Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Status
Not open for further replies.
KreeL said:
You don't know the meaning of the word.

Who lied? Bazant?...or NIST?
Click to expand...


Neither lied. NIST's explanation is more detailed, makes use of data that wasn't available to the first group of researchers, reflects the thinking of a greater number of minds working in cooperation, and consequently supersedes--but does not invalidate--Bazant's.

A weatherman forecasts on Monday that the hurricane heading toward Florida will hit Miami. The storm changes course, and a weatherman on Wednesday predicts it will hit Tampa on the Gulf Coast. On Thursday, the storm changes course again and misses Florida entirely. Which one of them "lied"? Did they both "lie"?

Concepts that are very simple for bright children are extremely difficult for "truthers."
 
Isn't it funny how the truthers have this insane idea that the real scientists of the world, are sitting at home, waiting for the truth movement to "debunk" their papers, so they can produce "sound rebuttals".

Listen, Kreel, and other truthers,

Bazant, NIST, etc...they really don't give a ****! They don't give a **** about you, or your insane theories. They do not give a **** about you waiting for them to respond, or where their new and improved papers are...they just don't care...you are smaller than ants under their feet...deal with it.

Bazant, given his incredibly long CV, has got, I am sure, many better things to do. As for NIST, I do not think they give a rats ass what the "truth movement" thinks.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
Isn't it funny how the truthers have this insane idea that the real scientists of the world, are sitting at home, waiting for the truth movement to "debunk" their papers, so they can produce "sound rebuttals".

Listen, Kreel, and other truthers,

Bazant, NIST, etc...they really don't give a ****! They don't give a **** about you, or your insane theories. They do not give a **** about you waiting for them to respond, or where their new and improved papers are...they just don't care...you are smaller than ants under their feet...deal with it.

Bazant, given his incredibly long CV, has got, I am sure, many better things to do. As for NIST, I do not think they give a rats ass what the "truth movement" thinks.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Hey TAM Professor David Ray Griffin said in the last few days I believe it was that the OCT only had three or four scientists in the world who stand up publicly for it. Could that possibly be true ? If it is then the OCT is in deep do-do.
Scroll down for video link.
http://www.zend2.com/go.php?u=Oi8vY...LXNlY29uZC1sb29rLWluLWx1Y2VybmUuaHRtbA==&b=13
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Hey TAM Professor David Ray Griffin said in the last few days I believe it was that the OCT only had three or four scientists in the world who stand up publicly for it. Could that possibly be true ? If it is then the OCT is in deep do-do.
Scroll down for video link.
http://www.zend2.com/go.php?u=Oi8vY...LXNlY29uZC1sb29rLWluLWx1Y2VybmUuaHRtbA==&b=13
Click to expand...

PS. If that link doesn't work you can scroll down here for the video link.
http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2009/05/911-time-for-second-look-in-lucerne.html
 
bill smith said:
Hey TAM Professor David Ray Griffin said in the last few days I believe it was that the OCT only had three or four scientists in the world who stand up publicly for it. Could that possibly be true ? If it is then the OCT is in deep do-do.
Scroll down for video link.
http://www.zend2.com/go.php?u=Oi8vY...LXNlY29uZC1sb29rLWluLWx1Y2VybmUuaHRtbA==&b=13
Click to expand...

Finewine beat me to my original response, so he said it best.

DRG is the high priest of snake oil sales. He takes a collection of cherry picked, out of context quotes, and turns them not only into false allegations, but into a series of ****** books that the truthers eat up like ambrosia.

I trust, nor really pay attention to, anything DRG says. If you want my attention on a matter, you will have to do better than he.

TAM:)
 
bill smith said:
PS. If that link doesn't work you can scroll down here for the video link.
http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2009/05/911-time-for-second-look-in-lucerne.html
Click to expand...


I can see you think deeply about the stuff you post. Hmmm, could Griffin's statement be true? Well, NIST consulted with a thousand engineers, physicists, fire safety experts, metallurgists, and demolition professionals. Possibly three of them support NIST's conclusions. The teams at Berkeley and Purdue that simulated the collapses and found that their simulations behaved exactly as the towers did might be willing to say a kind word for official account. The group at FEMA, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the metallurgists at MIT and Lehigh...

Ol' Doc Grifter is funnin' with you.
 
It wouldn't surprise me if DRG next says that Leprachauns and Unicorns exist, and only a handful of scientists disagree. He lies about EVERYTHING ELSE, so why not that.

If you really want to piss him off, tell him there is NO SANTA CLAUS.

TAM:D
 
T.A.M. said:
Finewine beat me to my original response, so he said it best.

DRG is the high priest of snake oil sales. He takes a collection of cherry picked, out of context quotes, and turns them not only into false allegations, but into a series of ****** books that the truthers eat up like ambrosia.

I trust, nor really pay attention to, anything DRG says. If you want my attention on a matter, you will have to do better than he.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I thought you'd want to be abreast of developements. But if you don't mind surprises that's okay too.
 
bill smith said:
I thought you'd want to be abreast of developements. But if you don't mind surprises that's okay too.
Click to expand...


There are no developments. Griffin made a statement that is insanely false. It's as though I said there are four or five Democrats in New York City. How much scrutiny does that off-the-wall whopper merit?
 
FineWine said:
I can see you think deeply about the stuff you post. Hmmm, could Griffin's statement be true? Well, NIST consulted with a thousand engineers, physicists, fire safety experts, metallurgists, and demolition professionals. Possibly three of them support NIST's conclusions. The teams at Berkeley and Purdue that simulated the collapses and found that their simulations behaved exactly as the towers did might be willing to say a kind word for official account. The group at FEMA, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the metallurgists at MIT and Lehigh...

Ol' Doc Grifter is funnin' with you.
Click to expand...

All of those are spoken for by the institutes they work for or are contracted to. They go along with it like many others. But we have no individual statement from any of them. On the flip side we have more than 500 individually signed up architects and engineers saying that 9/11 was an inside job.
 
bill smith said:
I thought you'd want to be abreast of developements. But if you don't mind surprises that's okay too.
Click to expand...

lol, nothing that comes from DRG surprises me. He should be commended for his imagination, but reprimanded for not listing his books under "fiction".

TAM:D

Listen bill, when it comes to DRG, I have one word for you..."Airfones". Now if you take the time to look up that, and how it relates to DRG and his masterful research skills, you will see what I mean.

DRG is like a 4 year old sent to prospect for gold. The kid will diligently sift through the sediment in the river, and anything remotely shiny will make him go screaming "Gold!!!!!!". The poor sod of course, not realizing that all that glitters in NOT GOLD.

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
All of those are spoken for by the institutes they work for or are contracted to. They go along with it like many others. But we have no individual statement from any of them. On the flip side we have more than 500 individually signed up architects and engineers saying that 9/11 was an inside job.
Click to expand...



There is no flip side. Gage's group includes many frauds and almost no engineers. One exception is the guy who works on oil rigs and thinks the towers were nuked. Another is Heiwa. You expect "individual" statements from the thousands of scientists who consulted on the NIST and FEMA reports or those who worked as independent academic researchers? C'mon, give us a break. You aren't even fooling yourself.
 
FineWine said:
There is no flip side. Gage's group includes many frauds and almost no engineers. One exception is the guy who works on oil rigs and thinks the towers were nuked. Another is Heiwa. You expect "individual" statements from the thousands of scientists who consulted on the NIST and FEMA reports or those who worked as independent academic researchers? C'mon, give us a break. You aren't even fooling yourself.
Click to expand...

Most people seem to be impressed by the 30-some structural engineers that Richard Gage has currently on his book of signatories demanding a new open and independent 9/11 enquiry with full powers of subpoena. You can put your head in the sand if you like but it won't pay off in the end.
 
bill smith said:
Most people seem to be impressed by the 30-some structural engineers that Richard Gage has currently on his book of signatories demanding a new open and independent 9/11 enquiry with full powers of subpoena. You can put your head in the sand if you like but it won't pay off in the end.
Click to expand...


Most people have never heard of those crackpots. Gage's frauds hide under their beds and duck debates. When they venture outside their cocoons, they get smashed. Who should conduct the "new" and "independent" inquiry? If you use real scientists, you'll get the same results as the original investigation. If you use politicized frauds, you'll get the result people like you desperately need, but real scientists will still dismiss you.
 
FineWine said:
Most people have never heard of those crackpots. Gage's frauds hide under their beds and duck debates. When they venture outside their cocoons, they get smashed. Who should conduct the "new" and "independent" inquiry? If you use real scientists, you'll get the same results as the original investigation. If you use politicized frauds, you'll get the result people like you desperately need, but real scientists will still dismiss you.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. In fact i think it is all over bar the shouting. It has been a long hard road for us heroic Truthers even if I say so myself.
 
bill smith said:
I don't think so. In fact i think it is all over bar the shouting. It has been a long hard road for us heroic Truthers even if I say so myself.
Click to expand...



That road is a whole lot longer than you dare to accept. Your crazy movement hasn't taken its first real step yet, and it never will. Liars and frauds can't be heroes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom