Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Life, the universe, and everything.
Forum rules
- No personal attacks against players or staff members - please be civil!
- No posting of mature images/links, keep content SFW. If it's NSFW, don't post it on these forums.
daggaz
Sojourner
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:17 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby daggaz » Thu Mar 19, 2009 7:39 am

I thought I would leak this here, since alot of you guys, although highly varied in your political spectrums, are pretty smart and keep abreast of a lot of the current issues.

My chemistry professor Niels Harrit at Copenhagen University, in conjunction with Steven E. Jones from Brigham Young University and at least seven other PHDs from various research centers around the world, is releasing a groundbreaking research article today.

To make a long story short (I only got to see the first page and heard a first hand synopsis of the work), they claim to have proven without a doubt that the dust collected at ground zero is loaded with flakes of unreacted thermite. Futhermore, advanced spectroscopic and electron microscope analysis of these flakes show that they are anything but ordinary thermite. They have a nanoscale structure that would be extremely difficult to reproduce even in our nanotech labs at the Danish Institute of Technology. (I study nano!!) In other words, it is absolutely a military grade material.

The paper is 25 pages long and is peer reviewed, and contains other evidence as well of reacted and unreacted thermite. They are very serious about this paper, Harrit himself described the work as "ground shaking" and "the loaded gun of the 9-11 truth debate."

Expect to see it on the front pages of your various E-news outlets in the next day or so, tho I imagine a lot of the mainstream press will try to bury the story. It will be hard tho, especially considering the Japanese Minister Yukihisa Fujita's recent and highly vocal lobbying to the EU about the glaring inconsistancies in the official US explanation.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby Corth » Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:50 am

You forgot to remind everyone to wear their tinfoil hats!
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby oteb » Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:23 am

Corth wrote:You forgot to remind everyone to wear their tinfoil hats!


Corth wrote:involvement started after two American gunboats were attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin(the reports have now been proven falsified.).


And no. I do not believe in in 9/11 conspiracy theory but I don't dismiss some of inconsistancies in offical version. Kennedy's murder shows how big they can be.
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'
A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
ssar
Sojourner
Posts: 1446
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Contact:

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby ssar » Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:56 am

There was evidence of this:

Image

at the WTC area in NY?

Wow.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby Ragorn » Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:48 pm

I thought New York was destroyed by some kind of alien death squid?
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
amena wolfsnarl
Sojourner
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:14 pm
Location: grande prairie alberta canada

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby amena wolfsnarl » Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:50 pm

wouldnt surprise me a bit thats for sure. There always were somethings that didnt add up.
Dugmaren tells you 'Welcome to Canada, don't blame us if you're stupid enough to get eaten by the wild life'
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby Ashiwi » Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:21 pm

The alien death squid has been featured in both Watchmen AND Hellboy, so there must be some truth in it.
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
daggaz
Sojourner
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:17 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby daggaz » Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:33 pm

Hmm so if you marginalize me, you dont have to actually pay attention to the possible breach in your reality?? Or maybe I really am just a tin-hat-fake-moon-landing-crack-smoking-tree-hugging-hippy-fuck, or maybe you are still desperately trying to rationalize what Bush did to our country? Or maybe you are just too damn lazy to look at the facts and come to a conclusion for yourself? "If so many people say X, then X MUST be true, and those other guys are just crazy!!" ...too bad "so many people" use that argument, huh?

Ok well, whatever floats your boat, Corth.

I WILL be posting a direct link as soon as its available, at which point, feel free to actually discuss the material at hand and ask any questions if any. It will be a highly technical paper, tho I imagine most of it should be easily understood by anyone with a college education and a solid grasp of basic scientific fundamentals.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby Sarvis » Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:36 pm

daggaz wrote:or maybe you are still desperately trying to rationalize what Bush did to our country?



Wow... as anti-Bush as I am I can't even believe he'd do something like that.

Took advantage of a horrible tragedy? Yes. Caused it? No.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
daggaz
Sojourner
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:17 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby daggaz » Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:49 pm

the paper wont go into who did it, ssarvis. It just states that it was done. The conclusions therefrom are up to you to draw...

The NIST admits the planes didnt take down the buildings, they claim it was fire and a hitherto unheard of phenomena they label "thermal expansion" (no, not the idea that things expand when they get hot, but that steel beams will expand in a certain never before seen way and initiate a collapse). Too bad "thermal expansion" as they define it has never before been seen, nor can it be reproduced in a lab, and steel buildings never fall down due to fire... Bad science, anybody? Oh yeah, and the director of the NIST is appointed by the president... in our case, Bush put him on the job. They then spent 20 million dollars and seven years to look only at the impact of the planes and the initiation of the collapse, nothing else. The report DOES NOT EXPLAIN how the towers could explode and fall completely to the ground.

The paper will probably make a quick referance to the load of evidence which refutes this theory in almost all points, and then focus intently on the fact that incendiary chemicals were used. How did those chemicals get there?`

It is interesting that Silverstein fired the maintenance and security company when he bought the towers, and replaced it with a company owned by Jeb Bush and his cousin. And that there were then several months of unexplained power downs, evacuations, and forced free-days in the towers, all amply testified about by former employees.

As well, you might be interested in the BBC documentary on Bush's grandfather, who was indicted by a 5-star marine general in front of congress for trying to instigate a military coup against the President.

But anyhow... all of this information is available on the various 9-11 truth sites. I recommend scholars for 9-11 truth as a solid starting point, from there go to airline-pilots for truth and as well architects and engineers for truth. Really, if you honestly care about your country and the livelihood of your grandchildren, you should be reading every page you can about this stuff.
amena wolfsnarl
Sojourner
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:14 pm
Location: grande prairie alberta canada

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby amena wolfsnarl » Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:03 pm

What always stood out to me as the fishy part of the whole things was the fact that they collapsed inwards rather than toppled which seems to me to make more sense. I dont know i havent seen the footage in a long time but thats how i remeber it.
Dugmaren tells you 'Welcome to Canada, don't blame us if you're stupid enough to get eaten by the wild life'
daggaz
Sojourner
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:17 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby daggaz » Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:19 pm

Yes and no.

With the 2 towers, they actually explode at the top. Watch carefully, look at the "mushroom cloud" and really think about it. They EXPLODE. If you trace the dust clouds, you will find they have a parabolic trajectory with a maximum (a curve with the back faced upwards, like a hill). This means that the initial velocity was both upwards and outwards. This is absolutely impossible in any collapse powered by gravity alone. Keep in mind, those "dust clouds" include steel beams weighing in at over a ton, which were found hundreds of meters away from the building perimeter.

After that, yes, the buildings more or less fall into their footprints. And yeah, you are right, this shouldn't happen. With a top down collapse, especially one brought on by assymetrical structural damage, you should expect leaning to one side (note the north tower's antenna does in fact begin to lean) and a collapse in that direction(which ultimately and strangely doesnt happen). Even with a straight down collapse, the building should eventually absorb and halt the collapse. You can NEVER get what is essentially a free fall collapse to the ground, of a building passing entirely THRU ITSELF, into its own footprint. Not without controlled demolition of the structural members below. And remember, there are gigantic vertical steel columns running the entire height of those towers. Where did they go?? How do they fall straight down at free falls speed? Its like a redwood tree falling straight down at your feet, turning to sawdust in a pile at the bottom. It just doesnt happen like that.


With building seven, which was never hit by a plane and which had only moderate structural and fire damage, you have an absolute free fall directly into its own footprint, and in this case, its a bottom up collapse. Just watch a video, it falls like a curtain, totally symmetrical, like the earth is just swallowing it whole. Now watch the NIST computer animation for which you paid 20 million dollars for. Notice that the two collapses look nothing alike. Notice that the NIST animation shows the building actually crumpling inwards (and yeah, this would be strange after a fire) where in fact the building just drops straight downwards.

Some people say that the building fell like that because the foundation was damaged when the towers fell. I invite you to google buildings that fall in earthquakes. Their foundations are destroyed, they fall over sideways. Every time. If they are stopped by a nearby building, they do not collapse in on themselves, pulverising all the concrete, all the drywall, all the office equipment, etc, into dust. No, they just crunch up next to the other building and become a major hazard for emergency crews.


Anyhow, there is a ton of information out there to be had, all of it well documented at this late stage in the game, I invite you to check out some truth sites. Its the great thing about science... no matter what your agenda is, the truth WILL come out eventually.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby Sarvis » Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:27 pm

daggaz wrote:Yes and no.

With the 2 towers, they actually explode at the top. Watch carefully, look at the "mushroom cloud" and really think about it. They EXPLODE. If you trace the dust clouds, you will find they have a parabolic trajectory with a maximum (a curve with the back faced upwards, like a hill). This means that the initial velocity was both upwards and outwards. This is absolutely impossible in any collapse powered by gravity alone. Keep in mind, those "dust clouds" include steel beams weighing in at over a ton, which were found hundreds of meters away from the building perimeter.


You're aware of what happens to air as it gets heated, right?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
daggaz
Sojourner
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:17 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby daggaz » Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:31 pm

you are aware that massive steel beams, regardless of temperature and local air currents, cannot be thrown hundreds of meters sideways by gravity? Even with a solid deflection from the top of the building, where a member falls a distance and strikes a 45 degree angle (which is impossible because the whole damn building falls at free fall speed, so by the time anything falls that far, there is nothing there to hit), you are never going to see massive beams lying several city blocks away.

there are some great shots of cars smashed by giant hunks of iron, more than six and seven blocks away. Air currents??? only on smokeplane, my friend.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby Sarvis » Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:33 pm

daggaz wrote:you are aware that massive steel beams, regardless of temperature and local air currents, cannot be thrown hundreds of meters sideways by gravity? Even with a solid deflection from the top of the building, where a member falls a distance and strikes a 45 degree angle (which is impossible because the whole damn building falls at free fall speed, so by the time anything falls that far, there is nothing there to hit), you are never going to see massive beams lying several city blocks away.

there are some great shots of cars smashed by giant hunks of iron, more than six and seven blocks away. Air currents??? only on smokeplane, my friend.


Oh, ok. You DON'T know what happens to air when it gets heated.

Go get one of those skillet popcorn bags, and heat it up. Let me know what happens to the tin foil.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
daggaz
Sojourner
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:17 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby daggaz » Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:38 pm

Dude WHAT? Are you saying the air got HOT, and that it then shot steel beams upwards (beams that had been previously connected to a giant steel skeleton, nonetheless) and outwards for hundreds of meters???

Holy crap man! Go outside and start a big ass fire. A HUGE fire. Then Toss on as much scrap iron as you care. Show me anything that isnt milled paper thin that rises in the currents. Seriously, listen to yourself. Or are you honestly trying to say that the WTC towers are just like popcorn bags??

But regardless, we can spend days discussing air currents, or police witnessing and testifying to explosions, or alien rayguns, or whatever you want... NOTHING will explain the fact that three buildings fell thru themselves into their own footprints at free fall speed, except some sort of demolition which was controlled in some way to remove any structural support as those buildings fell... some sort of .."controlled demolition", if you will. Anything else is flat out physically impossible.

Or are you going to got the way of the NIST and claim unknown scientific phenomenon that strike three times in one day, but never before and never again, and which cannot be duplicated in a laboratory? Or are popcorn bags really enough for you?
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby Ragorn » Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:42 pm

daggaz wrote:Hmm so if you marginalize me, you dont have to actually pay attention to the possible breach in your reality??

EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG!! THE GOVERNMENT IS LYING TO YOU!! OPEN YOUR EYES, SHEEPLE!!!
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
daggaz
Sojourner
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:17 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby daggaz » Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:50 pm

Ragorn wrote:
daggaz wrote:Hmm so if you marginalize me, you dont have to actually pay attention to the possible breach in your reality??

EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG!! THE GOVERNMENT IS LYING TO YOU!! OPEN YOUR EYES, SHEEPLE!!!



The Government is lying to you. Open your eyes. Ragorn likes to marginalize people as well, rather than actually discuss the topic at hand.

There, fixed that for you, dude.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby Sarvis » Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:52 pm

daggaz wrote:Dude WHAT? Are you saying the air got HOT, and that it then shot steel beams upwards (beams that had been previously connected to a giant steel skeleton, nonetheless) and outwards for hundreds of meters???

Holy crap man! Go outside and start a big ass fire. A HUGE fire. Then Toss on as much scrap iron as you care. Show me anything that isnt milled paper thin that rises in the currents. Seriously, listen to yourself. Or are you honestly trying to say that the WTC towers are just like popcorn bags??

But regardless, we can spend days discussing air currents, or police witnessing and testifying to explosions, or alien rayguns, or whatever you want... NOTHING will explain the fact that three buildings fell thru themselves into their own footprints at free fall speed, except some sort of demolition which was controlled in some way to remove any structural support as those buildings fell... some sort of .."controlled demolition", if you will. Anything else is flat out physically impossible.

Or are you going to got the way of the NIST and claim unknown scientific phenomenon that strike three times in one day, but never before and never again, and which cannot be duplicated in a laboratory? Or are popcorn bags really enough for you?


So it's the relationship between expanding air and a rigid container that you don't understand? Here's a hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed ... age#Safety

See, as the air is heated it expands. As the air expands it creates more pressure. When the pressure gets high enough it causes catastrophic failure. This could certainly lead to an explosion at the top of the building.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
amena wolfsnarl
Sojourner
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:14 pm
Location: grande prairie alberta canada

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby amena wolfsnarl » Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:53 pm

Sarvis wrote:
daggaz wrote:Dude WHAT? Are you saying the air got HOT, and that it then shot steel beams upwards (beams that had been previously connected to a giant steel skeleton, nonetheless) and outwards for hundreds of meters???

Holy crap man! Go outside and start a big ass fire. A HUGE fire. Then Toss on as much scrap iron as you care. Show me anything that isnt milled paper thin that rises in the currents. Seriously, listen to yourself. Or are you honestly trying to say that the WTC towers are just like popcorn bags??

But regardless, we can spend days discussing air currents, or police witnessing and testifying to explosions, or alien rayguns, or whatever you want... NOTHING will explain the fact that three buildings fell thru themselves into their own footprints at free fall speed, except some sort of demolition which was controlled in some way to remove any structural support as those buildings fell... some sort of .."controlled demolition", if you will. Anything else is flat out physically impossible.

Or are you going to got the way of the NIST and claim unknown scientific phenomenon that strike three times in one day, but never before and never again, and which cannot be duplicated in a laboratory? Or are popcorn bags really enough for you?


So it's the relationship between expanding air and a rigid container that you don't understand? Here's a hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed ... age#Safety

See, as the air is heated it expands. As the air expands it creates more pressure. When the pressure gets high enough it causes catastrophic failure. This could certainly lead to an explosion at the top of the building.


But it will find the weakest part of the container to expand out towards. So instead of causing the entire structure to collapse it would blow out the windows. And i find it hard to believe that any part of that building with the exception of maybe some vaults to be completely air tight to allow this to happen.
Dugmaren tells you 'Welcome to Canada, don't blame us if you're stupid enough to get eaten by the wild life'
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby oteb » Thu Mar 19, 2009 11:05 pm

Sarvis wrote:So it's the relationship between expanding air and a rigid container that you don't understand? Here's a hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed ... age#Safety


I am not aware of any flying steel beams or whatever. Never dug into 9/11 conspiracy theories. But where the fuck you find a rigid container in a building that could build up a pressure high enough to cause any damage other than blowing up windows? If there were some steel beams flying around it was not air pressure that gave them momentum for sure.
As an architect I can tell you that there are no such spaces in a building. Even concrete elevator shafts have to be ventilated which rules out building up any significant pressure.
The only high pressure place in a normal building can be pneumatic elevators but they use oil not air and twin towers didn't have em for sure for height reason alone.

EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG!! THE GOVERNMENT IS LYING TO YOU!! OPEN YOUR EYES, SHEEPLE!!!

Goverment is ALWAYS TELLING YOU NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. AFK looking for WMD in Iraq.
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'

A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Mar 19, 2009 11:43 pm

oteb wrote:But where the fuck you find a rigid container in a building that could build up a pressure high enough to cause any damage other than blowing up windows? If there were some steel beams flying around it was not air pressure that gave them momentum for sure.
As an architect I can tell you that there are no such spaces in a building. Even concrete elevator shafts have to be ventilated which rules out building up any significant pressure.
The only high pressure place in a normal building can be pneumatic elevators but they use oil not air and twin towers didn't have em for sure for height reason alone.


Buildings that have been hit with planes or are falling down do not retain static spaces, they change as the building does. That the building's spaces were ventilated when it was normal is no longer valid inside a violently, dramatically changing structure. Furthermore, ventiliation for normal circumstances DO NOT APPLY to violent force. Unless you really think I can hook up a ship-to-ship fire fighting nozzle to your kitchen sink faucet. Go ahead and open that faucet as wide as it can open - it and the sink are coming off the wall.

FOR SCIENCE

(a lot of the other posts in here have stupid reasoning and conclusions all over. I'll respond, explain, and educate when I get the time)
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby oteb » Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:00 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
oteb wrote:But where the fuck you find a rigid container in a building that could build up a pressure high enough to cause any damage other than blowing up windows? If there were some steel beams flying around it was not air pressure that gave them momentum for sure.
As an architect I can tell you that there are no such spaces in a building. Even concrete elevator shafts have to be ventilated which rules out building up any significant pressure.
The only high pressure place in a normal building can be pneumatic elevators but they use oil not air and twin towers didn't have em for sure for height reason alone.


Buildings that have been hit with planes or are falling down do not retain static spaces, they change as the building does. That the building's spaces were ventilated when it was normal is no longer valid inside a violently, dramatically changing structure. Furthermore, ventiliation for normal circumstances DO NOT APPLY to violent force. Unless you really think I can hook up a ship-to-ship fire fighting nozzle to your kitchen sink faucet. Go ahead and open that faucet as wide as it can open - it and the sink are coming off the wall.

FOR SCIENCE

(a lot of the other posts in here have stupid reasoning and conclusions all over. I'll respond, explain, and educate when I get the time)


Well of course ventilation does not apply to explosions. Thank you captain obvious. Sarvis tho was mentioning
See, as the air is heated it expands. As the air expands it creates more pressure. When the pressure gets high enough it causes catastrophic failure

this kinda suggest gradual process rather than violent explosion. I just said that flying steel structure is not possible due to building up pressure inside an office building.
Anything short of violent explosion cannot remove a steel structure from its place. If it was preasure first thing that would blow would be windows not steel structure.
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'

A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby Sarvis » Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:06 am

oteb wrote:
See, as the air is heated it expands. As the air expands it creates more pressure. When the pressure gets high enough it causes catastrophic failure

this kinda suggest gradual process rather than violent explosion. I just said that flying steel structure is not possible due to building up pressure inside an office building.
Anything short of violent explosion cannot remove a steel structure from its place. If it was preasure first thing that would blow would be windows not steel structure.


I never said anything about gradual, I just explained the process. I would imagine that with the sheer amount of heat generated by an entire plane's jet fuel going up in flames the pressure could build quite rapidly.

I agree that the windows are the weak point (haha) in the theory, however how strong are the windows on skyscrapers? Also how weakend was the steal from the heat of the aforementioned jet fuel?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:28 am

daggaz wrote:The NIST admits the planes didnt take down the buildings, they claim it was fire and a hitherto unheard of phenomena they label "thermal expansion" (no, not the idea that things expand when they get hot, but that steel beams will expand in a certain never before seen way and initiate a collapse). Too bad "thermal expansion" as they define it has never before been seen, nor can it be reproduced in a lab, and steel buildings never fall down due to fire... Bad science, anybody?


1) Virtually no buildings are built like anything like the World Trade Center Towers. They are structurally and architecturally unique. By a lot.
2) General building fires are very different from fires caused by planes carrying tons and tons of vaporized aviation fuel, both by characteristics such as burn temperature, rate of spread, and location within the building.
3) Thermal expansion that deforms or expands steel is a common occurance in most projects. Fire trucks were called in the day they joined the two halves of the St. Louis arch to spray one side of the arch with water to cool it down in order to reduce the 8 ft difference in height to two halves had because the sun shone on one side more strongly than the other.
4) No.

daggaz wrote:Oh yeah, and the director of the NIST is appointed by the president... in our case, Bush put him on the job. They then spent 20 million dollars and seven years to look only at the impact of the planes and the initiation of the collapse, nothing else. The report DOES NOT EXPLAIN how the towers could explode and fall completely to the ground.


1) I can tell, and will say that you both did not read the NIST report and do not have the background to evaluate what was in it.
2) No.

daggaz wrote:The paper will probably make a quick referance to the load of evidence which refutes this theory in almost all points, and then focus intently on the fact that incendiary chemicals were used. How did those chemicals get there?


1) None of this evidence was sufficiently presented in previous "papers" by the authors. None of it can be, because none of it is real or the government got to it too fast. This does not claim to say it was either, but it states, moreover, that no matter what, this evidence is either faked, false, or just plain stupid.

daggaz wrote:It is interesting that Silverstein fired the maintenance and security company when he bought the towers, and replaced it with a company owned by Jeb Bush and his cousin. And that there were then several months of unexplained power downs, evacuations, and forced free-days in the towers, all amply testified about by former employees.


1) Look at the tenant list. Oh yeah, couple o' billion in GOLD BARS. They might have some security.

A) It is true, however, that many of these things do look suspicious. It's too bad that they don't amount to anything either by themselves or WITH any 'evidence' presented by the conspiracy theorists.

daggaz wrote:As well, you might be interested in the BBC documentary on Bush's grandfather, who was indicted by a 5-star marine general in front of congress for trying to instigate a military coup against the President.


Couple of things wrong here, let's start with the semantics:

*) Major General Smedley Butler was a 2-star general.
*) The word 'indicted' has legal precedence and specific meaning in the American justice system. A more fitting word for use when speaking to Americans would be "accused."

1) First and foremost, the General accused MANY people of plotting to take over the country. Congress decided not to question even a single one of the accused.
2) You might want to know that Maj. Gen. Butler 'self-destructed' on the witness stand.
3) 2-Star General Butler spent his post-military career giving speeches on the "military-industrial complex" to pacifists and communists, and served as a spokesman for the American League Against War and Fascism (communist dominated).

Now, this is not to attack the character of General Butler. He's the last person that manged to earn two medals of honor. All I am trying to do is indicate that General Butler had a "problem" with certain interests, and attacked that problem with the tenacity of a brilliant tactical mind and steel military-instilled will. Senator Prescott Bush was a very conservative minded man, even for his time, and what I am suggesting is that a general attacking the conservative elements in our country may have just decided that some collateral damage was acceptable.

daggaz wrote:But anyhow... all of this information is available on the various 9-11 truth sites. I recommend scholars for 9-11 truth as a solid starting point, from there go to airline-pilots for truth and as well architects and engineers for truth. Really, if you honestly care about your country and the livelihood of your grandchildren, you should be reading every page you can about this stuff.


"9-11 Truth" websites are not interested in the truth. They're interested in presenting their own beliefs. Even a brief look at any of these websites give away their bias to even casual observers. This is not value neutral work, nor should it be believed that it is - in any way - value neutral.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:40 am

daggaz wrote:Dude WHAT? Are you saying the air got HOT, and that it then shot steel beams upwards (beams that had been previously connected to a giant steel skeleton, nonetheless) and outwards for hundreds of meters???


