Bill Maher gets in scuffle: but are the Conspiracy Theorists right?

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum, Oct 21, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    make up you're mind. I didn't say they were sturctual eingineers I was refering to the people who actually know the building. I was refering to those guys as Hacks.


    The video in question presents the gentleman as "MIT Engineer", but he's not. He *graduated* from MIT with an engineering degree, and he's been in many professions though his life (he says so).

    A big credibility give is right at the beginning when he talks about one of his "patients" mentioning the WTC "looks like demolition to me. See the squibs?"

    re: "the only explanation" - the actual architects of the towers designed them to fall in a very specific fashion in the event of imminent collapse - so, yes, the collapse was "controlled" in the sense it was designed into the architecture of the building.




    Says the guy who doesn't know shit about gravity. Nor has he read the NIST report. I see you looked at the Loosechange vs Free thinker debate that I posted. Then you know you're not correct. The building goes straight down. that is gravity.


    http://911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

    That is the counter to your thermate bullshit.
    Again you did not read.
    test
  2. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    The thing that's funny to me is that you never think for yourself. You never analyze anything on your own and always turn to other people in other forums to get your responses. You're a muppet, son.

    1. Being a patient does not disqualify one in any way shape or form, unless they are a psychiatric patient. Did he say that his patient was a psychiatric patient? He said "he was a retired Army Corps of Engineers who did a lot of demolitions". Do you know why his patient is a patient? I want you to figure it out because it has nothing to do with his mind. When you figure that out, then get back at me. I'm not telling you because you need to learn how to fucking research something before you comment on it. Copy and pasting doesn't benefit your mind, the discussion or this thread in any way, shape, or form.

    2. Quoting a poster named "Bhatch" doesn't give you credibility.
    test
  3. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    HAHAHAHA

    Again, you're taking other people's words and trying to pawn them off as your own.

    This comes from the link you just provided:

    "re: "the only explanation" - the actual architects of the towers designed them to fall in a very specific fashion in the event of imminent collapse - so, yes, the collapse was "controlled" in the sense it was designed into the architecture of the building.

    You conspiracy hacks need to come up with better things than depending on professional inference to buffet the credibility of your arguments. For example, this video does not need to mention MIT in it's title - the author's insistence on doing so only betrays his lack of confidence in his own argument."

    It's a post by Lecherous Venom:
    http://digg.com/videos/educational/9_11_Collapse_Analysis



    If you cannot think for yourself then do not get involved in the discussion.
    I've got my answer. This is why sometimes you come as being intelligent and other times you come across as a complete and utter fucking idiot, you're an idiot who figured out how to google, copy and paste.




    No, I didn't look into any loosechange vs free thinker thread and you're not a free thinker. Stop pretending that you are. It pisses me off when people who can't think use terms that they don't understand to argue with the very people who they are pretending to be.

    A free thinker will challenge the stupid fucking shit they seen on television.
    A muppet will believe what they see and what they are told.
    You are not a free thinker.


    [funny]

    Who the fuck is F R Greening?
    test
  4. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    I thought you had to go to work?
    test
  5. LiveFromThe781

    LiveFromThe781 Don Of The Den

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,928
    its pretty easy to differentiate between menaz's own thoughts and plagerism. he has terrible grammar so as soon as you start seeing apostrephes, the correct usage of "you're", "your", "there", "their", correct spelling, etc. you can identify the plagerism.

    and yes, if youre taking ideas which are not your own and citing them without reference, you are plagerising.

    ...wish i had something more positive to contribute.
    test
  6. Namor

    Namor Prodigal Sun-god

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Messages:
    8,853
    a plane crashing into a skyscrapper is a good way to distract masses of people from the bombs that would level it...
    test
  7. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Ad hominem attacks

    He won't look at the evidence. So I was forced to post it.
    The links are all in this thread.
    test
  8. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807

    WRONG. I posted the link for you to look at it. You would not do this.
    So I posted what was said. The original link is in this thread.
    Why would I post the link? Exactly. I'm showing you the evidence.
    You say that evidence isn't good enough. It's not the only link I have on Jeff King.

    You asserted a misleading headline, now if you Swap "engineer" for "physician who studied electronics in the 70's" that would be a start. Jeff king is not even qualified to speak on controlled Demolishion. Jeff King doesn't teach at MIT. He's actually a physician! He did get a degree once in "electrical engineering" (not even civil!) from MIT.

    Jeff King: “I graduated from MIT with an SB degree in 1974, with a combined Biology-EE major (that was before a Bio-Medical Engineering Department existed.) and before settling down to do clinical medicine I worked for about eight years in electronics and electro-mechanical engineering. For the past 27 years I have been working full time as a family physician, doing office-based primary care here in the rural San Joaquin Valley of central California.”


    http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Confronting the Evidence/index.htm#Pupp


    You have not provided one piece of evidence of a controlled demolishion. Not one Squib remnant was found in the wreackage of Buildings 1, 2, or 7. You also can't explain what a controlled demolision looks or sounds like. A controlled demolishion starts from the bottom up not from the top down. What you are looking at as buildings 1 & 2 Collapse is pulverized concert coming out in puffs of air along with other cubical debris that are being pushed out per-floor through the windows it's nothing like Squibs going off during a controlled demolishion. There are differences between a controlled demolishion and what happend on 9/11. The fact you've never looked into this and accepted the CT account tells me you argue out of ignorance and are not willing to accept any other evidence. Thus, you relie on the Argument from Incredulity.

    "In order to demolish a building safely, blasters must map out each element of the implosion ahead of time. The first step is to examine architectural blueprints of the building, if they can be located, to determine how the building is put together. Next, the blaster crew tours the building (several times), jotting down notes about the support structure on each floor. Once they have gathered all the raw data they need, the blasters hammer out a plan of attack. Drawing from past experiences with similar buildings, they decide what explosives to use, where to position them in the building and how to time their detonations. In some cases, the blasters may develop 3-D computer models of the structure so they can test out their plan ahead of time in a virtual world." - Introduction to How Building Implosions Work.

    Please explain to me how the government managed to rig two towers a hundered ten stories tall, and each floor a acre in size (208 X 208 X 12) Without one employee out of 50,000 noticing them? Not one person discovered a Squib? Not one employee witnessed finding anything sus-picious ever?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k


    "Our team, working at ground zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event. You just can't clean up all the det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remanants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc..
    nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days." - Brent blanchard, an implosion expert with the demolition consulting firm Protec Documentation Services.


    And Don't worry I'm going to help explain away the topple-over theory next.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9Mhhvl7vWk
    But first I want you to see this video on it.

    Mark roberts: "Even CT'S understand The floors can sag, the enormous top of the building can start to len or tip over, and then what should happen if this is the damage portion of the top of the building. (paper as visual aid.) What alot of people and the conspracy thought expect is if that starts to tip over it should continue to tip over all the way."

    Mark roberts then mentions that Jason Bermas stated earlier it was at a 45 degree angle. However, this is clearly wrong and jason needs it explained to him because he just doesn't know. Mark roberts ( who has read 10,000 pages of the NIST report and is author of loosechange guide) then corrects jasons assertion by explaining it was only at a 23 degree angle not a 45 degree angle.

    Mark roberts: "What needs to happen inorder for that to continue over. Is that it needs to have a really good fulcrum over here. (pinches bottom right hand corner of paper in visual aid to demonstrate that the leverage point is over there.) But what you see in the videos is the second it starts to tilt this collapses here (bends bottom right hand corner of paper in visual aid to demonstrate its collapse) Then it all comes straight down. So you do continue to see it fall a little bit. it's arrested by the interor walls. it's not a soild structure. it's made up of thousands of parts none of which are designed to lean like that (Holds up hands at jason Bermas asserted 45 degree angel for visiual aid.)" Jason disgrees, then makes an ad hominem circumstantial. disover. Robert wins.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4sHGHiRkPA
    1:33 to 2:45... If you want to quickly understand what i'm talking about here.

    You haven't said anything new that a CT hasn't claimed already.
    Stop impling as if you are this greatest free-thinker compared to others.
    All you're ideas originated from CT'S.

    Do not sit in this thread ask me a question and then insult me for giving you the evidence to your question. That is immature. Espeically when I have provided links to you.

    I do think for myself. And I will continue to do so. But I am showing you evidence as well. Evidence you refuse to look at. We can't talk because you don't know what is being said. If you did you wouldn't result to attacking me.
    test
  9. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    A free-thinker would also challenge CT'S.

    Dr. Frank Greening, is a Canadian scientist who has a Ph. D. in chemistry. He was in charge of radioanalytical chemistry research and discovered all sorts of problems with OPG's CANDU reactors. He has published scientific articles in the Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, Canadian Journal of Physics, Chemical Physics Letters, Journal of Nuclear Materials, etc. He even worked with the great Nobel prize winning spectroscopist, Gerhard Herzberg, for 2 years back in the 1970s. He wrote the paper demonstrating that WTC 1 & 2 could easily have collapsed from the damage and fire for the crashes without the introduction of explosive demolitions. In March 2006, Prof. Steven Jones of Scholars for 9/11 Truth were challenged countless times to address Frank Greening's paper. To date, Jones has refused to do so. Moreover, Steven jones has had ZERO scientific articles published but he is the only physicist 9/11 deniers have. Stevens jones isn't even a respected physicist though and was infact fired from Brigham Young University. He doesn't even respect the scientific methood which is appearent because he claims evidence that jesus christ visted america. This is the man you are agreeing with.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySHgiUxnLC0
    Columns Cut but not by Thermite.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGnSFwL8a10
    Thermite Chemical Signatures Disproven.

    The question you should be asking is WHO THE FUCK is steven jones?
    I know this answer, noone, just a Mormon pissed at bush. I also know if it wasn't for him you wouldn't have your argument today. Since he is the ONE who first persented your arguement that you have been presenting before me which doesn't hold up.

    http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/stevene.jones'thermitethermateclaims

    I rest my case. 9/11 was not a inside job.
    test
  10. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Menaz, you've been caught plagiarizing other people's words in order to argue a subject that you clearly don't want to know the truth about.

    Your entire argument consists of: "You don't know how they pulled it off and no evidence of what they did was discovered in the wreckage, therefore you can't prove that they did it."

    That's not a valid argument. I don't know how they pulled it off. All I know is that they did and that's all that I care to know. If you had watched the videos you would see that there is more than enough proof that they did pull those buildings. But, you didn't watch the videos and yet you expect me to read your links? Hell, several government officials slipped after the incident and said, "we decided to pull them." Pull means demolish. You don't just decide on a whim to pull a building. It has to prepped in advance.

    Sorry kid. If you want me to cooperate with you then you're going to actually have to participate by watching the initial videos which I posted. I'm not playing this game with you anymore. I know what happened and I know what didn't happen.
    Two concrete and steel towers did not collapse down on themselves from a fire and a third building did not collapse before them because of a fire caused by debris.

    Watch the initial videos and I will go through all of your links.
    test
  11. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Here is a video of George Bush flat out lying about his 911 Experience:

    [youtube]Sm73wOuPL60[/youtube]


    Now, of course this does not prove that 911 was faked, it simply proves that he is a fucking liar and that nothing he says can be trusted (as if we needed proof, he's a politician). Next all we need to do is discover whether the media lies and whether they can be trusted. It's a well known fact that if 911 had not happened we would not be in Iraq right now and they would not be talking about Iran. There'd be absolutely no reason to. 911 gave them the excuse that they had been itching for since Bush Sr failed to pull it off.

    Do you know that the WTC was shut down for several days prior to September 11th?
    There were no employees allowed in the buildings during the period of time.
    It could have very easily been set up then.

    In fact, the day before the towers were supposedly hit the man who owned every one of the buildings which fell took out a multiple-billion dollar insurance policy on it.
    test
  12. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    [youtube]JtsLZM8Ktx4[/youtube]
    test
  13. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    [youtube]KfnX3ifacUA[/youtube]



    What explosions? There shouldn't have been any explosions in the World Trade Towers. There was nothing in the building that was explosive. Remember?
    test
  14. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    [youtube]DIC0Kl4TKoU[/youtube]



    This was an act of terrorism, but the terrorists are our own leaders. To maintain the ongoing lie is not only irresponsible, it is criminal. We know the truth now. It's not a fucking theory.
    test
  15. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    [youtube]JZekosYOmXc[/youtube]



    The plane is in pieces no bigger than a phone book, yet the terrorist's ID cards survived?

    How stupid do they think we are?
    test
  16. Flow-Joe

    Flow-Joe Annyong!

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2000
    Messages:
    4,633

    The ID cards didn't fly into the ground at hundreds of miles per hour either...
    test
  17. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Have you ever heard of any other plane hitting the ground and leaving absolutely nothing larger than a phone book behind? No fire? No flames? Nothing?
    test
  18. Flow-Joe

    Flow-Joe Annyong!

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2000
    Messages:
    4,633
    Most planes that hit the ground aren't intentionally crashed head first...
    test
  19. KingMenace

    KingMenace YOU MAD.

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    6,001
    menaz, you're like a literal cartoon character! LOL
    test
  20. LiveFromThe781

    LiveFromThe781 Don Of The Den

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,928
    its because the terrorists ID's were laminated with a top secret flame retardent substance which was produced by Iran. The Iranian scientists had tested their durability with other things, such as nuclear radiation, and extreme cold but they also wanted to see if could withstand extreme impact and heat so at one of many meetings between Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Kim Jong Il they agreed that they would issue special IDs to the terrorists when they carried out the 9/11 attacks. As you can cleary see the evidence speaks for itself and the tests were successful, although upon analyzing the IDs the U.S. discovered what was actually going on hence the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)