and legislative branches and their partners in crime, the Wall Street financial institutions.

The Federal Reserve Bank is a cartel of private banks with only one motive-profit. Presidents like Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson all knew about the all pervasive control that a private central bank has when it is permitted to print the money for the government and then lend it back to the government at interest. The end result of this scheme is that U.S. government is in debt to the Federal Reserve Bank and taxes our income in order to pay this debt. As a result, we all live our lives in debt. Being in debt is a form of slavery.

John F. Kennedy passed an Executive Order six months before his assassination. This Executive Order would allow the federal government to print money based on a silver standard. This order was the beginning of the end of the Federal Reserve Bank.
You'd think a lawyer would be able to avoid the truther habit going wildly off-topic in the first paragraph of an essay, but apparently not.

Tin foil nuttery at it's finest!
__________________
Vive la libertť!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:46 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.