Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."
- President Bush Speaks to United Nations, November 10, 2001
"We don't know what we don't know." -Donald H. Rumsfeld
"This site & all these moron conspiracy theorists have accomplised (sic) what they set out to do-raise doubt. No proof is necessary-just doubt."
- Anonymous, 7/28/2007
"In light of that sorry record of the propagandistic exploitation of the 9/11 tragedy for partisan political purpose, is it any wonder that large numbers of Americans have doubts about all of it and that a considerable industry of documentaries and investigative reports has sprung up with alternative theories ranging from the plausible to the absurd? http://www.commondreams.org"
-Robert Scheer, 9/11/2006
" Gawd, I love this site."
-H Nicole, 9/14/07
"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."
- President Bush Speaks to United Nations, November 10, 2001
"We don't know what we don't know." -Donald H. Rumsfeld
"This site & all these moron conspiracy theorists have accomplised (sic) what they set out to do-raise doubt. No proof is necessary-just doubt."
- Anonymous, 7/28/2007
"In light of that sorry record of the propagandistic exploitation of the 9/11 tragedy for partisan political purpose, is it any wonder that large numbers of Americans have doubts about all of it and that a considerable industry of documentaries and investigative reports has sprung up with alternative theories ranging from the plausible to the absurd? http://www.commondreams.org"
-Robert Scheer, 9/11/2006
" Gawd, I love this site."
-H Nicole, 9/14/07
Links to 911 Truth Info
Blog Archive
-
►
2012
(2)
- ► 05/06 - 05/13 (1)
- ► 01/22 - 01/29 (1)
-
►
2011
(2)
- ► 06/19 - 06/26 (1)
- ► 04/24 - 05/01 (1)
-
►
2010
(4)
- ► 10/03 - 10/10 (1)
- ► 06/13 - 06/20 (1)
- ► 02/14 - 02/21 (2)
-
►
2009
(8)
- ► 12/06 - 12/13 (1)
- ► 11/29 - 12/06 (1)
- ► 11/22 - 11/29 (1)
- ► 10/11 - 10/18 (1)
- ► 09/13 - 09/20 (1)
- ► 08/16 - 08/23 (1)
- ► 02/08 - 02/15 (1)
- ► 01/25 - 02/01 (1)
-
►
2008
(21)
- ► 11/30 - 12/07 (1)
- ► 11/23 - 11/30 (1)
- ► 11/02 - 11/09 (2)
- ► 09/21 - 09/28 (1)
- ► 08/17 - 08/24 (2)
- ► 08/03 - 08/10 (1)
- ► 06/29 - 07/06 (2)
- ► 06/15 - 06/22 (1)
- ► 05/18 - 05/25 (1)
- ► 05/11 - 05/18 (2)
- ► 04/20 - 04/27 (1)
- ► 03/30 - 04/06 (1)
- ► 03/16 - 03/23 (1)
- ► 02/24 - 03/02 (1)
- ► 01/27 - 02/03 (1)
- ► 01/20 - 01/27 (2)
-
▼
2007
(94)
- ► 12/16 - 12/23 (6)
- ► 12/09 - 12/16 (2)
- ► 11/25 - 12/02 (3)
- ► 11/18 - 11/25 (4)
- ► 11/11 - 11/18 (4)
- ► 11/04 - 11/11 (2)
- ► 10/28 - 11/04 (1)
- ► 10/21 - 10/28 (3)
- ► 10/14 - 10/21 (2)
- ► 10/07 - 10/14 (5)
- ► 09/30 - 10/07 (6)
- ▼ 09/23 - 09/30 (4)
- ► 09/16 - 09/23 (5)
- ► 09/09 - 09/16 (5)
- ► 09/02 - 09/09 (3)
- ► 08/26 - 09/02 (3)
- ► 08/19 - 08/26 (4)
- ► 08/12 - 08/19 (8)
- ► 08/05 - 08/12 (6)
- ► 07/29 - 08/05 (6)
- ► 07/22 - 07/29 (9)
- ► 07/15 - 07/22 (3)
Get out your wallet...
Over ONE MILLION Served!
"I encourage you all to go shopping more." - G.W. Bush, 12/20/06
Contact
shoes4indstry@aol.com
70 comments:
yawn...
We need to rework the plumbing at this site. I just flushed you in another string, Life, and here you are!
Well, since it is clear we are not going to get rid of you, Life, let's recap and move on with the trial. So far:
Point 1:
I presented video evidence that the plane flew right through WTC2 with its nose still intact.
-http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929 (see time marker 21:20)
- http://tinyurl.com/ysscje (see time markers 6:30, 5:25, and 4:55)
- http://www.archive.org/details/abc200109110912-0954 (see time markers 0:58-1:04 and 1:56-2:06 for what appears to be a piece of the plane on fire hanging outside WTC2)
You countered that what was observed coming out the other side of the building could have been anything, and specifically was not the nose of the plane, and that video evidence is always questionable anyway.
Point 2:
I presented video and photographic evidence that a steel spire turned to dust right before our eyes:
- http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109111011-1053 (time marker 17:15-17:30).
- http://tinyurl.com/2c2aep
- http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/
You countered that you have video evidence that contradicts this observation, but when you were not able to produce the video evidence, you argued that no video nor photographic evidence was to be trusted on any level and that there was a simple explanation for this observation (other than the steel spire turning into dust). When you failed to produce the simple explanation, you called everybody who questions 9/11 an IDIOT (in capital letters, of course, because apparently, the bigger the letters, the more true it makes the statement).
Okay, shall we move on then to something not involving video evidence -- the eyewitness testimonies of explosions. This issue was not even covered in the government's official story.
Question: Did witnesses describing the sound of explosions actually hear explosions? Yes? No? Not sure?