1)

Height of the World Trade Towers: 526.3 m to the top of the spire.
Empty weight of the smallest 727: 220,000 lbs

Do the math. (Yes, this is sarcasm. Just picture it instead.)

daggaz wrote:Holy crap man! Go outside and start a big ass fire. A HUGE fire. Then Toss on as much scrap iron as you care. Show me anything that isnt milled paper thin that rises in the currents. Seriously, listen to yourself. Or are you honestly trying to say that the WTC towers are just like popcorn bags??


Maximum fuel in the smallest 727: 11,489 US Gallons. (43k litres) - vaporize this, then ignite.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1155311/t ... n_vietnam/ < Now you have a simulation that's closer to being accurate.

daggaz wrote:But regardless, we can spend days discussing air currents, or police witnessing and testifying to explosions, or alien rayguns, or whatever you want... NOTHING will explain the fact that three buildings fell thru themselves into their own footprints at free fall speed, except some sort of demolition which was controlled in some way to remove any structural support as those buildings fell... some sort of .."controlled demolition", if you will. Anything else is flat out physically impossible.


http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1155311/t ... n_vietnam/

1) Buildings built with their load bearing structures on the exterior will most LIKELY collapse on their own footprint.

BONUS POINTS CHALLENGE: Find a tall steel building that was collapsed outside of its own footprint when the ground did not move.

daggaz wrote:Or are you going to got the way of the NIST and claim unknown scientific phenomenon that strike three times in one day, but never before and never again, and which cannot be duplicated in a laboratory? Or are popcorn bags really enough for you?


What I just did to your false pretense of seeking 9-11 truth: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1155311/t ... n_vietnam/
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:50 am, edited 4 times in total.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:41 am

oteb wrote:Well of course ventilation does not apply to explosions. Thank you captain obvious. Sarvis tho was mentioning
See, as the air is heated it expands. As the air expands it creates more pressure. When the pressure gets high enough it causes catastrophic failure

this kinda suggest gradual process rather than violent explosion. I just said that flying steel structure is not possible due to building up pressure inside an office building.
Anything short of violent explosion cannot remove a steel structure from its place. If it was preasure first thing that would blow would be windows not steel structure.


Sarvis did not imply anything about rate or speed by anything he said.

Sarvis wrote:I never said anything about gradual, I just explained the process. I would imagine that with the sheer amount of heat generated by an entire plane's jet fuel going up in flames the pressure could build quite rapidly.


Apparently, he also did not mean to imply anything.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby oteb » Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:45 am

Sarvis wrote:I agree that the windows are the weak point (haha) in the theory, however how strong are the windows on skyscrapers? Also how weakend was the steal from the heat of the aforementioned jet fuel?


Windows in skyscraper are much stronger than in ordinary building for safety reasons. But they are still on a tottaly different magnitude scale.
Steel constructions exposed to high temperatures become more plastic and lose their static properties. What could possibly happen (purely theorizing here) is that if beams supporting the heated floors lost their supporting properties and slabs of concrete floors slammed into floors below. After first one it would be just a matter of domino effect as each floor is not designed to support the extra weight crashing onto it from above. That tho would still leave the concrete "core" of elevator shafts

Here is a good picture ilustrating such core:
Image
and
Image
I have no idea what would have to happen to make it fall at same speed as floors but then i am an architect not civil engineer
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'

A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby oteb » Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:55 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
1) Virtually no buildings are built like anything like the World Trade Center Towers. They are structurally and architecturally unique. By a lot.
2) General building fires are very different from fires caused by planes carrying tons and tons of vaporized aviation fuel, both by characteristics such as burn temperature, rate of spread, and location within the building.
3) Thermal expansion that deforms or expands steel is a common occurance in most projects. Fire trucks were called in the day they joined the two halves of the St. Louis arch to spray one side of the arch with water to cool it down in order to reduce the 8 ft difference in height to two halves had because the sun shone on one side more strongly than the other.


1. Wrong. Its bread and butter schematic used in most office buildings. They were just bigger.
2. My guess would be that most of fuel was gone after initial impact explosions. After that it was just a fire only a larger one.
3.Problems with steel in building construction is not expansion. Its steel becoming plastic and loosing it's supportive qualities when exposed to fire.
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'

A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:56 am

oteb wrote:
Sarvis wrote:I agree that the windows are the weak point (haha) in the theory, however how strong are the windows on skyscrapers? Also how weakend was the steal from the heat of the aforementioned jet fuel?


Windows in skyscraper are much stronger than in ordinary building for safety reasons. But they are still on a tottaly different magnitude scale.
Steel constructions exposed to high temperatures become more plastic and lose their static properties. What could possibly happen (purely theorizing here) is that if beams supporting the heated floors lost their supporting properties and slabs of concrete floors slammed into floors below. After first one it would be just a matter of domino effect as each floor is not designed to support the extra weight crashing onto it from above. That tho would still leave the concrete "core" of elevator shafts

Here is a good picture ilustrating such core:
Image
and
Image
I have no idea what would have to happen to make it fall at same speed as floors but then i am an architect not civil engineer


The WTC towers were different, as the external structure was the primary vertical and horizontal load bearing structure.
Image
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:59 am

oteb wrote:1. Wrong. Its bread and butter schematic used in most office buildings. They were just bigger.


Wrong, see above post. "A hollow tube of closely spaced perimeter columns form the main structural component of the tower."

oteb wrote:2. My guess would be that most of fuel was gone after initial impact explosions. After that it was just a fire only a larger one.


"Most of the fuel was gone?" What are you on? Like it no longer mattered, or the damage it did didn't make it different from other office fires? Did the extreme temperatures from the catatrophic explosion of vaporized fuel somehow just went away and you had regular old office fire tempratures?

oteb wrote:3.Problems with steel in building construction is not expansion. Its steel becoming plastic and loosing it's supportive qualities when exposed to fire.


Sure, fire trucks were called to the St. Louis arch to spray water on the plastic to make it turn back to steel.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:06 am

I reworded a post to make it more.... polite.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:11 am

daggaz wrote:To make a long story short (I only got to see the first page and heard a first hand synopsis of the work), they claim to have proven without a doubt that the dust collected at ground zero is loaded with flakes of unreacted thermite. Futhermore, advanced spectroscopic and electron microscope analysis of these flakes show that they are anything but ordinary thermite. They have a nanoscale structure that would be extremely difficult to reproduce even in our nanotech labs at the Danish Institute of Technology. (I study nano!!) In other words, it is absolutely a military grade material.


Dust collected by your mom. Sorry, still need to see real evidence.

The only ground being broken here appears to be the basement of bs.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby oteb » Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:22 am

A hollow tube of closely spaced perimeter columns form the main structural component of the tower


source?
I am pretty sure majority of vertical force was supported by concrete core. Concrete is simply more efficent for that. I would give it a shot to explain it better but I lack english technical vocabulary to do it in proper terms

1. To prove my answer wrong you would have to prove it was actually unique. I am saying its basic structural scheme which is one of maybe 3 most common.
2. Gone as in gone in explosion.
3.St. Louis arch is not really a building. Bridges for spans used are quite different.
Also plastic is a synonym of flexible is it not?

Despite your efforts your answer was still not polite.

Woot found a picture of core indeed failing after the floors. Or at least crashing after them. Which makes sense.
Image
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'

A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby oteb » Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:32 am

"in order to make each tower capable of withstanding this wind load, the architects selected a lightweight “perimeter tube” design consisting of 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100 cm centers (see Figure 3). This permitted windows more than one-half meter wide. Inside this outer tube there was a 27 m × 40 m core, which was designed to support the weight of the tower."

So basicly outer tube was meant mainly for horizontal forces (wind) while core was meant mainly for vertical force (gravity)
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'

A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby oteb » Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:41 am

Oh. A good read that for me clears it up from engineering point of view.
Makes perfect sense to my knowledge.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/01 ... -0112.html

Oh and obviously according to this article I was wrong about fuel being consumed in initial explosions.
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'

A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby Kifle » Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:16 am

I find it funny that people who claim to promote science and the scientific procedure are mocking Dag. It's hilarious that these same people will discount information because it may agree with a "conspiracy." I'll put that in my notebook on ways to win arguments: label it as a conspiracy, and people will be too ashamed to the point of being mad at somebody who attempts to investigate anything even peripherally related to the topic.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:59 am

Well said Kifle.
amena wolfsnarl
Sojourner
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:14 pm
Location: grande prairie alberta canada

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby amena wolfsnarl » Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:49 am

Looking forward to reading the paper, no matter what it should be a good read. I'm curious if it will receive any media coverage, or if it will just get buried.

No matter what kind of evidence is presented there will always be people who do not want to believe what is right before thier eyes, evolution is a good example of this. Its easier for them to blindly follow and not ask any real questions.
Dugmaren tells you 'Welcome to Canada, don't blame us if you're stupid enough to get eaten by the wild life'
Lalsed
Sojourner
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby Lalsed » Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:03 am

Nothing to fear, it's a repost from 2006

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18407
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby Ragorn » Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:10 am

daggaz wrote:
Ragorn wrote:
daggaz wrote:Hmm so if you marginalize me, you dont have to actually pay attention to the possible breach in your reality??

EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG!! THE GOVERNMENT IS LYING TO YOU!! OPEN YOUR EYES, SHEEPLE!!!



The Government is lying to you. Open your eyes. Ragorn likes to marginalize people as well, rather than actually discuss the topic at hand.

There, fixed that for you, dude.

This thread is such a catastrophic clusterfuck of failure that I feel like I've already given your whackjob grassy knoll theories too much credit by responding twice. I have no desire to prove to you that water is wet or the sky is blue or redheads are hot, no matter how many groundbreaking research papers you attempt to present to the contrary.

Come join reality, it's much nicer out here.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby Ashiwi » Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:57 pm

Ragorn wrote:... redheads are hot ...


Ragorn said it, so it MUST be true!

On another note, I'll just go ahead and apologize to Daggaz. I in no way intended to belittle your thread, so I should have abstained.

All things in this life and universe are possible, even though most are highly improbable. I'm not an engineer or chemist, and have next to no knowledge of either military grade weapons or nanotechnology. Do I believe Bush engineered 9/11? In spite of my personal feelings regarding that particular president, I don't think even he would do that. Do I think it's possible that we don't know everything there is to know regarding 9/11? I'd say that one falls in the "probable" category.
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby Sarvis » Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:07 pm

Ashiwi wrote:
Ragorn wrote:... redheads are hot ...


Ragorn said it, so it MUST be true!



Well, in this case he IS right. *shrug*
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby Sarvis » Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:44 pm

Kifle wrote:I find it funny that people who claim to promote science and the scientific procedure are mocking Dag. It's hilarious that these same people will discount information because it may agree with a "conspiracy." I'll put that in my notebook on ways to win arguments: label it as a conspiracy, and people will be too ashamed to the point of being mad at somebody who attempts to investigate anything even peripherally related to the topic.


You know what's interesting? The same people who think this paper makes sense without being critical of it are the same ones who seem to be religious.

The people who claim to promote science are doing what we should do. Being critical of something. Scientists do NOT read a book and go "OK that must be true because someone wrote it down." Scientists are very critical of everything and subject it to study. Step 1 is create a hypothesis, step 2 is test it... attempt to disprove or confirm it.

I guess when you're used to believing everything in a 2000 year old book must be true, believing everything you read must be second nature.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Botef
Sojourner
Posts: 1056
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Eastern Washington
Contact:

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby Botef » Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:46 pm

Wow Sarvis, just wow.
Sunamit group-says 'imrex west, tibek backstab touk i think his name is on entry'
// Post Count +1
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby Sarvis » Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:48 pm

Botef wrote:Wow Sarvis, just wow.


Well? Am I wrong about the grouping? Or did you fail to notice Adriorn and Kifle making the exact same sentiment in the other direction? Is it only persecution when the other guy is a Christian or something?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Botef
Sojourner
Posts: 1056
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Eastern Washington
Contact:

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby Botef » Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:54 pm

Lofuckingl man, if this isn't a Sarvisism I don't know what is.

You know what's interesting? The same people who think -FILL IN THE BLANK- without being critical of it are the same ones who seem to be religious.
Sunamit group-says 'imrex west, tibek backstab touk i think his name is on entry'

// Post Count +1
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:50 pm

Sarvis wrote:The people who claim to promote science are doing what we should do. Being critical of something.


So when people say that there isn't enough factual evidence supporting man-made climate change, etc., and ask for more scientific proof of it, why are so many people, including many in this thread, so critical of those people?

Sarvis wrote:I guess when you're used to believing everything in a 2000 year old book must be true, believing everything you read must be second nature.


You need to let go of your ignorant views and sarcastic tones already Sarvis, seriously.
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby oteb » Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:57 pm

Botef wrote:Wow Sarvis, just wow.
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'

A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Ground Breaking Research Paper on 9-11

Postby Sarvis » Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:00 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:
Sarvis wrote:The people who claim to promote science are doing what we should do. Being critical of something.


So when people say that there isn't enough factual evidence supporting man-made climate change, etc., and ask for more scientific proof of it, why are so many people, including many in this thread, so critical of those people?


Because frequently the people denying climate change are ignoring or purposefully misinterpreting much of the science that IS out there. A perfect example is that a couple months ago some sensor in the arctic was determined to be malfunctioning, creating a slight discrepancy in the data. Scientists fixed the sensor, threw out that piece of data and moved on. People trying to "disprove" climate change went on for weeks that the sensors were bad so all the data is bad. Not the month of data that was thrown out, ALL of it.

So yeah, we're critical of them just like the scientists were critical enough of their own data to notice a bad sensor.


Sarvis wrote:I guess when you're used to believing everything in a 2000 year old book must be true, believing everything you read must be second nature.


You need to let go of your ignorant views and sarcastic tones already Sarvis, seriously.

[/quote]

I like sarcasm though! You might want to let go of calling people ignorant though, it's a little infuriating and, at the very least, borders on insulting. Now, which part am I ignorant about? Are you not living your life based on a 2000 year old book or did you not just believe a paper which makes claims discounted by just about anyone who's done real study of 9/11, and which contains some claims which can be at least partially explained away by people like me in a few minutes?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire

Return to “T2 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest