That was from one Woods sites. She has many bulldogs to defend her. Within her own followers there was some very good stuff hidden away. But there was no way my Nazi friend could put into the proper context so I cut it and the Synopsis is in the aforementioned post. It was very revealing that her own defenders slipped up mightily. But I digress. Woods is a gadfly, a creationist among the evolutionary biologists, so to speak..."Journal of 9/11 Studies:" ??? WTF?
OBL has been a huge job creator!
She has already been dis credited in her understanding of thermite to dust theories by experts who do research in this area which she has little expertise. She is broadly a good materials scientst trying to sell books. Then, death rays from space...
Last edited by pgardn; 09-16-2013 at 09:00 AM.
This is the one that I'm done with. The conspiracty theorists at least bring some fun discussion to the table. The racial has just gotten so old at this point. Every time someone makes a thread regarding anything that could possibly pit a black versus a white, it's blatantly obvious what they're trying to do, yet people still post like crazy in them.
Maybe I'm just old and boring now.
you actually think that is a impressive list of quality posters?
pssssst! conspiracy nuts is so 2010We are left with conspiracy nuts and and extremists these days it seems.
after Boston and the evidence of web and Cell phone online postings the Government was exposed for sloppy false flags .. since then people don't use that term anymore "conspiracy nuts" anymore it's out dated.... ...... at least most of the intelligent posters think so.
Have you notified the webmaster yet?Hopefully things will pick up here when bbal season begins again and some of the more obvious trolls have better places to go.
Is anyone going to use this quote in your sig? If not I will.
Racist against conspiracy people?
I bet you would love us to use our own water fountain, we don't deserve to sit in the front of the bus?
Get your ignorant NASCAR mug collecting redneck ass out of here so we can continue to Educate ChumpDumper's other three employees that share his cubicle.
Still waiting for your theory Mouse.
It's been 12 years.
This again? Whatever
It was an inside job
And yet you still ask the same question.It's been 12 years.
I was at the towers 7 days before they were hit. They looked pretty solid to me fwiw
wait, why did that 3rd building fall?
it wasn't hit by a plane was it?
wait, did that US official said that 3rd building came down because of office furnishings on fire?????
You didn't read the report. You never read anything. Why would wtc7 have to come down anyway? Expalin your theory.
Thats right. I didnt read it. I stayed away from this talk mostly. Thats why I have questions. I am pretty neutral in the subject. Would you care to share your theory on why the 3rd building fell? I am assuming its the wtc7 you mention?
Read the NIST report and get back to me.
so you have neither a theory nor answers. that's ok. I'm not surprised at all, Chimp
I'm sure plenty other folk here might wanna share therir own thoughts on the matter. Some ppl here actually can reason and think on their own thankfully
I did answer you.so you have neither a theory nor answers. that's ok. I'm not surprised at all, Chimp
I'm sure plenty other folk here might wanna share therir own thoughts on the matter. Some ppl here actually can reason and think on their own thankfully
You're too lazy to accept it.
Your problem. If you are so helpless that you can't read anything on your own and come to your own conclusion, so be it. Don't ask any more questions.
Stay ignorant and stupid. You don't want to be anything else.
You didnt. Why did the 3rd building fall. Dont worry Ill wait for a more knowledgeable person to answer.
You are obviously not qualified to answer. Thats ok.
Your problem. If you are so helpless that you can't read anything on your own and come to your own conclusion, so be it. Don't ask any more questions.
Stay ignorant and stupid. You don't want to be anything else.
It is explained quite extensively in the NIST report. Rather than waste time asking what will probably be an incessant parade of stupid questions, why not get on an equal footing with me? Why remain at a disadvantage?
I read the NIST report.
You didn't.
You are ignorant of this report.
I am not.
Why do you want to remain ignorant of this report?
You obviously couldn't into logic unless you stumbled into it blindfoldedly, but that's not your problem, you should have sacrificed more money on tuition than throw it away at the satelite campus of Laredo Community College known as UTSA.
But I'm not done yet. You ask to provide a theory to prove what that data tells you, but that is ass backwards. You must first explain the evidence, and in my past 12yrs of defending 9/11's official govt acct against truthers, I have finally realized that NIST could never explain the collapse, and that it later recanted both bowing theories, and the pancake theories as insufficient.
So since you decided to short cut Logic and just learn the socratic method through the Cliff Notes version of Plato's Republic at UTSA, I'll give you more ample time to explain what happened, because the NIST report no longer holds.
I suggest you guys study REAL conspiracies. Their weakest link are the human conspirators. They inevitably make mistakes and can't keep their mouths shut.
You will have to show where the NIST recanted the final NCSTAR reports of 2005 and 2008.
I'll wait for that.
You don't have to wait for that, appealing to authority is a formal logical fallacy.
Why can't you logic?
"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi...wtctowers.cfm#
The segment in red is the conclusion of the 2005 report.
I'll ask again: When did NIST recant the 2005 and 2008 NCSTAR final reports?
It doesn't matter that they came up with a bull explanation, you still have to explain why the other floors collapsed at a free fall rate. So even tho the fires on the upper floors were to weaken the trusses, Did it also weaken every truss on that builiding?
You would still need the pancake theory to carry the weight of that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