Dr. Judy Wood's legal challenge to the NIST report:
http://tinyurl.com/37mrsa
I guess, Life, since you do not believe that directed energy weapons exist, you probably think the latest toy to emerge from DoD contractor Raytheon is a hoax of some kind then, right, since it is a directed energy weapon?
http://tinyurl.com/3bmlod
Are you really that unfamiliar with directed energy weapons? Maybe Wikipedia can help you out...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon
Please don't fire back, as you have done before, that DEW's are not developed enough to create the kind of energy required to destroy the WTC towers. This would imply that gravity alone was not enough to do the job, and you shoot the government story in the foot, and we can't have you doing that, right?
I'll answer your questions and counter your points when you answer my questions and counter my points with factual data instead of half baked theories.
Where are the passengers and crew of the 4 aircraft?
Where are the 4 aircraft that held said passengers and crew?
Where were the "missiles" launched from?
Where are the operators of the DEW weapons?
Where were the DEW weapons located and where are the witnesses?
Where and when were the towers "coated" with your magic mojo juice?
Where are the video tapes and eyewitnesses to the workers planting explosives?
Where is the paper trail of the explosives from manufacture to implantation?
Where are the intercepts of all the communications that had to have happened to carry out such an operation?
"We" don't have to prove anything. What happened is documented and attested to by countless sources. It is up to "you" to prove your points by facts, not conjecture and speculation using pseudo science and wild theories.
I've forgot more about military weapons than you or Dr Fruity will ever know. That's one of the reasons your theory of DEWs being used is so half baked.
The answer for "The Truthers" paranoid delusions is very simple...
The easy way out. Appealing to conspiracy saves you having to struggle with the difficulties, contradictions, and uncertainties of real evidence.
http://tinyurl.com/nm9mb
http://tinyurl.com/2q24gf
If you'd use your head and look at the proof, which you won't because you refuse to acknowledge anything counter to your harebrained theories, you'll clearly see photos of the spire standing and then collapsing without "turning into dust".
I just watched your videos for the umpteenth time and they prove NOTHING.
Where is the nose cone that came through the building intact?
Where are the pictures of it on the ground?
Where are the eyewitnesses that saw the nose cone intact on the ground?
"The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) specifically acknowledged that it understood that Dr. Wood asserted that directed energy weapons (DEW) were used to destroy the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center complex. As well, NIST acknowledged that it did not analyze that part of the event where the destructive effects referenced by Dr. Wood would have been taking place."
Again for our viewers that have a trouble with reading comprehension..."NIST acknowledged that it did not analyze that part of the event where the destructive effects referenced by Dr. Wood would have been taking place."
Yet another peer reviewed paper from a respected Journal finds the towers were doomed to collapse.
9/11 demolition theory challenged
An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.
The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.
One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".
http://www.debunking911.com
/paper.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
9/11_conspiracy_theories
since you're so fond of quoting wiki....
"As well, NIST acknowledged that it did not analyze that part of the event where the destructive effects referenced by Dr. Wood would have been taking place."
There was no need to analyze the events. They already knew what happened. Twisting statements to fit "theories" is a hallmark of conspiracy theorists'.
Can't you answer a few simple questions? You expect me to, but you can't?
Where is the nose cone that came through the building intact?
Where are the pictures of it on the ground?
Where are the eyewitnesses that saw the nose cone intact on the ground?
"Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event there will usually be at least one ,often several wild conspiracy theories which spring up around it. "The CIA killed Hendrix" " The Pope had John Lennon murdered ", "Hitler was half Werewolf", "Space aliens replaced Nixon with a clone" etc,etc. The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it."
Obviously, the word astute doesn't apply to anyone here but me and a few other realists.
Where are the passengers and crew of the 4 aircraft?
Good question. That is what we are asking the government. I say they were dustified.
Where are the 4 aircraft that held said passengers and crew?
Good question. That is what we are asking the government. I say they were dustified.
Where were the "missiles" launched from?
What missiles? Specially modified drones flew into their targets by remote control. They were either inconspicuously incorporated into the regular commerical airliner fleet for use on 9/11 exactly as the government reported or they took off from a local airbase to participate in documented and indisputed military excercises being carried out that day that similated planes flying into buildings.
Where are the operators of the DEW weapons?
First, it is not clear what was used, but if DEW were used, just about anywhere but in the buildings themselves.
Where were the DEW weapons located and where are the witnesses?
Again, just about anywhere, and there are just as many reliable witnesses to DEW operators as there are to any aspect of the government story -- so I guess this is the key once the new investigation opens -- the witnesses coming forward for either story.
Where and when were the towers "coated" with your magic mojo juice?
At any time in the preceding years before 9/11. The interiors were under constant fireproof re-coating procedures (sort of like the story that the golden gate bridge is constantly being painted) because the initial fire-proofing was either not good enough or was costantly falling off and in need of re-application.
Where are the video tapes and eyewitnesses to the workers planting explosives?
The workers had no idea what the hell was spewing from their fire-proofing applicators, dear. They just pointed and sprayed whereever they were told to point and spray.
Where is the paper trail of the explosives from manufacture to implantation?
Good question. There are a lot of companies that produce nano-scale thermite that I would love to question or gain access to records, but I don't have that kind of access. Only Congress does.
Where are the intercepts of all the communications that had to have happened to carry out such an operation?
Good question. Same answer as above.
"We" don't have to prove anything. What happened is documented and attested to by countless sources. It is up to "you" to prove your points by facts, not conjecture and speculation using pseudo science and wild theories.
Um, excuse me? Countless sources? Where?
I've forgot more about military weapons than you or Dr Fruity will ever know. That's one of the reasons your theory of DEWs being used is so half baked.
Whatever you say, Forrest. I'm sure the government will be calling on your first as their expert witness in the trial, then.
The answer for "The Truthers" paranoid delusions is very simple...
The easy way out. Appealing to conspiracy saves you having to struggle with the difficulties, contradictions, and uncertainties of real evidence.
Yeah, right. I've lost my children in court over this. I've lost my job over this. This has been the real "easy" way out for me.
Go fuck yourself, asshole.
It's very interesting that the common thread among "de-bunkers" is that they always impugn the intelligence of those who do not follow the "party line" and swallow the administration's "theory. If they had actual facts and data to back up their story, they shouldn't have to fall back on grade-school, play-ground tactics. That's the best they can do...?
"We love the smell of vitriol in the morning!"
"Yeah, right. I've lost my children in court over this. I've lost my job over this. This has been the real "easy" way out for me."
Shows how deep your mental issues really are. Lost your kids and your job trying to prove a stupid ass theory? That's beyond sad, that's pathetic.
And you're going to have to do a LOT better than "Go fuck yourself, asshole." to EVEN come close to getting under my skin dearie.
To repeat myself, just so the record is clear...I have NO problem with a new independent investigation. Go right ahead and spend money faxing Congress instead of taking care of your kids. The end result will still be the same.
Okay, loserboy, so debunking911.com is a site you recommend, right?
Then why do you disagree with many of us here that the justification for the Iraq war was fabricated by the administration? Your own site prominently notes this is the "real conspiracy theory" and shows quite clearly that the "war" (i.e., occupation) was in the works well in advance of 9/11, and that the administration had little to no interest in terrorism. All they were interested in was an excuse to invade Iraq:
http://www.debunking911.com/conspiracy.htm
"Charlie don't surf!" You crack me up Shoes...I'm still giggling over thinking about Earl Scheib.
For as much "life" experience as Life claims, I probably have ten times more without even realizing it, just from being a talented and outspoken female scientist (and I'm saying this for the sake of womankind, not to self-promote, though I am beginning to think women should start doing this more).
Here is a peek into the seven year-long lawsuit I fought against Agouron Pharmaceuticals/Pfizer. My comments to a hit piece book about this lawsuit were finally reposted by me last week with a much stronger edge to them, too:
http://tinyurl.com/28qerk
The author of that book, Corynne McSherry, is a "progressive Democrat" who now lives and works at a law firm in San Francisco and is socially-connected with the "progressive Democrat" attorney who has worked consistently and slimily for the last few years with the children's father, and openly gay, affluent white gay man from San Francisco (who plays the "progressive Democrat" game to a hilt, but is in fact a closet neo-con -- sound familiar?), to get my kids completely taken away from me in the San Francisco Unified Family Court (where 5 out of the ten judges are pro-active "progressive Democratic" lesbians).
Anyway, I did not realize it at the time, but corporate America really is the entity we have to watch out for, Democrat or Republican, and not just rogue pharmaceutical companies either.
Another thing I realized is that the average person on the street is our only hope for revealing the truth (i.e., an open trial with a jury) and saving the democracy (i.e., speaking out to our political leaders and the media), because left to their own devices, even the most progressively-leaning public leaders with the best of intentions are way too pressured by money and corporate interests (and yes, significantly, this includes members of the judicial branch, as well as the executive and legislative branches of government).
I also learned how effective slime techniques can be in the long run, if left unchecked, especially for women. For men, it may be best in the long run to "take the high road -- just ignore it, etc." but for women, we really need to get out there, nip it in the bud, and lauch counter punches ASAP....
Pathetic is right, Life! Here's the job stuff... here are the e-mail correspondences with my ex-boss after what started out as casual banter and legitimate interest in 9/11 issues last May (and after it was clear that this guy was a classic "male engineer" who constantly threw out anything any female had to say over anything any male had to say)...
from H Nicole Young Jul 13
to (my employer, a mechanical engineer, P.E., Ph.D from UC Berkeley)
date Jul 13, 2007 3:23 AM
subject WTC
mailed-by gmail.com
I specifically looked for a woman to explain the fall of the World Trade Center buildings, and I found an engineer by the name of Judy Wood. I believe her, and think she has the best explanation to date. Get the straight jackets out!
Before I introduce you to Judy Wood, maybe I will ease you into this with somebody with a penis first -- an engineer from MIT to boot...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3475161841591542376
-----------------------------
Message text garbled?
from my employer, Ph.D., P.E." Jul 13
to H Nicole Young
date Jul 13, 2007 5:58 AM
subject Re: WTC
signed-by gmail.com
You need to get that job search going. No kidding.
from H Nicole Young Jul 13
to (my employer)
date Jul 13, 2007 12:46 PM
subject Re: WTC
mailed-by gmail.com
Whoops. Judy Wood does not even believe planes flew into the towers. That one is a bit much, even for me. I am sticking with the MIT engineer for now until further notice. Let me know what you think of what he has to say, at least, before you fire me -- again...
-----------------------
By July 20, one week later, I was officially asked to leave the company. Obviously, these things are a lot more complicated than what can be portrayed in just a few e-mails, but in effect, I was pretty glad to go at this point.
http://tinyurl.com/39xf5a
You truly have my sympathy for your situation nic. Losing ones' kids and job over anything is not right.
I rather doubt the penis was responsible though. I can't get mine to go out and get a job and earn a living, so I'd really be surprised if one could fire someone.
http://tinyurl.com/3y5m2w
You might try applying for short-order cook.
Funny you should cite Greg Jenkins as supporting your views, Life...
http://tinyurl.com/39xf5a
He is a 9/11 Truther who thinks the government story is a sham.
Jenkins' big argument is what I already mentioned not to mention above: that there is not enough energy produced by DEW's to account for dustification.
I think Jenkins is solidly in Steven Jones' corner and is now becoming a molten steel nuke guy along with Richard Gage and the rest of the sheep, but I'm not sure.
Anyway, I have already debunked the Jenkins criticism in one sentence: architects, engineers, and physicists (yes, including Judy Wood) are not chemists and unfortunately completely ignore input of energy from a chemical reaction, which can be quite substantial. In fact, in the case of thermite nanoparticles, there would probably be way too much energy. The problem would be how to control so much energy, not lack of it.
DEW's were probably only used trigger the dustification reaction, not bear energy load of the entire thing. No need to read the argument by Jenkins any further than this one point because his argument, which may or may not be true (i.e., that DEW's can not produce enough energy alone to dustify the towers), is a mute point.
Either way, I think Judy Wood did a fine job trying to counter Jenkins here:
http://drjudywood.com/articles/cc/Jenkinspanic.html
but again, neither even think about input of energy from a chemical reaction, so it's all sort of confusing and almost gets nowhere.
Jenkins did have a very significant role in the Truth Movement in one important way, though: he got Dr. Judy Wood thinking about dustification and fuming. The concept never entered her mind before that interview, when (she says) it became very clear to her that it was very important to Jenkins that the dust produced that day not rise. It was very important to him that the dust produced went down and stayed down, which is not what was observed, especially in the weeks following 9/11.
I belive the clip that you cite, Life, that is titled "collapse01_spire_clip", is from Jeff King's web site covering the issue...
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/
This is what you get when you click on his link called "click here for AVI" under the video titled, "PAX-NBC Video of the North Tower Collapse."
I had difficulty viewing it beyond just the title being displayed, as you and everybody else may have as well for all I know, so I can see where you think there is some video footage out there of the spire "collapsing," when in fact, when I tried a different format of that same clip (just click on the picture instead of the link underneath the picture), it was the same clip I already cited above, showing the spire turing to dust...
This is not evidence of the spire collapsing. It is just a misnomer from a video clip that does not play.
Again, after thorough analysis of this, as well as all the other photographic and video clips, Jeff King concludes this at the end of that web page...
"There can be no doubt that the cluster of steel box columns comprising the spire, after surviving the violence of the collapse itself, did in fact disintegrate almost at the moment that it began to fall. I cannot begin to speculate on the kind of technology needed to make this happen, but can say with some certainty that even conventional explosives would not create such a disintegration, and nothing that could happen in a gravitational collapse would resemble this."
ROTFFLMAO!!
"short-order cook."
as opposed to a long distance driver....>;}
...good lord woman...
..wanta' come borrow my glasses and computers?
http://tinyurl.com/3y5m2w
The video clip clearly shows the spire collapsing until it goes out of sight behind the dust cloud. The "dust" that remains "hanging" in the air is clearly the dust that settled on the spire before it's collapse.
Yes, that's the argument, and though I don't buy the "settled dust" story, it is the strongest one you have presented yet. This one is definitely going to have to go to the jury.
Are you conceding the more important point, for me anyway, the one about Jenkins' paper? What say you on that?
Keep in mind that I never cited the "spire turning to dust" in my September 20, 2007, letter to Congress. Maybe it's time to fall back on the evidence I did present...
4. There are countless observations that are consistent with the idea that a chemical breakdown of materials occurred (or continued to occur) after the world trade center towers had been destroyed.
Sources:
- http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110954-1036 (see time markers 4:45-5:05 and 7:14-7:20 and beyond for what appears to be the beginning and the continuation, respectively, of a possible chemical breakdown or "fuming" of the leeward facade of WTC1 just after a seemingly reactive dust cloud from the destruction of WTC2 came in contact with the facade).
- http://www.drjudywood.com (see photo evidence and discussions of "lathering", "fuming", and especially "toasty cars")
Perhaps a "Small Claims" Adjuster.
LMAO!
a clerk in Small Claims Court...
aarrgghhh....>;}
The video shows nothing but dust being swept up and away by a variety of factors such as wind and the updraft from the fire itself.
And...FYI, don't waste your time posting any Dr Fruity links solely for my sake, I've read every word on every one of her pages and even though I love science fiction, she's not very good at it.
..and, "What say you on that? ...you've been watching too much Bill O'Reilly dear...LOL...that's one of his catch phrases.
May I suggest you view the data on Dr. Wood's site while following along with the audio mp3 files from the various radio shows as she presents the evidence, since the significance of what she is presenting seems to have escaped you, Life.
As for the spire, it turned to dust in both videos. In the one where you claim it doesn't, it is more of a limited, side view and most of the dust is flying straight at the camera, so the phenomenon is not as pronounced as in the CNN video, which has a better head-on view -- and of the entire collapse, not just the first few seconds, that's all. It is your strongest point yet, true, but that's not saying much considering it is only a weak argument you lifted from Steven Jones.
As for Jenkins, I take it that's a yes then, you are conceding that the Jenkins paper, even if correct, which is a doubtful "if" in my book, is a mute point.
Two things:
1) you haven't given us your top secret explanation for why the spire only "looks" like it is turning to dust but really isn't -- and Steven Jones' "Oh, it's just dust that settled on the spire" isn't going to fly, especially for the full-view video and especially after you showed us the helicopter and hinted the spire video had something to do with video artifacts or trickery. I honestly thought you had a different take on this than Steven Jones, and it had piqued my curiosity.
2) you haven't addressed the entire leeward side of WTC1 fuming after a dust cloud from the destruction of WTC2 came in contact with it.
BTW, it seems pretty Karl Rovish of you to think that if you say Dr. Fruity often enough, people will believe it. Try not to make is so obvious that you are suffering from biting vaginae syndrome.
Geez, Life. Your big "debunking" sites need to be updated. What a waste of time -- again. Most of them spend 95% of their time debunking Steven Jones! I was actually glad to see it so that I don't have to waste time doing it myself.
As for the nose cone, it seemed to disintegrate in the video during the explosion, no? Even if it didn't and it were found on the ground, would we know it? Do you have a detailed list of the evidence found and kept?
I am more curious about where the nose cone went at the Pentagon, actually.
The questions you are asking are somewhat time wasting, Life. We are sticking with evidence we have that the perpetrators were not able to destroy. The government (i.e., your clients) can't eliminate or otherwise hide all the evidence from the crime scene then start asking, "Well, where's the nose cone?" and you certainly can't present the argument that "unless you produce the nose cone, the plane did not pierce through the building."
If you want a trial where you can simultaneously present hypothetical evidence that can not be disputed and also demand hypothetical evidence that can not be obtained, take it to the nearest family law court. You'd do very well as a family law attorney. I can tell.
Are you familiar with the term/disorder Obsessive/Compulsive?
While I hesitate to get too nasty, because at heart I'm a really sweet guy, and with your kid and job probs I hate to pick on you...but...
I'm not gonna' get into some long drawn out inane conversation about what "you" perceive to be "facts", which are nothing but speculation.
The spire did not turn to dust. Period. I can see how someone who wanted to believe it turned to dust could convince themselves it did, but it didn't.
Dr Fruity is just that. She has even less credibility with me than BO GWB Rove et al has with you. I've watched and listened and read all her "evidence". I think she's a nutball. Period.
As far as all the sites I provide and your observation that they need "updating", facts and reality don't need updating.
Time to go play with the bovines...
Mooo...
Not that I expect to get anything resembling a real answer, but WTF does OCD have to do with Nicole, "Dr. Frist"?
(BTW, I didn't realize it was possible to diagnose solely on the basis of blog comments! Wow, where'd you learn that -- out in the barnyard?)
Baaaaaaaaaa...
That would be "Dr." Loserboy ma'am...
WOOF!!!
It will be very interesting to see the peer-reviewed paper from Dr. Seffen that you cite, Life. I had to go to his web site to find the reference for it...
K A Seffen,"Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis", ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, in press.
It hasn't come out yet, to the best of my knowledge, so I can't comment on it.
The only other peer-reviewed paper on the subject was submitted two days after the collapse, on September 13, 2001, by Dr. Zdenek P. Bazant of Northwestern University:
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
For anybody who has ever written a serious scientific paper, the preparation and writing time alone (48 hours?) is highly questionable, as if he were asked to do this kind of analysis ahead of time by the propaganda machine.
NIST relied heavily on this one hasty analysis and has since lived to regret it.
Dr. Bazant's analysis has been critiqued by hundreds of engineers, but perhaps the best synopsis is by Gordon Ross, ME, here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/9154
None of the most critical assumptions Dr. Bazant makes has panned out in the real evidence, the three biggest incorrect assumptions being:
1) A majority of the steel in the upper floors where the "collapse" initiated had been heated to above 800 Celcius.
Not a single analysis of the steel that was recovered showed that any of it even came close to this temperature.
2) The entire upper sections of both towers moved together in unison as one intact chunk when the "collapses" began in each case.
In fact, it is clear that the entire top chunks of both buildings began to "collapse" on their own and turn to dust, in an uneven and independent fashion, before the lower floors were even touched by any part of the upper floors.
3) Most of the building lay in a heap pile at the bottom when all was said and done (i.e., none of it was dustified).
We all know that this was not what was observed, but to quatify it better, I am sure there is a paper trail for all the steel that was supposedly shipped to China, cataloguing all the steel with approximate weight and amount, etc. Once the government produces that list, we can have a better idea of how much of the steel was turned to dust, and how much actually survived.
Even given all three completely incorrect assumptions were true, Dr. Bazant's modeling is highly shaky at best.
I can't believe your strongest source of "debunking" the 9/11 Truth Movement, Life, where this paper is presented as the strongest evidence to date of supporting the government story, is still:
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
It gives me an good indication of where you are on the curve of the "scientific study" of 9/11 issues. Mostly, it seems you are still mired at the bottom of the curve, in the Bill O'Reilly School of how to discern and disseminate scientific evidence.
Wiki is written and edited, for the most part, by people like me and you, Life. Editors step in sometimes where there is a dispute. It is a great concept for dissemination of information that seems to work out well in most cases.
However, from my own experiences in trying to write or edit various pages covering 9/11 issues that are factually incorrect or not properly cited (and then this is immediately deleted by somebody else), it is clear to me that somebody or some entity that is in favor of the official government story has complete control of 9/11 issues at Wiki.
That will change over time because the basic premise at Wiki -- that the most reliable version of the truth eventually prevails -- will win out in the end, I am sure, but for now, Wiki, like you Life and your friend at the "Debunking 9/11 Issues" cite, is at present way behind the knowledge curve for 9/11 issues, possibly on purpose.
nic,nic,nic...what am I gonna' do with you. You're missing the whole point Dear.
Stop and THINK about what I'm going to say...
I showed a video that "PROVES" a helicopter can fly without its' rotors turning. Did you not watch it? Did you not believe it? Did you not CLEARLY see that it was moving too and fro and up and down WITHOUT THE ROTORS TURNING? Do you BELIEVE a helicopter can fly without its' rotors turning? Did I not just PROVE it can by the video? Do you NOT believe your OWN eyes?
WHY???
Again, THINK...about what I just said and apply that to all your "evidence" about what happened on 9/11 and you'll know why I do not, nor will I ever, buy into "The Truthers" "facts".
And, again, you all can have all the "Independent Investigations" you want. Fine with me, no problemo. Just don't waste my tax dollars on one, because I know what it will say when it's all over and done with.
But it's ok to waste our tax dollars on a phony, trumped up war in the middle east, pleeeez...
If we'd had a fair, honest, independent investigation in the first place, perhaps we could have SAVED those billions of tax dollars.
They certainly wasted, what little they spent, of your tax dollars on the first investigation! What a joke!
And a waste of time and tax dollars.
I never believed the rotors were not turning for a second, so what is your point? I had foreknowledge of the phenomenon and can explain it to you: the frequency of the rotation of the rotors perfectly matched the frequency of the "shutter speed" of the camera filming it, and yes, video cameras have a "shutter speed" of sorts -- exactly as explained by the comments for that video.
In fact, many people who have observed helicopters where you see the the general blur of the rotors turning, but then you seen some sub-shadows of what appears to be the rotors turning slowly, might aleady have a natural inkling that something like this is what they were observing here.
So I guess what you are saying is this: you are going to believe whatever the government claims on this no matter how scientifically improbable because you have some foreknowledge of all the odd, unexplained phenomenon I have presented here. Well, as I have presented my foreknowledge of the helicopter bar trick, please present your foreknowledge of:
1) The plane "appearing" to fly through WTC2 (other than the extremely weak denial that it was not the nose that "appeared" to pierce through the other side of the building still intact).
2) The spire appearing to turn to dust (the "it was coated with dust" does not apply, especially for the CNN footage that shows the more complete view of the entire thing "appearing" to turn to dust).
3) The entire leeward facade of WTC1 giving off fumes after a dust cloud from WTC2 comes in contact with it.
4) Numerous cars and trucks found at ground zero where only the engine blocks and the door handles are missing -- the rest of the cars are relatively untouched and okay.
Unless, of course, you are arguing that photos and videos of all these phenomena have been purposely modified, please explain to me how some video or photographic artifacts (which were extremely carefully set up and cooridinated ahead of time in the helicopter video, BTW) accounted for what was observed here.
Please focus and be specific. The devil is in the details, and getting you to be specific is like pulling teeth since it is where all your arguments fall apart. There are unexplained phenomena that I have offered reasonable explanations for, while you twindle your thumbs and say all Truthers are idiots.
Again, wasting my time unless you get serious and start putting forth proposals that explain what is observed, whether photographic artifacts or a physical phenomenon that people may only be remotely familiar with, but can understand nonetheless, like the helicopter example.
You missed my whole point nic...did you honestly stop and THINK about the point I was making?
"There are unexplained phenomena that I have offered reasonable explanations for"
I would say there are phenomena that are explained perfectly and reasonably.
I know...let's reconstruct the whole WTC complex and do it all over again with test equipment out the yingyang and see what happens. Sounds to me like the only way to do a true investigation.
Okay, Life. We seem to have two different sort of trials going on.
In one trial, I present evidence for drone airplanes where at least the nose portion seems to act as a missile. I also present evidence for my version of dustification, where an explosive chemical reaction may be triggered by a laser (standard laboratory technique) and therefore, just by the nature of how the laser is used, it is called a "directed energy weapon" (no need to hide under a couch at the sound of it dear, a DEW is simply a laser used as a weapon, and therefore I myself have used DEW's in the laboratory, and you may have as well, for all I know).
The initial, explosive chemical reaction seems inadvertently to continue on in what I am almost sure is unwanted chain reactions or side reactions for quite some time after the initial event.
These are pretty darn specific explanations, and although these theories may not have as much evidence as we would all like, at least they do not contradict what was observed nor any of the evidence you yourself have presented so far, Life, which is an important point, one that the government story can not measure up to.
In the second, parallel trial, you present some papers or hypotheses put forth by various scientists that either try to support the government story or try to undermine my hypotheses.
In two of the strongest cases you present: a peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bazant that supports "progressive collapse" of the towers, and a non peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Greg Jenkins that purports to show why it is not possible for directed energy weapons to have been used to destroy the towers, I have given detailed accounts of why neither paper flies.
What? No rebuttal to my criticisms? Unless you defend these papers from my commentary on them, you can't use them.
As for the one peer reviewed paper that has yet to be published, papers get published all the time that either start out as garbage and probably should not have been published at all, or are mistakenly based on facts or evidence that time and further investigations show to be faulty or untrue.
I would not hold my breath for your "yet to be published" peer reviewed paper #2, as I suspect it will have similar fatal flaws or poor assumptions as the first peer reviewed paper that made the same claims for a progressive, pancaking collapse.
We have only covered a couple of points, but so far, everything presented in the ROC-USA commission report of September 20, 2007, still stands as of October 1, 2007.
If you disagree with this, please give a brief synopsis of which point in fact does not stand and why, specifically -- not just "you and Dr. Fruity are idiots and here is a list of unrelated web sites that I say says so."
Lord....
OK...explain to me how a laser can "beam" through dust and do what it is you're claiming. You do know the difference between "particle" and "photon" beams? Do you not? Do you have a grasp on the energy levels required to do what you're claiming?
And while never using a laser in a "lab", I've been playing with them for close to 25 years now and own several.
And, again dear, your "evidence" is conjecture. Where is the nose cone? Where are the missing passengers from the "drone" a/c? Who flew the "drones"? While there is "something" that came through the building, you have offered nothing to prove it was the nose cone. Conjecture vs Evidence...BIG difference.
Some Bronze Age civilizations were thought to have used directed energy, such as focusing the
sun's energy on an invading enemy, to gain a military advantage over their adversaries.
I never said what frequency was used because I don't know. Surely some frequencies can pierce through certain materials easier than others. Gamma rays are passing right through you and most of the earth as we speak, dear.
BTW, what do you think the modern day anti-missile device, such as the ones that are purportedly protecting the Pentagon and the ones purportedly being developed in the Star Wars initiative look/act like? You think it's some guy holding a bazooka on his shoulder?
No, I am pretty sure the US government is pretty good at turning most airplanes (and possibly some missiles) to dust at this point, like the plane that flew into the Pentagon -- most of it was turned to dust, though apparently, at least the nose made it through four ring layers.
http://tinyurl.com/amujs
The USAF 747-400F YAL-1 does not "dustify", melt, or destroy missiles. It only has enough power to cause an intense heat spot on the missile and causes the fuel aboard the missile to explode. It takes place in a matter of seconds.
The other side effects may also include enough "wrinkling" of the missile aerodynamics to cause it to go off course enough so that structural deformation due to extreme G-force is sufficient to destroy it.
That's the whole problem with the Doc's DEW theory...it's called power. There ain't enough in the world to do it. Chemical "lathering" or otherwise. The steel would have to be heated enough to go through the stages from solid to gaseous.
Ain't no Gamma rays going through my body...I got my Tin Foil Suit on...>;}
Redefining all video evidence as video conjecture is not going to help you here, Life. If a nose cone is produced somewhere in a government hangar, you will be saying, "Oh, but how do you prove that it came from the nose of THAT airplane and not the other airplane?" On and on. Being a classically trained scientist, I know that nothing can be proved 100%, though I am sure you are desperately trying to make the case that I must jump through your endless hoops forever and prove 100% that the nose cone that we see on the video piercing through the building is the nose cone that we see on the video piercing through the building.
To the contrary, I am pretty sure at this point that you have to explain to me why it is not what it appears to be, not the other way around. Are you saying that it does not at least "appear" to be what I am saying it is?
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it's a duck.
The steel would have to be heated enough to go through the stages from solid to gaseous?
What the hell are you talking about? Why would the steel have to go from solid to gaseous?
You must be consulting with Greg Jenkins as we speak (aka, the Anonymous Physicist) who is apparently imploding lately in online forums, from what I hear.
Please explain why the steel would have to go from solid to gaseous at any time during the pulverization of the towers.
Another reason I think Jenkins' paper and my criticism of it are not being addressed directly by you is that you keep bringing up the same mute point about power and energy input. Not enough power? So how much power do you think is needed to get the reaction going? I am pretty sure it could be done with a single magnesium fuse, but I don't want to be held to that one -- maybe more like two magnesium fuses.
It wouldn't look as pretty nor as systematic as the way it was done with the laser, but I'm pretty sure it would result in the complete destruction of the towers in the end.
Whoops -- the above quote about the armies from the Bronze Age using DEW's is from here:
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/dew.pdf
Other interesting articles from this site:
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/dew.htm
I especially like the article that basically describes my hurricane altering gizmo to a tee, almost.
I had a first generation jailbroken iphone and there was an app that let you assign almost anything you wanted to the double click home button. I had it set to call my wife. Now I have the 3g iphone, also jailbroken, and I cant remember what the app is called. Please help!
[url=http://www.rocktheboatconsulting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=81759]unlock iphone[/url]
Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!
I really like when people are expressing their opinion and thought. So I like the way you are writing
You have really great taste on catch article titles, even when you are not interested in this topic you push to read it
[url=http://www.adidasforum.com/adidas-consortium-“runners”-pack-nicekicks-com/]Adidas Forum[/url]
Now here's a shoe-in for the list of the year's best gaming-related clothing : Adidas has brought back its ZX five hundred running shoe, and, since it originally comes from the '80s, the gaming galvanized design and coloring is a simple choice ... Right? The kicks won't be the coolest part of the deal, either ; they come packaged with a combination bracelet/USB flashdrive containing ZX Runner, a software game based primarily on ... The shoe itself.
GameCulture writes the game stars a character named'DJ Zed' who, according to Adidas, has 5 mins to'run, moon-walk, climb walls, avoid some dodgy-looking bullies, collect power-ups, and pull off loony rooftop-to-rooftop stunts' in order to get on-stage before his set starts. It appears to be fittingly retro -- see for yourself in the video we've included after the breakdance.
More info
Adidas Forum
[URL=http://www.wallpaperhungama.in/details.php?image_id=13415][IMG]http://www.wallpaperhungama.in/data/thumbnails/117/Minissha Lamba-91.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=http://www.wallpaperhungama.in/details.php?image_id=13240][IMG]http://www.wallpaperhungama.in/data/thumbnails/117/Minissha Lamba-90.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=http://www.wallpaperhungama.in/details.php?image_id=13236][IMG]http://www.wallpaperhungama.in/data/thumbnails/117/Minissha Lamba-87.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[URL=http://www.wallpaperhungama.in/details.php?image_id=13234][IMG]http://www.wallpaperhungama.in/data/thumbnails/117/Minissha Lamba-85.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[url=http://www.wallpaperhungama.in/cat-Minissha-Lamba-117.htm][b]Minissha Lamba Hot Wallpapers[/b][/url]
Photo gallery at WallpaperHungama.in is dedicated to Minissha Lamba Pictures. Click on the thumbnails into enlarged Minissha Lamba pictures, exclusive photographs and absolute photos. Also validate exposed other Pictures Gallery representing High distinction and Superior Decision portrait scans, movie captures, talkie promos, wallpapers, hollywood & bollywood pictures, photos of actresses and celebrities
megan fox naked, [url=http://discuss.tigweb.org/thread/187756]megan fox picture[/url] megan fox bending over
playboy kim kardashian pictures, [url=http://discuss.tigweb.org/thread/187768]kim kardashian new tape[/url] kim kardashian full video torrent
taylor swift signature, [url=http://discuss.tigweb.org/thread/187772]taylor swift facts[/url] taylor swift singles
hanna montana final season, [url=http://discuss.tigweb.org/thread/187786]hanna montana hoedown[/url] hannah montana lyrcs and videos not on youtube
harry potter hogwartsgryffindor crest image, [url=http://discuss.tigweb.org/thread/187792]harry potter and the half blood prince walkthrough[/url] harry potter time turner
cruises to norway fjords, [url=http://discuss.tigweb.org/thread/187798]outfits to wear on cruise to europe and mediterranean[/url] cheap cruise tampa to mexico
is justin beiber and selena gomez dating, [url=http://discuss.tigweb.org/thread/187812]justin bieber one[/url] justin bieber ringtones
images britany spears, [url=http://discuss.tigweb.org/thread/187814]britney spears giving birth videos[/url] britney spears yovo
megan fox completely naked, [url=http://discuss.tigweb.org/thread/175542]megan fox naked pictures[/url] megan forx
if you guys persistent to groundwork [url=http://www.generic4you.com]viagra[/url] online you can do it at www.generic4you.com, the most trusted viagra pharmacopoeia repayment in pop up again generic drugs.
you can ascertain drugs like [url=http://www.generic4you.com/Sildenafil_Citrate_Viagra-p2.html]viagra[/url], [url=http://www.generic4you.com/Tadalafil-p1.html]cialis[/url], [url=http://www.generic4you.com/VardenafilLevitra-p3.html]levitra[/url] and more at www.rxpillsmd.net, the gaekwar of baroda [url=http://www.rxpillsmd.net]viagra[/url] informant on the web. well another great [url=http://www.i-buy-viagra.com]viagra[/url] pharmacy you can find at www.i-buy-viagra.com
Infatuation casinos? enquire this progeny [url=http://www.realcazinoz.com]online casino[/url] advisor and play online casino games like slots, blackjack, roulette, baccarat and more at www.realcazinoz.com .
you can also go over our up to date [url=http://freecasinogames2010.webs.com]casino[/url] steer at http://freecasinogames2010.webs.com and increase the lead true compressed dough !
another different [url=http://www.ttittancasino.com]casino spiele[/url] purlieus is www.ttittancasino.com , in lieu of of german gamblers, make a mistake in manumitted online casino bonus.
the beat delight drink. I fling substandard it after a hard to swallow stress at handiwork, it calms me down. I would be nothing without it. It's the most unforgettable letting up the required ever. It calms me down, patois mayhap you should chance an last it out? it lip-service torment right? and ull sparely divert in it, to be guaranteed, u should!
[url=www.minichill.com/ChillRecipes.html]cocktail drinks[/url]
[url=www.minichill.com/ChillRecipes.html]cocktail drinks[/url]
[url=www.minichill.com/ChillRecipes.html]bartender drink[/url]
[url=http://www.ChimneyCareInc.com]chimney sweep[/url]
[url=http://www.ChimneyCareInc.com]chimney sweep cost[/url]
[url=http://www.ChimneyCareInc.com]chimney sweeper[/url]
[url=http://www.ChimneyCareInc.com]chimney sweeps[/url]
[url=http://www.ChimneyCareInc.com]chimney cleaning[/url]
wonderful r 'cessation drink. I drink it after a unfriendly epoch at partisanship, it calms me down. I would be nothing without it. It's the most unforgettable immobilized palate ever. It calms me down, slang mayhap you should scrutinize it out? it lip-service surly right? and ull unbigoted resource to it, remarkably, u should!
[url=http://www.ChimneyCareInc.com]chimney sweep[/url]
[url=http://www.minichill.com.com]Stress Supplement[/url]
[url=http://www.minichill.com.com]stress Supplements[/url]
[url=http://www.minichill.com.com]Immediate Stress Relief[/url]
alcohol fireplace
Predilection casinos? authenticate this progeny [url=http://www.realcazinoz.com]casino[/url] games. advisor and play online casino games like slots, blackjack, roulette, baccarat and more at www.realcazinoz.com .
you can also delay our untrained [url=http://freecasinogames2010.webs.com]casino[/url] steer at http://freecasinogames2010.webs.com and gain principal tangled dough !
another late-model [url=http://www.ttittancasino.com]casino[/url] spiele conspire is www.ttittancasino.com , for german gamblers, get manumitted online casino bonus.
Hello, I am new here.
I love www.blogger.com because I learned a lot here. Now it's time for me to pay back.
Why I post this guide on this of www.blogger.com is to help visitors solve the same problem.
Please let me know if it is inapproprate here.
Here is the guide, hope it would do people a favor.
FLAC to MP3 Guide - Convert FLAC to MP3 with FLAC Converter, FLAC to MP3 Converter software ImTOO FLAC to MP3 Converter
How to convert FLAC to MP3? Which FLAC Converter is the most powerful FLAC to MP3 Converter to convert FLAC to MP3 very easily with the excellent quality? There are numerous FLAC Converter, FLAC to MP3 Converter tools which can convert FLAC to MP3 well. For instance, Xilisoft Audio Converter , ImTOO Audio Encoder , Allok Audio Converter etc are all perfect FLAC Converter software to convert FLAC to MP3, and convert between many other popular audio formats. (, )This guide will take ImTOO FLAC to MP3 Converter as an example to show you how to convert FLAC to MP3 fast with this useful FLAC Converter.
Introduction of this FLAC to MP3 Converter:
ImTOO Video to Audio Converter is a powerful and easy-to-used FLAC Converter, FLAC to MP3 Converter to convert FLAC to MP3 format without difficulties. Besides converting FLAC to MP3, this application can also convert video files like 3GP, AVI, GIF, DV Video, MOV, SWF, MPEG, H264, RM, WMV, ASF, VOB, APE, CUE, CDA, etc. to MP3, AAC, AC3, AU, M4A, MP2, OGG, WAV and WMA and convert among all audio files.
FLAC to MP3 Guide: How to convert FLAC to MP3 with FLAC Converter, (, )FLAC to MP3 Converter - ImTOO FLAC to MP3 converter step by step?
Step 1: Free download this FLAC to MP3 Converter , and run this FLAC Converter.
Step 2: Click "Add File(s)" button to import FLAC files in this FLAC to MP3 Converter, FLAC Converter.
Step 3: Output Settings. You can specify some special and advanced profile settings on this FLAC to MP3 Converter, FLAC Converter.
Tips:
1. Choose a file and click Profile drop-down list to select MP3 as its output format on this FLAC to MP3 Converter.
2. You can rename the output file name and reset Audio Quality, Channels, etc. as you want.
3. Reset some audio parameters on this FLAC Converter as you want.
4. Click "Apply to All" button to apply the MP3 profile to all files.
Step 4: Click "Browse" button to set the output path with this FLAC to MP3 Converter. (, )
Step 5: Click "Convert" button to start to convert FLAC to MP3 file format by this FLAC to MP3 Converter.
Ok, done. You could find this FLAC Converter is so powerful that it can convert FLAC to MP3 quite easily. Just free download this FLAC to MP3 Converter to convert FLAC to MP3 and fully enjoy its advantage right now. Or you can also find many FLAC Converter, FLAC to MP3 Converter tools below to convert FLAC to MP3 with different enjoyment.
Resource:
[url=http://www.topvideoconverter.com/best-audio-converter-review/]audio converter review[/url]
[url=http://www.topvideoconverter.com/dvd-audio-extractor/]extract audio from dvd[/url]
[url=http://www.topvideoconverter.com/music-converter/]audio converter[/url]
[url=http://www.topvideoconverter.com/m4p-converter/]M4p Converter[/url]
[url=http://www.topvideoconverter.com/flv-converter/]convert flv video[/url]
Speaking of users, the Zune Social is also great fun, letting you find others with shared tastes and becoming friends with them.
this post really very good and effective for me thanks for sharing this nice post
Post a Comment