Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 . Our views are just as "informed" as yours....we have web browsers and search engines from the elephant too. This from the fella/lady who advanced the pancake theory. And doesn't want to discuss it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 No, the goal is not participation at all, just the usual Truther disinformation agenda. Forum members engaged this topic long ago from many angles, and nothing you have posted so far contributes anything new. Our views are just as "informed" as yours....we have web browsers and search engines from the elephant too. How come this huge fount of knowledge about 911, the stuff that was "engaged ... long ago from many angles" has not made it into this thread, George? Both the things you advanced were patently false. You had to have known the first contention was false because you were able to view pictures. On the second you were so "informed" that you didn't even know your own government's NIST says the theory you brought forward is bogus. And yet, you have the gall to come right back after your dismal performance and again pound out the same tired old narrative. A wee bit of humour with heaping doses of the truth. Hitler knows what Nano-Thermite in the WTC dust means Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 I'd love to hear your ideas on how the concrete, the rebar, the steel pans, all blown up into pyroclastic clouds of fine particles would have the power to create your "dust debris". Stuff like that happens when you subject all that material to the extreme pressures and frictions of a hundred stories falling in on itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 This from the fella/lady who advanced the pancake theory. And doesn't want to discuss it. No I didnt advance it. Structural engineers did. You know, guys who actually know about how buildings are constructed, ad destructed. The term and what it refers is standard knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Stuff like that happens when you subject all that material to the extreme pressures and frictions of a hundred stories falling in on itself. That sure sounds scientific. But you know it's false. Because there is no official theory that can explain the demolition of the three buildings. NIST doesn't even try. These men of science made mistake after mistake, propagated lie after lie, then they just threw up their hands and picked a result out of a hat. That's why reality doesn't match their notions. Formulating a lie and then trying to fudge, manipulate, massage the laws of physics and scientific principles to fit the lie is doomed to failure. Here's a great video that summarizes the whole sordid official conspiracy theory. 9/11 Theories: Expert vs. Expert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 No I didnt advance it. Structural engineers did. You know, guys who actually know about how buildings are constructed, ad destructed. The term and what it refers is standard knowledge. I never said you did, at least not in that post. That was to B_C. The man who is advanced it is not a structural engineer. He pumped this nonsense out so fast after 911 the dust hadn't even cleared. See, http://www.911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_jom/eagar_0112.html But I'm confused. I thought you were a Bazant (sp??) pile driver guy. It's standard knowledge in the same manner as phrenology and flat earth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 I never said you did, at least not in that post. That was to B_C. The man who is advanced it is not a structural engineer. He pumped this nonsense out so fast after 911 the dust hadn't even cleared. See, http://www.911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_jom/eagar_0112.html But I'm confused. I thought you were a Bazant (sp??) pile driver guy. It's standard knowledge in the same manner as phrenology and flat earth Pile driver, pancaking, progressive collapse, call it what you like. Happens in earthquakes all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) Omar, why are you not willing to discuss the will of God? I think we all have to admit that the most logically sound theory thus far has been put forth by Fox News pastor, Robert Jeffress. 9/11 was simply God's punishment for abortion. God works in mysterious ways. Why did tower 7 free fall? God. Why don't the models match the video? God. You can have your conspiracy theory chat all you want, but the only idea that makes sense is the one and only, all loving God and his wrath. Buildings don't fall straight down because clips fail under extreme heat. Buildings fall down because we kill unborn children, tolerate gays and allow women to have rights. Edited April 2, 2015 by Mighty AC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Now theres a conspiracy theory, and delivered at Liberty University no less. And no need for phony science either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 I never said you did, at least not in that post. That was to B_C. "B_C" posted no such thing. You injected your own "pancake theory" bias and ignorance. I trust that structural engineers know more about such things than you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Pile driver, pancaking, progressive collapse, call it what you like. Happens in earthquakes all the time. If you say so. But none of these happened on 911 to WTCs 1 2 & 7. I hope you liked the video. Explains most everything in a clear, concise fashion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 How come this huge fount of knowledge about 911, the stuff that was "engaged ... long ago from many angles" has not made it into this thread, George? Because we did it years ago, Jesus. Try to catch up.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 "B_C" posted no such thing. You injected your own "pancake theory" bias and ignorance. I trust that structural engineers know more about such things than you. Another of your slip ups, George/Georgia. Your man wasn't a structural engineer. Another slip up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 If you say so. But none of these happened on 911 to WTCs 1 2 & 7. I hope you liked the video. Explains most everything in a clear, concise fashion. Yeah, it did. http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Because we did it years ago, Jesus. Try to catch up.... I'm right with you, Georgia. After your slip ups you're very reluctant to stick your neck again to further reveal how uniformed you are. You can't even discuss the official government conspiracy theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) I'm right with you, Georgia. After your slip ups you're very reluctant to stick your neck again to further reveal how uniformed you are. You can't even discuss the official government conspiracy theory. It's not about me, Jesus. We've seen 9/11 wise guys come and go many times around here. Use the elephant's search engines to feed your appetite for 9/11 conspiracies of all kinds. Rehash the rehashed rehash. Debunk the debunkers debunked bunk. Edited April 2, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Does "the science" include forestry, psychiatry or psychology? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 You saw, with your own eyes, molten steel pouring from the side of one tower. Why do I have to remind you of these things? Aluminum ? Anyway, there are other ways to determine if thermite was present. Do you want to investigate those ways ? That would be science. The Truther science is actually science fiction. It starts with a paranoid story, then tries to fill out the facts afterwards. I know this from debating these people on other forums. It's like whack-a-mole... once you disprove one theory they show up with another one in hand, never acknowledging the folly of their previous idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Aluminum ? No, not aluminum, Michael. How do you propose that you "debate" these things when you are so uniformed. Experiments were performed, you know, those nasty little things that scientists do to prove things, and it was not aluminum. You flat out ignore all the people, the USGS, FEMA , Rudy G, ... who described molten steel. There are pictures of molten steel, you saw them, if you watched the videos presented. Anyway, there are other ways to determine if thermite was present. Do you want to investigate those ways ? That would be science. Been done and you aren't aware of them? When one wants to debate something don't you think those folks should be somewhat up to speed on the issues? The Truther science is actually science fiction. It starts with a paranoid story, then tries to fill out the facts afterwards. I know this from debating these people on other forums. It's like whack-a-mole... once you disprove one theory they show up with another one in hand, never acknowledging the folly of their previous idea. The laws of physics, Newton's laws are not science fiction. You haven't debated the issues yet. You've asked some questions, about things that you should be at least partially up to speed on and then just dropped them or tried to explain them away with the type of things that this site's Terms of Agreement prohibit - address the argument, not the name calling. There has been precious little real debate here on this issue which brings us right back to the central question - Why are so few willing to discuss the science? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Does "the science" include forestry, psychiatry or psychology? See what I mean, Michael? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 It's not about me, Jesus. We've seen 9/11 wise guys come and go many times around here. Use the elephant's search engines to feed your appetite for 9/11 conspiracies of all kinds. Rehash the rehashed rehash. Debunk the debunkers debunked bunk. I did, George. The few pieces of bunk that you have put forward didn't need debunking. You debunked yourself. Your complete lack of knowledge on the issues debunked you. Your complete inability to address anything specifically on the actual issues, see this post of yours and all your others, have shown that you simply are not up to the task of honestly engaging in real debate, on this issue or any issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 It's not about me, Jesus. We've seen 9/11 wise guys come and go many times around here. You say it's not about you then you try to make it solely about me, forgetting about the 2300 architects, engineers, scientists who state again and again to follow the science and do. Can you point to anyone of you government conspiracy folks who have done the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 You flat out ignore all the people, the USGS, FEMA , Rudy G, ... who described molten steel. There are pictures of molten steel, you saw them, if you watched the videos presented. Uh... you ignore the main groups assigned to investigate so don't call me out on that. I asked how you know it's steel ? What tests ? There has been precious little real debate here on this issue which brings us right back to the central question - Why are so few willing to discuss the science? Why are you not discussing the science ? Also, why are you ignoring other aspects of this such as motive, organization and so on ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 "B_C" posted no such thing. You injected your own "pancake theory" bias and ignorance. Please go ahead and explain, George, and we'll see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Uh... you ignore the main groups assigned to investigate so don't call me out on that. I asked how you know it's steel ? What tests ? This is phantasmagorical! No, I haven't ignored them at all. I've posted numerous articles, videos and the like that have specifically addressed the woeful shortcomings, outright lies (of NIST that you disingenuously tried to explain away) of the main groups. When these main groups say things like, "We were set up to fail", don't you think that should cause thinking people to pause and reflect. Why should I provide proof of the tests when the whack a mole will just forget about it and pop up further on in the thread with more diversion? Also, why are you ignoring other aspects of this such as motive, organization and so on ? From your own source, Michael, one that I hope you actually read, the scientist declined to address these side issues you mention above because they were not within his area of expertise. And the nowhere near to neutral blogger on the science, that you also sought as a source, noted how that was to that scientist's credit that he did decline to comment on those extraneous issues. Would you like me to go back and get the necessary quotes to prove this or are you honest enough to do so yourself? Do you recall that on the issue of the sulphur, that you raised, with an badly outdated source, I provided you an up to date source that scientifically proved that drywall was not the source of the sulfur? And no mention of that from the gentleman who dares to ask me if I want to discuss the science. Do you understand the significance of the sulphur in the melting of steel where there was no sensibly available source of energy that could have or should have produced molten steel? Please do ask me anything about the science then do act in an honest fashion and stay with the scientific arguments instead of going off on tangents. Whack-a-mole indeed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.