well its funny that you will take seriously what foreign papers say because as I pointed out earlier,foreign papers have published articles about how the Bush is to blame for 9-11 for ignoring warnings from British,french intelligence ect ect.where the american press wont touch that.only the independent investigaters such as Jones will.
''We cannot survive any longer by hanging onto the falsehoods of the past. Reality must be discerned at all costs if we are to be a part of the future. Truth must prevail in all instances, no matter who it hurts or helps, if we are to continue to live upon this earth. At this point, what we want may no
longer matter. It is what we must do to ensure our survival that counts. The old way is in the certain process of destruction and a New World Order
is beating down the door. To cling to the past is guaranteed suicide. To remain apathetic is assured enslavement. To learn the truth and then act upon it is the only means of survival at this moment. To shrug off the information contained in this book and to disregard its warning will result in the complete destruction of the Republic of the United States of America. You will never get a second warning or a second chance. Like it or not, this is it, stark reality.
You can no longer turn your head, ignore it, pretend if s not true, say "it can't happen to me," run, or hide. The wolf is at the door. I fear for the little ones, the innocents, who are already paying for our mistakes. There exists a great army of occupationally orphaned children. They are attending government-controlled day-care centers. And latchkey kids who are running wild in the streets. And the lop-sided, emotionally wounded children of single welfare mothers, born only for the sake of more money in the monthly check. Open your eyes and look at them, for they are the future. In them I see the sure and certain destruction of this once-proud nation. In their vacant eyes I see the death of Freedom. They carry with them a great emptiness — and someone will surely pay a great price for their suffering.
If we do not act in concert with each other and ensure that the future becomes what we need it to be, then we will surely deserve whatever fate
awaits us.'' bill cooper
So much discussion about me, my views, my arguments, my apparent loathing by crazed individuals. So flattering.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
But the steel was melted many pictures have shown that there was molten magama on ground zero;how can jet fuel do that?
Magma? Please post a picture of the magma.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
So because a strcutual engineer thinks he can rewrite physics you agree, the building fell with no resistance. had it been falliing from the weight of the floors than how could it free fall like that.
This argument is moot. The engineer did not have to rewrite physics. The building did not defy gravity. Your perception of reality is asquew.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
And when did I claim a bomb as the suspect, and since when do all bombs have a universal temperture?
If you did not make such a claim, that is my mistake. I then must ask what you believed caused this occurance to take place.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Because you believe they do, like a good sheep you are.
The pathetic cry of one who cannot logically defend their beliefs. Try something else, Deano has played this card so many time that the corners have folded and the edges are creased.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Wow your comparing a car to an object falling, i guess those floors were made of sand.
No, actually making the point that an incredibly large object with momentum pretty much can blow apart anything in its path. But good for you in not only trying to not get the point, but for also making such a ridiculous comment afterwards. That further shows an inability to think your own arguments through.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
As opposed to your evidence, don't are backed up by some guys opinion.
This may make sense where you come from, but not anywhere where the King's english is preferred. Please try and be a bit more lucid.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
So, when he compares me to a pea brained animal which only repeats the same thing, it's okay.
Use a qustion mark there to make your point. Otherwise you are endorsing people calling you a pea brained animal. As for that comment...if the brain fits....
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
When uses an opinion as the basis of an argument.
And say's I lack common sense it's okay
Distorting the facts now are we?
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
And I just argued my point, do you read?
Better to try and make a point than argue one.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I just made a clear argument, it's not my fault he other posters are full of shit.
You are wrong. Your ramblings often don't make any sense or follow a clear path.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Kharma dog, accused me of making an argument I never claimed (Bombs) and then tries to use it against me.
Point addressed. Now please tell me what you believed caused the collapse of these buildings.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
then he thinks using some an opinion of a structural engineer validates the fact that wtc defied the laws of gravity and he's ome how correct.
Apparently the educated opinon of a respected expert has no place in a debate with you? Excellent strategy.
Once again, the buildings did not defy gravity. Didn't happen.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
The the transmission tower on top of the north tower was shown to fall first before the rest of the exterior wall. [B]"This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building.. Do you believe 47 Steel cores could give way due to fire. [/B]
INCREDIBLE! You post a quote that specifically states "ONE OR MORE FAILURES" and then you have to jump to the number 47? If all that was needed was the failure of "one or more" failures then you have solidfied both mine and Gav's argument.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I tell KD if I think there is a problem with his posting via PM, but when there are three posters against him I feel that he requires prioity...
Thanx man, the support is appreciated, but please just support me if you think my arguments are valid. I would appreciate that far more than being pitied for being on the recieving end of some feeble internet insults.
As for Deano, Parker and Ashtor, take your collective heads out of your butts and learn something:
An essay written by an MIT professor and Grad Student:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html#authors
Please note that the sources are all based on scientific and engineering evidence. Please note that many of these sources often post articles that run articles contrary to the government's position on many things thereby avoiding the accusation that these profesionals are saying what those"in charge" are telling them to.
Further investigation of these sources will lead you this quote by Tim Wilkinson a man who makes his living giving lectures on Civil Engineering.:
After the initial plane impacts, it appeared to most observers that the structures had been severely damaged, but not necessarily fatally.It appears likely that the impact of the plane crash destroyed a significant number of perimeter columns on several floors of the building, severely weakening the entire system.Initially this was not enough to cause collapse.
However, as fire raged in the upper floors, the heat would have been gradually affecting the behaviour of the remaining material. As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel, which then ignited any combustible material in the building.While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Thanx man, the support is appreciated, but please just support me if you think my arguments are valid. I would appreciate that far more than being pitied for being on the recieving end of some feeble internet insults.
Well, as far as I can see, they have been valid and accurate in the past, they seem accurate now, and there are no signs of you slipping and your arguments becoming irrational, sketchy or hard to understand....unlike certain other posters.... 🙄
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
In regards to your latest post, you have addressed all of Emperor and Mr Parker's "points" and "arguments" fairly well...but more importantly, we have a quote from a man who works in the field of Civil Engineering, personally I think he is far more credible than Alex Jones and the Indian Times....
I encourage others to investigate his credentials and the accompanying references for both their benifits and mine as well.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
So much discussion about me, my views, my arguments, my apparent loathing by crazed individuals. So flattering.This argument is moot. The engineer did not have to rewrite physics. The building did not defy gravity. Your perception of reality is asquew.
It's moot because you say so, wow your full of it no counter no nothing.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
If you did not make such a claim, that is my mistake. I then must ask what you believed caused this occurance to take place.
No need, I'm not gonna express my idea to someone like you, claiming something is wrong without saying why.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
The pathetic cry of one who cannot logically defend their beliefs. Try something else, Deano has played this card so many time that the corners have folded and the edges are creased.
Are you in love with Deano, it seems everytime I read a post from you it mentions his name. do you have some obsession with him?
Originally posted by KharmaDog
No, actually making the point that an incredibly large object with momentum pretty much can blow apart anything in its path. But good for you in not only trying to not get the point, but for also making such a ridiculous comment afterwards. That further shows an inability to think your own arguments through.
I made several arguments before, one involving the north towers Antenna, and another about the the steel.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
This may make sense where you come from, but not anywhere where the King's english is preferred. Please try and be a bit more lucid.
I'm surprise you have any form of sense since all you do is insult people because of a typo, You can't debate your point so you whine over a mistake.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Use a qustion mark there to make your point. Otherwise you are endorsing people calling you a pea brained animal. As for that comment...if the brain fits....
😆 Predictable and pathetic is there anything else you wanna point out
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Distorting the facts now are we?
when you make a claim, you back it up with evidence. try doing this next time.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Better to try and make a point than argue one.
What is up with you and all these one liners, you can't do anything but insult and nitpick typos.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
You are wrong. Your ramblings often don't make any sense or follow a clear path.
And you prove this by not elaborating way 😆
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Point addressed. Now please tell me what you believed caused the collapse of these buildings.
Why, your not worth the effort.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Apparently the educated opinon of a respected expert has no place in a debate with you? Excellent strategy.Once again, the buildings did not defy gravity. Didn't happen.
the Towers fel very rapidly to the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected debris which provide free-fall references.
Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case –
Somehow the enormous support of 47 Steel columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans
Originally posted by KharmaDog
INCREDIBLE! You post a quote that specifically states "ONE OR MORE FAILURES" and then you have to jump to the number 47? If all that was needed was the failure of "one or more" failures then you have solidfied both mine and Gav's argument.
... 😕 You belive the central core gave out due to fire,The WTC towers were solidly constructed with 47 steel core columns and 240 perimeter steel columns near it's baselumns total. and random fires which somehow melted steel and destroyed the cores. you're pretty much in denial.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Magma? Please post a picture of the magma.
Originally posted by KharmaDogI've already posted the analysis of a civil engineering lecturer at the University of Sydney. But apparently Alex Jones and Charlie Sheen know more about civil structural engineering than someone who studies structural steel and lectures on engineering.
As for Deano, Parker and Ashtor, take your collective heads out of your butts and learn something:An essay written by an MIT professor and Grad Student:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html#authorsPlease note that the sources are all based on scientific and engineering evidence. Please note that many of these sources often post articles that run articles contrary to the government's position on many things thereby avoiding the accusation that these profesionals are saying what those"in charge" are telling them to.
Further investigation of these sources will lead you this quote by Tim Wilkinson a man who makes his living giving lectures on Civil Engineering.: