SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1349194251

Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 10/02/12 at 09:10:51

Title: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/02/12 at 09:10:51

So many points are just Inarguable.

The few that are do not make those that arent suddenly disappear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaezM0h5BdM&feature=relmfu

& Yea, I watced it all,, If you want to pop in to about the 40 minute mark,, okay,, but I recommend it front to back.

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by Serowbot on 10/02/12 at 10:23:42

This guy seems to have disproved Galileo, and the laws of physics... in his quest to prove a conspiracy...
;D ;D ;D...

Rather than dispute the evidence... consider the logic...
- "They" managed to get two planes to hit the buildings , heavily laden with fuel... Why, after that, would they need to blow the buildings up?...
- If they wanted to blow it up, and make it look like an accident,... why bother to make a controlled demolition?...

Conspiracy logic,.. requires that you believe the conspirators went to the trouble of staging an accident,.. and then purposefully made it look intentional...
This defies logic... Machiavellian, pretzel logic...

Not even a believable Hollywood movie plot... :-?...

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/02/12 at 11:35:16

& you explain the exact perfect timing of failure thruout the structure how? The incredible heat in the ground how? Youre too quickly dismissing a preponderance of evidence.,

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by Serowbot on 10/02/12 at 11:53:16

No, I'm not... this is not evidence.. it is speculation...

This guy, speculated his way into defying the laws of physics...

Evidence,.. would have been some det cord, or surveillance video of crews installing demolition charges,.... or if one of the planes had missed and the building blew up anyway...
Controlled demolitions require cutting, drilling, ripping down drywall, sandbags for directing blast, setting of charges, wiring, timers,... days or weeks of prep by crews of men... and nobody saw these people, or caught them on security video... in multiple buildings...
All this,.. in buildings that were being used daily by 10,000 or more people.. including tourists taking photos and videos...
Yet no evidence... Nobody got a shot of these preparations taking place or complained of drilling or hammering in the preceding days...
Not plausible...

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/02/12 at 13:54:23

& how do you explain them falling so quickly?

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by LostArtist on 10/02/12 at 14:23:25

312E282F32350434043C2E22695B0 wrote:

& how do you explain them falling so quickly?

gravity, it actually explains a lot of your questions

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by Serowbot on 10/02/12 at 14:43:44

I wouldn't expect one to fall slowly... :-?...

... but if one did,... conspiracy theorists would find that to be evidential...

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/02/12 at 16:02:23

Why wouldnt it fall slowly? & How dismissive of you to say such a thing..

It was loaded with Huge Steel, & the fire wasnt fully consuming it, none of them,. & the heat in the ground, shown to us by NASA, was higher than the heat that would be created by a fire fueled by jet fuel, which would have burned off in a matter of hours max, & so much of it consumed inb the fireballs when the planes hit,

& what of the tiny spheres in the dust? The kind of spheres made by the metal melting product created when aluminum & iron oxide are mixed? Im having a "Moment" & cant remember the name,, dangitt,,
This video didnt even mention them,,

How do buildings fall thru the greatest point of resistance in symmetrical collapse, when they are damaged asymmetrically?

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by LostArtist on 10/02/12 at 16:50:26

I got you tube too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb-OFhxvEo8&feature=relmfu

there's more, but you don't wanna hear any of this nonsense do ya?

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/02/12 at 17:04:03

Until someone can address the questions I have in a rational & reasonable manner, no. Im not that interested.
The time required to fall indicate that the structure was dismantled.
Fire is not equally spread & even if it was, the structure isnt equally strong thru-out, so, in order to make it all fall at the same time, it would have to be heated perfectly in every place in the building, & even THEN, soft metal doesnt snap, it bends, there is nothing about this that meets the requirements to make sense..

&, I have to admit, I am getting just a little tired of the demeaning attitude. I am simply offering up what I believe to be thot provoking evidence, things I see as solid reason to ask questions & instead of those things being discussed in a reasonable & friendly, respectable manner, I am being subjected to ridicule. Thats not how we act here, guys.

Obvious facts to me that I cant ignore are
Asymmetrical damage creates symmetrical collapse.
Heat days after the fires are out well above temps attainable by burning offices.
How did the cement manage to turn to dust?
IF one floor fell & knocked the floor below it off its mounts, then, by definition, didnt it Strip that floor away from the vertical supports? Wouldnt that leave spires standing?
Instead of blindly attacking me for having questions, please, show me where those questions are amply answered..
& why are there in excess of 1,500 architects & engineers who agree with me?

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by Serowbot on 10/02/12 at 17:23:51

697670776A6D5C6C5C64767A31030 wrote:

The time required to fall indicate that the structure was dismantled.

... and that is the hole in the theory...
Who, what, when, where, and how... no evidence...

Unless they can freeze time... I don't see that happening... :-?...

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by Paraquat on 10/02/12 at 17:34:18

I have a good youtube video also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIdhoc0PRr8

--Steve

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/02/12 at 17:49:07

Unless someone can explain how a structure so completely failed as to allow such a short time to fall, then something Other than the official story has to be the answer. What than answer is may never be known, since there was no real investigation. What we are left with is simply what we know about steel, what we know about fire & what we saw. & it just doesnt add up. For such a tall structure to Not fall over? Thats beyond amazing, 2 of them? & the one that fell first was the 2nd one hit, & the Top 23 floors on it were starting to slip to the side.

It just doesnt make sense, heat was insufficient to cause collapse, at least, Calculated heat, based on the fuel sources, is insufficient to destroy a structure like that, Black Smoke,, that says fuel rich/insufficient O2 to get a clean, hot fire,
Nano Thermite,, & access was there. Crews were doing elevator upgrades, people reported seeing crews in the building. There is simply more to this than the people are supposed to know.,.
Why, OHHH Why, were military planes not all over these hijacked airliners?

& what of the warnings spoken of in the video?

Just how did the Passports manage to survive & the cockpit/flight data recorders not?

REally, fellas, are you really satisfied with the story we got? Dont ya have just some little tingle in yer gut tellin ya,, Man,, I dunno,, somethin smells a little fishy here..

This guy buys the lease for 100 mil down, insures it against terror attacks & LO & Be Hold! Terror attack!

& what about the 1200% jump in shorts on the companies involved?
& the Bush coming out & saying he didnt think knowing who placed those bets would actually help in solving the crime,, But, if ya watch the video, you see one guy accused, ( No substantiation, so, its just an accusation) who then gets a way cush job..

Guys,, Im beggin ya,, youve seen me here for years, please dont dismiss me as an idiot,consider what Im saying. Study it.,not for me, for you,. Because I VERY strongly believe that 9/11 was an inside job.
& Ohh how coincidentally it came down, not long after one of the PNAC guys stated we Need a New Pearl Harbor.

Months prior, Cheney has them change the rules on How to dispatch fighters on hijacks, then, after 9/11, it reverts back to how it had been for decades,.
Please dont allow a belief that "No one would or could do that" from allowing you to see the things that simply do not fit with logic & reason,
Metal doesnt behave that way,,
Get a torch & heat some up.. it doesnt go from strong & holding the load to weak & unable to in a split second, it weakens & bends.
Structures are Over Built. Steel is selected to hold multiples of the calculated loads in buildings like that.

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by srinath on 10/02/12 at 18:18:38

76696F6875724373437B69652E1C0 wrote:

Months prior, Cheney has them change the rules on How to dispatch fighters on hijacks, then, after 9/11, it reverts back to how it had been for decades,.

Yes correct, Cheney was the devil and the president of the united states. See thanks for proving my point.

Cool.
Srinath.

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by Serowbot on 10/02/12 at 18:30:54

I'm no Bush/Cheney fan,.. everybody knows that...

... but JOG,.. did you watch the clips Lost posted?...

No matter what the theories,.. you must explain how they did controlled demolition without the explosions making any noise...
Impossible... case closed.. seriously...
Explosions make noise...

Watch the video... controlled demo's make noise...
The towers didn't...
You cannot look that fact in face, and still believe that theory...
Just not possible...
JOG,.. you look for conclusive proof... there it is... it's time to let this one go... there were a thousand cameras on those towers and none recorded the sound of sequential explosions...

Thanks, Lost... I hadn't even thought about the noise...
That is conclusive proof... no further debunking necessary...

... and Bush n' Cheney were the devil, anyway... :-?...

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by Paraquat on 10/02/12 at 18:57:25

An employee who worked in the Twin Towers stated "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on" - http://911proof.com/8.html

I doubt I would be able to find the article now but it said there were systematic evacuations of all floors while this specialized government "team" was inside. Supposedly they were searching for any bombs that had been planted.
Could small devices have been planted in their absence after having evacuated everyone?

Absolutely.

Quote:

A retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents stated that the Pentagon is a heavily-defended building, with defensive weapons on the roof. This matches a Pentagon employee’s statement that she was told "you are now standing in one of the most secure building in all of the United States".

And a former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand", and who handled two actual hijackings, says that that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off, and that Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon tracked three of the four flights from the point of their hijacking to hitting their targets (also, listen to this interview).

Indeed, the Secretary of Transportation testified to the 9/11 Commission that "During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President … the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?"

Quote:

Reporter for USA Today stated that the FBI believed that bombs in the buildings brought the buildings down

NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were "bombs" and "secondary devices", which caused the explosions in the buildings (video); or high-quality audio here

NYC firefighters who witnessed attacks stated that it looked like there were bombs in the buildings

NYC firefighter stated "On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building"

NYC firefighter stated there was a "bomb in the building ... start clearing out"

Dying heroes, the first responders who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11, say that controlled demolition brought down the Twin Towers

MSNBC reporter stated that police had found a suspicious device "and they fear it could be something that might lead to another explosion" and the police officials believe "that one of the explosions at the world trade center . . . may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some kind of explosive device in it, so their fear is that there may have been explosive devices planted either in the building or in the adjacent area"

NYC firefighter stated "the south tower . . . exploded . . . At that point a debate began to rage because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges . . . many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade" (pages 6 & 7)

Assistant Fire Commissioner stated “I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building [not up where the fire was]. You know like when they . . . blow up a building ... ?" -- and a lieutenant firefighter the Commissioner spoke with independently verified the flashes (see possible explanation below)(when, as here, there are no page numbers in the original firefighter transcript, you can locate the text using the "find" function in your web browser)

A firefighter said “[T]here was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”
Another firefighter stated "it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight" (page 4; original is .pdf; Google's webpage version is here)

Paramedic said "at first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear pop pop pop pop pop -- thats exactly what because thought it was" (page 9)

Police officer noted "People were saying, 'There’s another one and another one.' I heard reports of secondary bomb explosions . . ." (page 61, which is page 3 of a hand-written memorandum)

Firefighter stated "there was an explosion in the south tower, which . . . just blew out in flames . . . One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93" (referring to 1993 bombing of world trade center; pages 3 & 4)

A firefighter stated "it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building . . . Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV."

Officer in the New Jersey Fire Police Department who was previously a sergeant in the U.S. Army, said about the south tower: “[I]t sounded like bombs going off. That's when the explosions happened. . . . I knew something was going to happen. . . . It started to get dark, then all of a sudden there was this massive explosion.” Then, discussing her experiences during the collapse of the north tower, she said: “[There was] another explosion. That sent me and the two firefighters down the stairs. . . . I can't tell you how many times I got banged around. Each one of those explosions picked me up and threw me. . . . There was another explosion, and I got thrown with two firefighters out onto the street.” (pages 65-66, 68)

Dan Rather said that collapse was "reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen [when]a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down" (CNN's Aaron Brown and a Fox News reporter also made similar comments)

British newspaper stated "some eyewitnesses reported hearing another explosion just before the structure crumbled. Police said that it looked almost like a 'planned implosion' "

Peter Jennings stated "anyone who has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you're going to do this you have to get at the under-infrastructure of the building to bring it down"

A reporter for WNYC radio said "The reporters were trying to figure out what had happened. We were thinking bombs had brought the buildings down"(page 203 of Running Toward Danger: Stories Behind The Breaking News of 9/11)

A Wall Street Journal reporter said "I heard this metallic roar, looked up and saw what I thought was just a peculiar site of individual floors, one after the other exploding outward. I thought to myself, "My God, they’re going to bring the building down." And they, whoever they are, HAD SET CHARGES . . . . I saw the explosions" (page 87)

A facilities manager in the north tower "was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons"

--Steve

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/02/12 at 21:03:26

6375627F67727F64100 wrote:

The firefighters reported noises, like bombs.

& the fact there was no det cord? Thats the way Industry does it, yea, cuz its economical, there are other explosives out there,

& I dont actually have to explain HOW it was done, to point to the reasons they said iot was done not working.
Ill never let it go, & Ive seen plenty Of Debunkems,, & theyre bunk.
If someone wants to go to a Debunk video, watch it, then tell me where there are relevant sections that I really should watch, then I will.,.
\
You watched all of the one I posted? Lost? Anyonme?

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by Serowbot on 10/02/12 at 22:18:34

JOG,.. if you'd go look at Lost's video's instead of poo-pooing them before even checking,.. they are only a couple of minutes each... not rambling on for hours...
Watch the first one, at least...

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/02/12 at 22:45:37

Okay, I watched it. They show distortion & buckling on the perimeter. Doesnt explain the core colums. Doesnt explain the entire structure collapsing. Sure doesnt explain the cement pulverised. Doesnt answer the questions. If it does for you,, well,, what can I say? Its no where near enough for me., & Id truly love to see architects & engineers response to this.

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by LostArtist on 10/03/12 at 06:10:08

you see what you want to see. again, gravity and mass explain a lot

you really have a problem with pulverized concrete??? really? tons and tons and tons of concrete slamming together as it rips through tons and tons of steel, so the denial of what a "pancake" collapse would do are not backed up by any science, and they really never take the extreme size and weight of the building into consideration.

I've only been able to stand to watch portions of your video at a time

bunk bunk da bunk bunk bunk

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/03/12 at 07:56:32

That concrete was pulverized LONG before it hit the street, Concrete clouds were coming out befoore it fell 20 feet.

Ever bust reinforced concrete w/ a hammer?

& NO, I didnt see what I wanted to see. I would LOVE to be able to believe the official story,., It Just Dont add up

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by LostArtist on 10/03/12 at 13:21:55

concrete pulverization theory disputed here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhuxBbgyLFI

when things get BIG, common sense isn't always obvious

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by srinath on 10/03/12 at 13:52:27

4D5254534E4978487840525E15270 wrote:

OK I am a civil engineer. I am not watching some rambling fools's video ... however I can tell you this ... buildings are designed to stand loading in 1 direction. Vertical. They are barely designed to stand the wind load in that location. Like drag a building from NY to chicago and it will crumble like a stack of pringles in the wind (if it ineed is windier than NY - cos it is called windy city cos of windbag politicians) ...

A building with missing columns on the perimeter will spectacularly fail ...
We design building to be under reinforced and exibit "plastic failure" not elastic failure.
There is very little concrete in the structural system of a building, its all steel. Concrete is far too heavy to build over 20 floors or so.
The philosophy behind a foundation is this ... the building with all its contents, needs to weigh less than the amount of dirt excavated, or to a 75% depth of the piles driven ... some formula in there ... anyway 100 storey buildings are lighter than 10-12 storeys of dirt, so we dig that far.
Ergo in layman's terms - building+all the people+desks+furniture etc = what we dig. Now to that nice little equation, Lets add a little 767 with 100 people on board and just place it nose first on top, not flyinf, just sit it there. You have by now far exceeded the rated capacity of that building. Its likely to still stand, but only if we have been lucky, we may have hit rock @ the foundation stage, we may have not found the 120 wall I beams when it was being built and someone used 125 wall .... etc etc etc, you're leaning on luck.
Then Add the fact that the plane was flying a 2-300 mph atleast and the fact we have a huge pool of burning jet fuel, office furniture, and assorted materials - assume 700f (which is low) ... I seriously see the buiding cracking and crumbling ... Heat obviously takes time to burn away the insulation on the beams (they spray them with a sorta foam - needed for both heat resistance in case of fire and for keeping heat bills manageable in winter) before the steel starts to bend and give.

BTW there was a huge highway fire in LA a few years ago - may have been 1998 or so, where a tanker caught fire and lit up a lot of things near it and caused a huge fire storm ... and the huge highway interchange signs were begining to give and warp ... and what every one heard from that was a screaming and metallic bang bang sound like it was hit with a sledge hammer.

However I am with you when you say Cheney made them do it, and he caused the building to fall down with just his evil doing nature ... So I am good. Oh yea Cheney also made the LA tanker fire ...

Cool.
Srinath.

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/03/12 at 15:19:55

& all that explains symmetrical collapse?

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by LostArtist on 10/03/12 at 15:21:16

2E3137302D2A1B2B1B23313D76440 wrote:

& all that explains symmetrical collapse?

gravity

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/03/12 at 15:59:09

Damage from a plane ripping into one side, fire, not spread evenly, structure damaged unevenly & heated unevenly, falls symmetrically.

Not happnin.,.

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by Midnightrider on 10/03/12 at 16:01:33

I said this before on the old forum but its worth repeating. My wife was in law enforcement at the time of 911. She helped evacuate Bin Laden's family on 9-12. I dont claim to know much of anything but every president we've had since Bush # 1 has said three words that scare the hell out of me. New World Order

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by rfw2003 on 10/03/12 at 16:22:36

Just a small experiment for ya JOG. Go outside and stand on an empty beer/soda can. When you do this make sure when you get on it you do so evenly, so that it does not crush. Now have someone compromise just one side of it, anywhere on the can.

Report back and let us know how evenly it crushes under you.

R.F.

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by srinath on 10/03/12 at 16:24:49

293630372A2D1C2C1C24363A71430 wrote:

Damage from a plane ripping into one side, fire, not spread evenly, structure damaged unevenly & heated unevenly, falls symmetrically.

Not happnin.,.

Only if it is a quick failure.

The 6 hour window of failure would be closer to this -
The plane smashed through the outer wall and landed in the approximate middle of that building. The fire starts and sucks in oxygen in the gigantic hole that the plane created. The fire burns upwards. In a few floors it will have nicely spread into a good nicely centered ball of fire.

You are thinking the building will bend and fall over as opposed to disintegrate, Well its likely to come apart more than fall over cos there is water being dumped cos they have fire suppression ... atleast till the water runs out ... the combination of a few hours of fire and water should lead to a rotted out style failure. The top 30-40 floors burning getting wet and collapsing onto the lower floors will straight up crush them. At that point it was impact, not weight. Like after the planes had hit we got a huge band saw and hacked off the building a few floors under the impact floor, you can simply move those top floors into a field and have kept the other 70 floors as a useable building.

I however dont see why cheney didn't want the building to fall over ... You think he had some $$$ bet with Bush that it will collapse and not fall over ...

I dunno why if Cheney did make the planes made the building go down demolition style ... Yea the bet with Bush is it. That is all that can explain it ...

BTW you know of the comet that is going to come up from under the earth on christmas day this year and break the world to bits dont you ... Yea we cant see it now, cos its comming up from under the earth, yea under the earth ... see we are here and under us is the earth, then under that nothing ... yea through that nothing a huge comet ... we cant see it, under. Yup.

Cool.
Srinath.

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by srinath on 10/03/12 at 16:31:01

082C212B2C222D31372C212037450 wrote:

New World Order

You know what the new world order is ... seriously ... this super high flying executive chick types sitting next to me ...

A 1/2 soup, a 1/2 ceasar salad and a cup of yogurt.
More importantly, she ate 2 leaves of lettuce, 2 beans out of the soup and 1/2 that yogurt, and threw the rest away.

So not only is the new world order really stupid, it will also end up in the trash can soon after.

Old world order = Burger, fries no salt and sweet tea, and all of it and 2 packets of ketchup were eaten ... yea also got a couple of gherkins and jalapeno's.
Cool.
Srinath.

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by Midnightrider on 10/03/12 at 17:01:51

srinath I really hope you're right, but there's a lot of evidence (not just wild conspiracy theories) that says something is going on behind our backs for real. Too many secret societies, the Bilderbergs, Skull and Bones, etc. Someone went to a lot of time, money and expense for the Georgia Guidestones. The so called wild conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve are true. I smell a rat, the longer I live the more it stinks. You think Bush #1 could imagine the internet and all the changes that were going to take place, global economy etc but he was the first POTUS to say those three words. Every single one of them has said those three words since. Something stinks.

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by srinath on 10/03/12 at 19:24:04

BTW even scarier ... these super skinny, young and pretty women are taking over our (my) jobs, editing unix script and code files with notepad, and when all the crap blows up, they get promoted and just hire a contractor to come in and fix that mess ...
However they are a little too stupid to know I am just running a pre filter code that makes it run as long as I have that segment I am calling in my command line. I leave and the crap goes right back to not working .... mu hahahahahaha ... hahahahahaha ...

I am looking for a job, and one fool was trying to get me to accept less than 40 bones. I told him you need a complex app dealing with financial data working, you dont go looking for people on skid row cos they can do it for 25. He asked me for the phone number of "Skip Row". That fool thought it was a person :o

I'm telling you, New world order is 1/2 soup, 1/2 salad and a cup of yogurt of which you throw away most of it ...

The other bit of bad news I got is - meek are not going to inherit the earth. The stupid already have.

Cool.
Srinath.

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by Midnightrider on 10/03/12 at 19:58:25

Srinath, you and I have talked in private and you know how much I value your opinions. You are extremely intelligent and very wise beyond your years. I've been very sick the last 3 weeks or we already would have met, that day I look forward to.If you havent seen it already (its on You Tube) watch John F Kennedys secret society speech. Not long after that speech he was dead. I was alive and remember the day it happened. These people have the power to asasisnate a president. Everyone knows Oswald couldnt have done it alone.I will always believe the Federal Reserve was behind it. My wife was a good cop and the first thing they will tell you is follow the money trail. Kennedy tried to do away with the Federal Reserve with the silver certificate. The Federal reserve had the most power and money to lose. The New World Order has been going on for a very very long time. The Georgia Guidestones prove that. Who knows, are they resonsible? Kennedy was going to expose someone or some organisation and he was taken out. I just cant ignore all the evidence and changes I've seen in my lifetime. Srinath you are right, the stupid have taken over. Ask yourself for a minute why? When JOG talks about his dumbing down conspiricy theory he gets laughed off the forum. Society is definitely dumber than they were 30 years ago. Why, there is more information available than ever before, society should be smarter than ever. Who controls the media, who controls what our children are taught? Nine out of ten people I've talked to know nothing of the Federal Reserve audit. A lot of people have become so apathetic they just dont care whats going on around them anymore as long as they have food on the table or?

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by srinath on 10/04/12 at 05:26:29

Aaaah the fed, I hope to work for em ... or the FDIC, or the SEC, or the Comptroller of the currency, or the Consumer protection agency ... Those agencies are however hiring people to mow the metaphorical yard when the building is burning.

I dunno I am sick of working for the 2 evil banks ... make that 3 including JP morgan. I dont doubt one of these killed Kennedy but well, I am a bit bugged about not being employed after finding all the stupid crrrraaap @ the banks.

Yea so they need to hire more pretty young women who will edit code with MS word to make it look more pretty. I am getting my wife trained in that art of screwing things up while making them pretty.

Cool.
Srinath.

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by Paraquat on 10/04/12 at 09:25:41

I like pretty, thin, young women.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/docs/aircraftcomparison.gif
Back on topic. The building was designed to withstand an impact from a 707.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

John Skilling

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

Quote:

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. 4

I don't know. He only built the darn thing.

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

Quote:

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

--Steve

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/04/12 at 09:38:54

Anyone seen what happens when an aluminum tube hits steel columns?

47 massive steel columns made up the central core, even IF the plane damaged some, it could only damage & weaken them On the Side the PLane HIT,, tending to buckle the vertical supports on that side, the fuel would have been on that side initially &, to my mind, IF it could make one fall, it would fall Over, the top collapsing into the damaged area & leaning over. Thats the only rational collapse scenario I can imagine,

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by Midnightrider on 10/04/12 at 16:57:17

60617A7D72677B130 wrote:

When I went to school intelligent students were admired and praised.. Now they are made fun of, called nerds and other names I cant think of.

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by LostArtist on 10/04/12 at 18:41:22

0D29242E292728343229242532400 wrote:

[quote author=60617A7D72677B130 link=1349194251/30#31 date=1349317444]BTW even scarier ... these super skinny, young and pretty women are taking over our (my) jobs, editing unix script and code files with notepad, and when all the crap blows up, they get promoted and just hire a contractor to come in and fix that mess ...
However they are a little too stupid to know I am just running a pre filter code that makes it run as long as I have that segment I am calling in my command line. I leave and the crap goes right back to not working .... mu hahahahahaha ... hahahahahaha ...

I am looking for a job, and one fool was trying to get me to accept less than 40 bones. I told him you need a complex app dealing with financial data working, you dont go looking for people on skid row cos they can do it for 25. He asked me for the phone number of "Skip Row". That fool thought it was a person :o

I'm telling you, New world order is 1/2 soup, 1/2 salad and a cup of yogurt of which you throw away most of it ...

The other bit of bad news I got is - meek are not going to inherit the earth. The stupid already have.

Cool.
Srinath.

When I went to school intelligent students were admired and praised.. Now they are made fun of, called nerds and other names I cant think of. [/quote]

geeks have been making a come back recently

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by srinath on 10/05/12 at 11:29:04

0C3D2E3D2D293D285C0 wrote:

I like pretty, thin, young women.

John Skilling

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

Quote:

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

[quote]The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. 4

--Steve[/quote]

Did he say that after that the building will not ever collapse? It did stand for 6+ hours.

I like pretty thin women too, to me they mean job security.
I hope they want to hire Old fat bald men cos they can fix everything.
Cool.
Srinath.

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by Retread on 10/06/12 at 16:31:43

6E5F4C5F4F4B5F4A3E0 wrote:

--Steve[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnesium_ribbon

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by Paraquat on 10/06/12 at 21:23:14

Yea.
Thermite can't be ignited with a torch. Doesn't get hot enough. Need to use mag ribbon. Got to play with some in Chemistry class.
Can't put water on it.
I had to make a part out of magnesium one time at work.
Took all the shavings and sprinkled them into my fire pit. Threw a little nugget into it too.

http://https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/1601_107995005314_4249_n.jpg
That picture was taken without a flash. That's magnesium catching on fire.
It's cool.

--Steve

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/06/12 at 21:35:57

Building 7,, no plane,, minimal fires,, faw down, go boom,AND, it was announced that it had fallen 20 minutes before it did,,

How did they know?

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by Retread on 10/07/12 at 06:42:59

I watched a steel girder hanger with three aircraft in it burn one night, when the fire finally burnt itself out, all that was left was a pile of slag and a concrete pad... Very little fuel in the aircraft, fire boys ran out of foam.. Lots of Magnesium in aircraft parts..

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by Midnightrider on 10/07/12 at 08:14:43

" The century of total war coincided with the century of central banking" Ron Paul

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by Retread on 10/08/12 at 07:26:13

There we go another expert, Ron Paul.. Gynecologist from Texas...

What is funny about conspriracy theorists, is they attempt to find their own, it doesn't matter if their peer is just as full of crap. Its like a cesspool the larger pieces always float to the top...

Ok, 9/11 was a inside job, why? The fed is out to get us all, why? It doesn't matter who is President, why? And then comes the big one, why would all these rich and powerful people want to enhance their own demise?

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by LostArtist on 10/08/12 at 10:33:58

607F797E63645565556D7F73380A0 wrote:

Building 7,, no plane,, minimal fires,, faw down, go boom,AND, it was announced that it had fallen 20 minutes before it did,,

How did they know?

because a bunch od debris from the days disasters had been falling on it all day long, yeah, no plane but

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8

it doesn't sound like "minimal" fires to me

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by Serowbot on 10/08/12 at 12:17:16

When somebody shows me a silent, controlled demolition,.. I'll reconsider the conspiracy theorists claims...
'Till then,.. it could not happen... :-?...

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by Paraquat on 10/08/12 at 17:27:40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRaNwPGcQcM

That's relatively quiet. Could easy be concealed by a low flying plane.

--Steve

Title: Re: Pretty compelling evidence for anyone
Post by Serowbot on 10/08/12 at 18:38:52

5362716272766277030 wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRaNwPGcQcM

That's relatively quiet. Could easy be concealed by a low flying plane.

--Steve

Okay,... now that's from inside a building, some distance away...

Did you here anything like that, on any of the tapes during the 9/11 event?...
On video shot more than twice as close,... and outdoors (not behind insulated safety glass)... and no booms are heard...
This is because there was no demolition...

No matter what these conspiracy folks do with their calculators and protractors,... analyzing gravitational forces and metallurgical stresses,...
No boom = no explosion = no demolition...
You can't fight reality with theory... it just don't work that way... ;D...

Here is actual audio from very close...
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smreRx51cus&feature=related[/media]

Here is a fake with audio dubbed of what a demolition might have sounded like...
(This was used in a 9/11 conspiracy "documentary")... :-?...
"Inside The Twin Towers"...
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izA8G32lsBA[/media]