Lawyers for 9-11 Truth

[parky76]

http://www.l911t.com/

If these guys can't get a new investigation to happen..then no one can.

[1337m4n]

This is the one "X for 9/11 Truth" movement that I'm optimistic might actually be able to accomplish something. A lawyer would know just what avenues to pursue to get the alleged perps prosecuted.

Granted, I'm only .1% optimistic, but that's better than the usual 0%.

[parky76]

agreed. if they actually did pass a bar exam..they might be the smartest truthers on the planet. lets see what they do.

btw...im trying to get this moved to the 9-11 section.

[240-185]

One more argument from authority...

[defaultdotxbe]

agreed. if they actually did pass a bar exam..they might be the smartest truthers on the planet. lets see what they do.

btw...im trying to get this moved to the 9-11 section.
jack thompson passed the bar....

[UNLoVedRebel]

If you can't trust a lawyer to tell the truth, then who can you trust?

[CptColumbo]

If you can't trust a lawyer to tell the truth, then who can you trust?

A politician.

[Toke]

Bill Maher mentioned a Pat Robertson law school, where Bush got his staff.

Guess they come in different quality.

[parky76]

anyone can go to law school. not anyone can pass a state bar exam. how many of these folks did that?

[~enigma~]

anyone can go to law school. not anyone can pass a state bar exam. how many of these folks did that?
Remembering the idiocy of ae911truth and tricky dick with their phoney membership, do you really think this bs site's membership is legit? Think it is time for Mike Rotch Esq to make an appearance :D

[applecorped]

Lawyer, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law.
Ambrose Bierce
The Devil's Dictionary.

Make crime pay. Become a lawyer.
Will Rogers

A lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than a thousand men with guns.
Mario Puzo

It is better to be a mouse in a cat's mouth than a man in a lawyer's hands.
Spanish Proverb

Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne.
Jesus
The Bible, Luke 11. 46.

I don't think you can make a lawyer honest by an act of legislature. You've got to work on his conscience. And his lack of conscience is what makes him a lawyer.
Will Rogers

Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. As a peacemaker the lawyer has superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough.
Abraham Lincoln

Litigation: A machine which you go into as a pig and come out of as a sausage.
Ambrose Bierce
The Devil's Dictionary.

The good lawyer is not the man who has an eye to every side and angle of contingency, and qualifies all his qualifications, but who throws himself on your part so heartily, that he can get you out of a scrape.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

The leading rule for the lawyer, as for the man of every other calling, is diligence. Leave nothing for to-morrow which can be done to-day.
Abraham Lincoln

[A] lawyer without books would be like a workman without tools.
Thomas Jefferson

He is no lawyer who cannot take two sides.
Charles Lamb

The power of the lawyer is in the uncertainty of the law.
Jeremy Bentham

I busted a mirror and got seven years bad luck, but my lawyer thinks he can get me five.
Stephen Wright

My decision to become a lawyer was irrevocably sealed when I realized my father hated the legal profession.
John Grisham

If a person is not talented enough to be a novelist, not smart enough to be a lawyer, and his hands are too shaky to perform operations, he becomes a journalist.
Norman Mailer

A lawyer without history or literature is a mechanic, a mere working mason; if he possesses some knowledge of these, he may venture to call himself an architect.
Sir Walter Scott

He who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.
Proverb

A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.
Robert Frost

Lawyer: One who protects us from robbers by taking away the temptation.
Henry Lewis Mencken

The lawyer's truth is not Truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency.
Henry David Thoreau

Baseball is almost the only orderly thing in a very unorderly world. If you get three strikes, even the best lawyer in the world can't get you off.
Bill Veeck

It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do.
Edmund Burke

The minute you read something that you can't understand, you can almost be sure that it was drawn up by a lawyer.
Will Rogers

A lawyer's relationship to justice and wisdom is on a par with a piano tuner's relationship to a concert. He neither composes the music, nor interprets it-he merely keeps the machinery running.
Lucille Kellen

I think we may class the lawyer in the natural history of monsters.
John Keats

Don't misinform your Doctor nor your Lawyer.
Benjamin Franklin

A Lawyer will do anything to win a case, sometimes he will even tell the truth.
Patrick Murray

The doctor sees all the weakness of mankind; the lawyer all the wickedness, the theologian all the stupidity.
Arthur Schopenhauer

Most people aren't appreciated enough, and the bravest things we do in our lives are usually known only to ourselves. No one throws ticker tape on the man who chose to be faithful to his wife, on the lawyer who didn't take the drug money.
Peggy Noonan

Law students are trained in the case method, and to the lawyer everything in life looks like a case.
Edward Packard, Jr.

We all know here that the law is the most powerful of schools for the imagination. No poet ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer interprets the truth.
Jean Giraudoux

War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight,
The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade.
Percy Bysshe Shelley
Queen Mab.

The average lawyer is essentially a mechanic who works with a pen instead of a ball peen hammer.
Robert Schmitt

Going to trial with a lawyer who considers your whole life-style a Crime in Progress is not a happy prospect.
Hunter S. Thompson

Whenever a bitter foe attack thee Sheathe thy sword, they wrath restrain; Or else will magistrates and lawyers Divide thy wealth, thy purse retain.
Archevolti

Most of the clients that I represent in a criminal case I detest.
Joseph Ball

America is the paradise of lawyers.
David J. Brewer

A lawyer starts life giving $500 worth of law for $5, and ends giving $5 worth for $500.
Benjamin H. Brewster

A lawyer is a learned gentleman who rescues your estate from your enemies and keeps it himself.
Henry Peter Brougham

It is an honorable calling that you have chosen. Some of you will soon be defending poor, helpless insurance companies who are constantly being sued by greedy, vicious widows and orphans trying to collect on their policies. Others will work tirelessly to protect frightened, beleaguered oil companies from being attacked by depraved consumer groups. [commencement address, Tulane University School of Law]
Art Buchwald

And God said: 'Let there be Satan, so people don't blame everything on me. And let there be lawyers, so people don't blame everything on Satan'.
George Burns

"You are old," said the youth, "and your jaws are too weak for anything tougher than suet; yet you finished the goose, with the bones and the beak. Pray, how did you do it?" "In my youth," said his father, "I took to the law, and argued each case with my wife and the muscular strength which it gave to my jaw has lasted the rest of my life."
Lewis Carroll

Doctors are the same as lawyers; the only difference is that lawyers merely rob you, whereas doctors rob you and kill you too.
Anton Pavlovich Chekhov

You cannot live without the lawyers, and certainly you cannot die without them.
Joseph H. Choate

The trouble with law is lawyers.
Clarence Darrow True, we build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.
John W. Davis

A man who never graduated from school might steal from a freight car. But a man who attends college and graduates as a lawyer might steal the whole railroad.
Theodore Roosevelt
Attempting to persuade his son to become a lawyer.

In tribal times, there were the medicine men. In the Middle Ages, there were the priests. Today, there are the lawyers. For every age, a group of bright boys, learned in their trades and jealous of their learning, who blend technical competence with plain and fancy hocus-pocus to make themselves masters of their fellow men. For every age, a pseudo-intellectual autocracy, guarding the tricks of the trade from the uninitiated, and running, after its own pattern, the civilization of its day.
Fred Rodell

If there were no bad people there would be no good lawyers.
Charles Dickens

"I don't like lawyers, nannie." "No one likes lawyers, little boy."
J. P. Donleavy

The world has its fling at lawyers sometimes, but its very denial is an admission. It feels, what I believe to be the truth, that of all secular professions this has the highest standards.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Necessity knows no law; I know some attorneys of the same.
Benjamin Franklin

A lawyer's time and advice are his stock in trade.
Abraham Lincoln

I never saw a lawyer yet who would admit he was making money.
Mary Roberts Rinehart

While law is supposed to be a device to serve society, a civilized way of helping the wheels go round without too much friction, it is pretty hard to find a group less concerned with serving society and more concerned with serving themselves than the lawyers.
Fred Rodell

The bar does not claim to be the communion of saints. It only claims to be a noble organization of fallible men, in a fallible society. It concedes that all lawyers sometimes blunder in a professional service; that many sometimes sin against professional duty; that some are incompetent and some are vicious. But it asserts its own dignity and integrity, by a greater contempt than the world has for its dunces, by a severer reprobation of its knaves.
Edmund G. Ryan

You're an attorney. It's your duty to lie, conceal and distort everything, and slander everybody.
Jean Giraudoux

There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer interprets the truth.
Jean Giradoux

Only lawyers and painters can turn white to black.
Japanese Proverb

God wanted to chastise mankind, so he sent lawyers.
Russian Proverb

Fools and obstinate men make rich lawyers.
Spanish Proverb

Were we to act but in cases where no contrary opinion of a lawyer can be had, we should never act.
Thomas Jefferson

Lawyers, I suppose, were children once.
Charles Lamb

It is unfair to believe everything we hear about lawyers. Some of it might not be true.
Gerald F. Lieberman

[CptColumbo]

A lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than a thousand men with guns.
Mario Puzo

But doesn't Sonny say something like "if you're goin' to a gunfight, whatever you do, don't bring a [rule 10]ing lawyer."

[Mr.Herbert]

I was looking at the list of attorneys in Massachusetts on this website. I came across one: Joseph A. Lopisi. He has a business website that I accessed and to me, looked pretty legit.

I sent him off a quick e-mail asking him why he would want to associate with people like 911 truthers, or the possibility that his name was being used without his knowledge.

I should have held off. I scrolled down on my Google search and found this guy to be a full fledged truther.

This is part of a letter he wrote from another one of his websites:

Except for Representative Dennis Kucinich and Representative Cynthia McKinney, there are no other "voices in the night" speaking out about the lies and deceptions of the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission regarding what happened on 9/11. Three steel framed buildings collapsed on their footprint in freefall time on September 11. This is physically impossible without the use of explosives. On September 11, NBC and Fox News reported at the Pennsylvania crash site of Flight 93 that there was no sign of any commercial jetliner, jet engines, bodies or luggage at the crash site. Jamie McIntyre from CNN reported on live TV soon after the attack on the Pentagon that there was no sign that a commercial jetliner hit the Pentagon.
I could go on and on about the unanswered questions and the outright lies and deceptions of the 9/11 Commission and the Bush administration about 9/11. You could find much more detail and information about 9/11 on my website or many other 9/11 websites.


http://www.countercurrents.org/lopisi260108.htm


ETA:

Joseph A. Lopisi is an attorney and the webmaster of www.911insidejob.net (http://www.911insidejob.net/). He is the cofounder of the Massachusetts 9/11 Truth Group and is a member of the Coalition against Election Fraud. You can contact him through the e-mail function on his website.

Yikes!

[~enigma~]

I was looking at the list of attorneys in Massachusetts on this website. I came across one: Joseph A. Lopisi. He has a business website that I accessed and to me, looked pretty legit.

I sent him off a quick e-mail asking him why he would want to associate with people like 911 truthers, or the possibility that his name was being used without his knowledge.

I should have held off. I scrolled down on my Google search and found this guy to be a full fledged truther.

This is part of a letter he wrote from another one of his websites:



http://www.countercurrents.org/lopisi260108.htm


ETA:



Yikes!
[/font]
Funny thing that ALL truthers fail to understand is that if the collapse was physically impossible without explosives it is also physically impossible with.

[AJM8125]

I quit reading reading and began planning to vandalize the website when I saw they link to ae911truth, patriotquestion911, etc.

[ElMondoHummus]

(*Yawn*)... another "Fill-in-the-blank For 911 Truth" group... color me jaded.

Someone wake me when they get something published in an ASCE journal. Either that, or actually come up with an explanation that doesn't contradict existing knowledge. It doesn't have to be earth shattering, it just has to not be so easily and demonstrably wrong.

[T.A.M.]

All I can say, is if the idiots can't get their "new investigation" with this new group, then they should ALL just pack it in, and take their toys home.

TAM:)

[ElMondoHummus]

All I can say, is if the idiots can't get their "new investigation" with this new group, then they should ALL just pack it in, and take their toys home.

TAM:)

I was about to continue in a tongue-in-cheek vein here, but I had a small thought, an epiphany of microscopic :D proportions:

Do truthers really want a new investigation? Or are they merely happy in their niche of crying "foul" on a soapbox? I think it's the latter myself; they're achieving no progress on the former.

I know, I know... this is about as profound as a Britney Spears lyric... but seriously, has anyone seen any conspiracy proselytizer actually achieve anything concrete in terms of moving authorities forward towards acceptance of at least the principle of a new investigation? Sorry, folks, Jesse Ventura or Cynthia McKinney - fools dancing on the margins of politics, who're willing to embrace anything to stay in the limelight - are not it. I'm talking about actual sane, rational figures in government who sees value in at least rehashing investigative points. All I see are people who're happy to see other people drink the Flavor-Aid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor_Aid) and turn around to preach themselves. It's less a movement and more a cult of belief.

I know, I know... I'm stating the obvious here...

[johnny karate]

I'm sure this organization will be the same smashing success as this one (http://firefightersfor911truth.org/).

I anxiously await Zoo Keepers for 9/11 Truth.

[parky76]

Will Willy Rodriguez start:

Janitors for 9-11 Truth

??????????

:D

[AJM8125]

I'm sure this organization will be the same smashing success as this one (http://firefightersfor911truth.org/).

I anxiously await Zoo Keepers for 9/11 Truth.

This thread still cracks me up:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121987

Due to a massive amount of petition spam, we’ve decided to go ahead and locally host this petition to better screen comments and signatures. Confirmed Fire Fighter signatures will be displayed below the petition updated manually until a better petition system is put together for our needs

:whistling

[jhunter1163]

The Law Office of E. Normus Johnson approves this website.

[parky76]

you know....just having the words "lawyers" and "truth"..in the same sentance, is a fallacy all in itself.

[T.A.M.]

I was about to continue in a tongue-in-cheek vein here, but I had a small thought, an epiphany of microscopic :D proportions:

Do truthers really want a new investigation? Or are they merely happy in their niche of crying "foul" on a soapbox? I think it's the latter myself; they're achieving no progress on the former.

I know, I know... this is about as profound as a Britney Spears lyric... but seriously, has anyone seen any conspiracy proselytizer actually achieve anything concrete in terms of moving authorities forward towards acceptance of at least the principle of a new investigation? Sorry, folks, Jesse Ventura or Cynthia McKinney - fools dancing on the margins of politics, who're willing to embrace anything to stay in the limelight - are not it. I'm talking about actual sane, rational figures in government who sees value in at least rehashing investigative points. All I see are people who're happy to see other people drink the Flavor-Aid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor_Aid) and turn around to preach themselves. It's less a movement and more a cult of belief.

I know, I know... I'm stating the obvious here...

This thought has crossed my mind many times. I think, in the end, they want the investigation...they just don't want the end result (the ACTUAL truth).

You see, for most of them, it is about the "truth movement" swooping in with their crack investigooglers, and saving the day. I am sure many of them have had delusional dreams of standing before congress and revealing some revelation that makes those sitting within the hearing room gasp in stunned amazement.

It just isn't going to happen, but I do think they want the investigation...the ridiculous one they see in their own minds.

TAM:)

[psikeyhackr]

Like we don't have enough people treating a physics problem like a legal rhetorical debate already. :D

psik

[JamesB]

agreed. if they actually did pass a bar exam..they might be the smartest truthers on the planet. lets see what they do.

btw...im trying to get this moved to the 9-11 section.

I am reminded of the headline in one of the New York papers after JFK Jr. flunked the bar for the second time, "Cheer up John John, even Dan Quayle Passed the Bar Eventually"

[matt.tansy]

I anxiously await Zoo Keepers for 9/11 Truth.

Why stop there?

"People Who Debunk the Troofers for 9/11 Truth"

[ElMondoHummus]

This thought has crossed my mind many times. I think, in the end, they want the investigation...they just don't want the end result (the ACTUAL truth).

You see, for most of them, it is about the "truth movement" swooping in with their crack investigooglers, and saving the day. I am sure many of them have had delusional dreams of standing before congress and revealing some revelation that makes those sitting within the hearing room gasp in stunned amazement.

It just isn't going to happen, but I do think they want the investigation...the ridiculous one they see in their own minds.

TAM:)

Well, like I said in the post previous, I actually mildly disagree. I think they've found a comfy spot, and are happy enough to just soapbox all day.

If somehow the truther community as a whole were somehow convinced of their utter incorrectness - not just forced to face facts, but honestly, truly had a Mikey Metz moment, every single one of them - then I think that most of them would do like Metz and others and move on in life, but the seriously delusional I feel would have some sort of identity crisis, and not know what to do with themselves. I really think there's a core group there - not necessarily the leaders, or the movers-and-shakers (such as what exists in that group: The You Tubers, the ones who actually make it to protests, etc.), but rather, the true believers, the ones who obsessively read and uncritically accept as gospel DRG, both Joneses, 9/11 Mysteries, clunkity-clunk, etc. - that would regret not having the 9/11 pedestal from which to preach. The activity of working to convince others is the real juice for some of these folks, the really addictive part of the process, I believe. Looking like you're leading folks to the promised land without actually working to get past the Red Sea gives them the feeling of doing good without actually doing anything constructive. Again, it's the proselytizing that gets them excited, not the actual achievement of what they preach.

Just my 2 cents... I admit, this is much more a belief than anything else. And you may be right yourself, TAM. I admit to only being one man with one opinion. It's just that their acts to me suggest that they might actually be sad if the goal were achieved. Much like radicals in other contexts - say, for example, the Khmer Rouge - once they achieve what they want, they're lost, and seek to recreate the struggle in a place where it's no longer necessary, because it's the struggle that they end up missing.

[Dr Adequate]

"A fanatic is one who redoubles his effort when he has forgotten his aim." --- George Santayana.

[matt.tansy]

"A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject." -Churchill

[beachnut]

http://www.l911t.com/

If these guys can't get a new investigation to happen..then no one can.

At least you know if you have a fantasy case of junk ideas, these lawyers are dumb enough to take the case, and the cake.

Dumb pilots, p4t, dumb lawyers, l4t.

Who posted that web page for a joke?

[psikeyhackr]

Better to be a fanatic than a moron.

Talking about the collapse of a skyscraper from the top without knowing the tons of steel and concrete on every level is hilariously stupid. Do lawyers handle the law of conservation of momentum?

psik

[16.5]

Do lawyers handle the law of conservation of momentum?

psik

You seem to have a very difficult time understanding this principle. You are aware that the law of conservation of momentum applies to isolated systems, are you not?

You are aware that the WTC was not an isolated system?

[rwguinn]

Lawyers see the word "law" and think there is always a way to appeal the decision.
And they never learn--the laws of nature are not appealable, and attempts to violate are tried, judged, and sentenced on the spot...

[dudalb]

Lawyers see the word "law" and think there is always a way to appeal the decision.
And they never learn--the laws of nature are not appealable, and attempts to violate are tried, judged, and sentenced on the spot...

Which is why Lawyers and Engineers hate each other.

[jaydeehess]

I was about to continue in a tongue-in-cheek vein here, but I had a small thought, an epiphany of microscopic :D proportions:

Do truthers really want a new investigation? Or are they merely happy in their niche of crying "foul" on a soapbox? I think it's the latter myself; they're achieving no progress on the former.

I know, I know... this is about as profound as a Britney Spears lyric... but seriously, has anyone seen any conspiracy proselytizer actually achieve anything concrete in terms of moving authorities forward towards acceptance of at least the principle of a new investigation? Sorry, folks, Jesse Ventura or Cynthia McKinney - fools dancing on the margins of politics, who're willing to embrace anything to stay in the limelight - are not it. I'm talking about actual sane, rational figures in government who sees value in at least rehashing investigative points. All I see are people who're happy to see other people drink the Flavor-Aid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor_Aid) and turn around to preach themselves. It's less a movement and more a cult of belief.

I know, I know... I'm stating the obvious here...

Your post immediatly brought to my mind the "Pilots for 911 Truth" who, despite repeated claims to have done extensive work proving beyond a doubt, that the flight path described by the physical evidence of the passage of AA Flight 77 is in gross disagreement with the flight path recorded on the FDR attributed to have been on that aircraft, adamnatly refuse to write a consise technical paper otlining that work and that conclusion. Instead they content themselves with endless debate on internet forums with persons they claim have not the wherewithall to offer any expertise or uinderstanding of the matter, and to demand that those same persons submit to a strictly oral debate on these technical issues.

[ElMondoHummus]

Your post immediatly brought to my mind the "Pilots for 911 Truth" who, despite repeated claims to have done extensive work proving beyond a doubt, that the flight path described by the physical evidence of the passage of AA Flight 77 is in gross disagreement with the flight path recorded on the FDR attributed to have been on that aircraft, adamnatly refuse to write a consise technical paper otlining that work and that conclusion. Instead they content themselves with endless debate on internet forums with persons they claim have not the wherewithall to offer any expertise or uinderstanding of the matter, and to demand that those same persons submit to a strictly oral debate on these technical issues.

Yes, PF911T illustrates that point well. At least the Scholars groups produce some work, even though I consider them as being stuck in the same rut.

[Travis]

I predict an enormous amount of well articulated nothing to be produced by this group. Expect the hyperbole to be thick and the rhetoric unbearable.

[orphia nay]

http://www.l911t.com/

If these guys can't get a new investigation to happen..then no one can.

The following legal scholars, judges and attorneys demand an end to the 9/11 cover-up, a new, full and unbiased investigation, and punishment of all guilty parties:

[snip]


So, they're convinced of a cover-up without even having an investigation yet?

They know there are people to be punished without even having an investigation yet?

These guys are worse than I thought.

I notice there's not very many of them.

[1337m4n]

So, they're convinced of a cover-up without even having an investigation yet?

They know there are people to be punished without even having an investigation yet?

They're probably all prosecuting attorneys. :D

[1337m4n]

Your post immediatly brought to my mind the "Pilots for 911 Truth" who, despite repeated claims to have done extensive work proving beyond a doubt, that the flight path described by the physical evidence of the passage of AA Flight 77 is in gross disagreement with the flight path recorded on the FDR attributed to have been on that aircraft, adamnatly refuse to write a consise technical paper otlining that work and that conclusion. Instead they content themselves with endless debate on internet forums with persons they claim have not the wherewithall to offer any expertise or uinderstanding of the matter, and to demand that those same persons submit to a strictly oral debate on these technical issues.

Don't forget that they also demand the full real name of anyone wishing to dispute them; for what purpose, they never say.

[finalmessenger]

Osama da Bomba must've arranged for the wargames that day.

How can the "truth" movement get anywhere when lawyers take control of the process? They're all on the same side. It's all just for show. Lawyers just want to make money off of it.

JREF doesn't even believe in free speech so how can forums like this help? So you all can get things off your chest?

Look, it's very simple. Wargames = diversion. How did Osama da Bomba know about the wargames? Who was/is feeding him info. Bhutto told David Frost he was dead (bin Laden, not Frost who is only almost dead). She named his killer.

There wasn't even a second plane folks. They just blew up the building and the media created the images of a plane impacting. They're fakes. Don't you youtube? I downloaded all the ones that I found. In one (Chan 4 chopper) the ladies commentating don't see the plane but they sure see an explosion when a fireball erupts from 2. Then there's the reporter who says, "I didn't see a plane go in! That just exploded!" Others said the same thing. Were they all in the same place behind the building?

Do you know anything about lines of perspective and scale? Of course no plane hit the tower if people who were outside there were saying they didn't see one. There was no second plane. They just blew up the building. Mossad operation all over it. Five dancing Israelis can't be wrong.

Do some research and you'll find the speech Kennedy made denouncing secret societies that are undermining open societies. Shortly thereafter, poof. Cap in the toque. Start connecting the dots.

The monarchy is a mix of inbred royals being manipulated by Zionists. It's an evil symbiosis that must be stopped before some authoritarian fool decides to push all the buttons. JREF isn't helping any by moving relevant posts because they include criticism of the attitude of someone who doesn't know the meaning of the word "Challenge". That would be JR.

This is just Masonic/Zionist baiting. There's no truth to lots of things you're told to believe.

That's why I plan to go to the police with Palm Pilot in palm and say, "Hey, officer, look at this. Did you see a plane? Did you hear them mention a plane? Neither did I. Hey, officer. I sued the government of Alberta for putting me in Alberta Hospital and the judge said I can't force people to believe me. I guess that's because I don't own a chain of media outlets."

That's right, officer. An extortion racket is our legal system. Do you think they'll shoot me or listen? Cuzzin ah gots lots ta say!!!

Remember to have that million smackers ready JREF. Like I said in the post that your automod moved, 26 years ago I was told by the woman who said she loved me and would marry me and then broke up with me when I needed her most because she was scared of an actors future, "You shouldn't care what other people think." And I don't care what you think. I only care about what I know. And I know I can prove that 17 days after 9-11 I saw the light of God with the songs I wrote about it.

You don't like criticism? Try being blamed for things you haven't even done and then being prevented from telling your own side of the story. Psychiatry is a fraud of the legal system. If lawyers don't want to help you defend yourself what good are they.

I walked into a lawyer’s office about, oh, seven years ago now. I introduced myself and everything was going fine. That is, until I said the next thing. I looked at him, then sort of gestured to the ceiling in a general way. I said, "“This is not reality.” That’s all. His reaction was somewhat startling. Suddenly, he was Mr. I Don’t Wanna. When I asked him to look at my songs it was, “I don’t want to see them!”

He was afraid of me. Needless to say, I was not pleased. So a lawyer has the right to charge people money to defend their interests or even lives but if I don’t have money I can’t defend my sanity because an extortion racket member says so. Really. Why, that’s just sociopathic doublethink. That just robs me of the chance for legitimate commerce. Defend such to rob me of free speech and a living at your peril.

[parky76]

JREF doesn't even believe in free speech so how can forums like this help? .

um....if JREF doesnt believe in free speech...why exactly was this posted?

:p

by the way, Vigilant Guardian is a YEARLY event. that means it happens every year.

[orphia nay]

You've gotta be convinced of your theory if, in the same breath, you aver your own sanity.

[16.5]

finalmessenger: Amen, the same thing happened with me and my seven minute abs! Here is a transcript with my lawyer Ted:

Me: Think about it. You walk into a video store, you see 8-Minute Abs sittin' there, there's 7-Minute Abs right beside it. Which one are you gonna pick, man?
Ted: I would go for the 7.
Me: Bingo, man, bingo. 7-Minute Abs. And we guarantee just as good a workout as the 8-minute folk.
Ted: You guarantee it? That's - how do you do that?
me: If you're not happy with the first 7 minutes, we're gonna send you the extra minute free. You see? That's it. That's our motto. That's where we're comin' from. That's from "A" to "B".
Ted: That's right. That's - that's good. That's good. Unless, of course, somebody comes up with 6-Minute Abs. Then you're in trouble, huh?
me: No! No, no, not 6! I said 7. Nobody's comin' up with 6. Who works out in 6 minutes? You won't even get your heart goin, not even a mouse on a wheel.
Ted: That - good point.
me: 7's the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 doors. 7, man, that's the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.
Ted: Why?
me: because you're ****in' fired!

[Stupid]

Osama da Bomba must've arranged for the wargames that day.

How can the "truth" movement get anywhere when......



Reading that post was like entering the Twilight Zone....whoa....
...and followed by 16:5's response, sent me .....looking around for my medicine.
:boxedin:







=S=

[Travis]

Why do I feel like I've just witnessed a stream of consciousness from a schizophrenic with ADHD?

[dtugg]

There wasn't even a second plane folks. They just blew up the building and the media created the images of a plane impacting. They're fakes. Don't you youtube? I downloaded all the ones that I found. In one (Chan 4 chopper) the ladies commentating don't see the plane but they sure see an explosion when a fireball erupts from 2. Then there's the reporter who says, "I didn't see a plane go in! That just exploded!" Others said the same thing. Were they all in the same place behind the building?

I am not sure if you are serious because your entire post is so ridiculous it might be a parody.

But I know for a fact that there was a second plane. You wanna know how I know this? I saw it with my own eyes. It was the most horrific thing that I have ever seen and I will never forget it. I am guessing that there were at least a couple hundred thousand eyewitnesses.

Go ahead and tell me that I am a liar. I don't really care. You can go ahead and join the likes of psychos like Ace Baker.

[beachnut]

Lawyers…*irate post*

must be like

Frau Bluker...*whinny*

[parky76]

I am not sure if you are serious because your entire post is so ridiculous it might be a parody.

But I know for a fact that there was a second plane. You wanna know how I know this? I saw it with my own eyes. It was the most horrific thing that I have ever seen and I will never forget it. I am guessing that there were at least a couple hundred thousand eyewitnesses.

Go ahead and tell me that I am a liar. I don't really care. You can go ahead and join the likes of psychos like Ace Baker.

my neighbor took great pics of the 2nd plane come in and hit from our roof.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Osama da Bomba must've arranged for the wargames that day.

How can the "truth" movement get anywhere when lawyers take control of the process? They're all on the same side. It's all just for show. Lawyers just want to make money off of it.

JREF doesn't even believe in free speech so how can forums like this help? So you all can get things off your chest?

Look, it's very simple. Wargames = diversion. How did Osama da Bomba know about the wargames? Who was/is feeding him info. Bhutto told David Frost he was dead (bin Laden, not Frost who is only almost dead). She named his killer.

There wasn't even a second plane folks. They just blew up the building and the media created the images of a plane impacting. They're fakes. Don't you youtube? I downloaded all the ones that I found. In one (Chan 4 chopper) the ladies commentating don't see the plane but they sure see an explosion when a fireball erupts from 2. Then there's the reporter who says, "I didn't see a plane go in! That just exploded!" Others said the same thing. Were they all in the same place behind the building?

Do you know anything about lines of perspective and scale? Of course no plane hit the tower if people who were outside there were saying they didn't see one. There was no second plane. They just blew up the building. Mossad operation all over it. Five dancing Israelis can't be wrong.

Do some research and you'll find the speech Kennedy made denouncing secret societies that are undermining open societies. Shortly thereafter, poof. Cap in the toque. Start connecting the dots.

The monarchy is a mix of inbred royals being manipulated by Zionists. It's an evil symbiosis that must be stopped before some authoritarian fool decides to push all the buttons. JREF isn't helping any by moving relevant posts because they include criticism of the attitude of someone who doesn't know the meaning of the word "Challenge". That would be JR.

This is just Masonic/Zionist baiting. There's no truth to lots of things you're told to believe.

That's why I plan to go to the police with Palm Pilot in palm and say, "Hey, officer, look at this. Did you see a plane? Did you hear them mention a plane? Neither did I. Hey, officer. I sued the government of Alberta for putting me in Alberta Hospital and the judge said I can't force people to believe me. I guess that's because I don't own a chain of media outlets."

That's right, officer. An extortion racket is our legal system. Do you think they'll shoot me or listen? Cuzzin ah gots lots ta say!!!

Remember to have that million smackers ready JREF. Like I said in the post that your automod moved, 26 years ago I was told by the woman who said she loved me and would marry me and then broke up with me when I needed her most because she was scared of an actors future, "You shouldn't care what other people think." And I don't care what you think. I only care about what I know. And I know I can prove that 17 days after 9-11 I saw the light of God with the songs I wrote about it.

You don't like criticism? Try being blamed for things you haven't even done and then being prevented from telling your own side of the story. Psychiatry is a fraud of the legal system. If lawyers don't want to help you defend yourself what good are they.

I walked into a lawyer’s office about, oh, seven years ago now. I introduced myself and everything was going fine. That is, until I said the next thing. I looked at him, then sort of gestured to the ceiling in a general way. I said, "“This is not reality.” That’s all. His reaction was somewhat startling. Suddenly, he was Mr. I Don’t Wanna. When I asked him to look at my songs it was, “I don’t want to see them!”

He was afraid of me. Needless to say, I was not pleased. So a lawyer has the right to charge people money to defend their interests or even lives but if I don’t have money I can’t defend my sanity because an extortion racket member says so. Really. Why, that’s just sociopathic doublethink. That just robs me of the chance for legitimate commerce. Defend such to rob me of free speech and a living at your peril.
Why don't you be quiet for a moment and take a deep breath and at the same time, some time off?
oooopppppppsss!

[Mince]

Does anyone have a link and contact information for Bug Zapper Repairmen for 9/11 Truth (BZR911T)?

Thanks in advance.

[twinstead]

Paranoid schizophrenics ROCK!

[Toke]

Where is NWOagents for 911truth when you need them?

[GStan]

finalmessenger: Amen, the same thing happened with me and my seven minute abs! Here is a transcript with my lawyer Ted:

Me: Think about it. You walk into a video store, you see 8-Minute Abs sittin' there, there's 7-Minute Abs right beside it. Which one are you gonna pick, man?
Ted: I would go for the 7.
Me: Bingo, man, bingo. 7-Minute Abs. And we guarantee just as good a workout as the 8-minute folk.
Ted: You guarantee it? That's - how do you do that?
me: If you're not happy with the first 7 minutes, we're gonna send you the extra minute free. You see? That's it. That's our motto. That's where we're comin' from. That's from "A" to "B".
Ted: That's right. That's - that's good. That's good. Unless, of course, somebody comes up with 6-Minute Abs. Then you're in trouble, huh?
me: No! No, no, not 6! I said 7. Nobody's comin' up with 6. Who works out in 6 minutes? You won't even get your heart goin, not even a mouse on a wheel.
Ted: That - good point.
me: 7's the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 doors. 7, man, that's the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.
Ted: Why?
me: because you're ****in' fired!

....what the hell is Brett Favre doin' here?!?

I'm in town to play the Dolphins, ya dumba$$!

[16.5]

....what the hell is Brett Favre doin' here?!?

I'm in town to play the Dolphins, ya dumba$$!

"Oh man! How'd you get the beans above the frank?"

[parky76]

Al-Qaeda Members for 9-11 Truth.

:D

[Mince]

Al-Qaeda Members for 9-11 Truth.

:D

I bet the top dogs who planned or otherwise had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks are rather amused by the truth movement. Laughing their asses off amused.

[parky76]

no......i think al qaeda is quite pissed off with "9-11 truth".

they take pride in what they do, and any suggestion that they didnt do it...or even worse...dont exist..probably makes them very mad.

:mad:

[Mince]

no......i think al qaeda is quite pissed off with "9-11 truth".

they take pride in what they do, and any suggestion that they didnt do it...or even worse...dont exist..probably makes them very mad.

:mad:

But I think Al Qaeda knows the greater portion of society knows they perpetrated the attacks. Thus, I think Al Qaeda doesn't mind too much if a fringe element believes otherwise.

[Stupid]

I am not sure if you are serious because your entire post is so ridiculous it might be a parody.
.......


You spelled "parroty" wrong.

:boggled:

=S=

[Mr.Herbert]

"Oh man! How'd you get the beans above the frank?"


Is that hair gel?

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/Something-About-Mary-mf01.jpg

[Liszt]

that lawyer website doesn't say anything about CD or even LIHOP. It says that the investigation wasn't very good.

And it wasn't, what with Bush and Dick refusing to go under oath.

Compare this to the Potters Bar train crash (I lived there at the time).

"Initially after the accident, Jarvis claimed that the points' poor condition was due to sabotage of some sort, and that its maintenance was not to blame. However, no solid evidence of any sabotage has ever come to light."

therefore...

"On 28 April 2004 Jarvis sent a letter to the victims' families, admitting liability for the accident. The company said that it would formally accept "legally justified claims" after making a financial provision of £3,000,000."

Bush and co avioded all responsibily for 911, much as Jarvis attempted to do in 2002.

Of course, perhaps these laywers really do think it was an inside job, but they do not really talk about it on their website.

[16.5]

that lawyer website doesn't say anything about CD or even LIHOP. It says that the investigation wasn't very good.

And it wasn't, what with Bush and Dick refusing to go under oath.


Actually they claim it was a coverup.

But I am very interested in your comment that the investigation "wasn't vey good" because the sitting President and VP were not deposed under oath. Well, for the sake of completeness, neither were Clinton or Gore, but I am sure you would have mentioned that if you only had room.

Anyhow, please provide us a list of the previous investigations during which the President or VP were subpoened to testify under oath.

Thanks, take as much time as you need.

[Liszt]

I'm not providing anything - this is not a subject I know a lot about (and I don't think 911 was an "inside job").

However, the Daily Telegraph has just placed 911 above the old favorite JFK in its list of the 30 "greatest" CTs. And a large proportion of people think that the 911 investigation was poor (see any poll on the subject).

I was just saying that the lawyers to not make the same strange claims as other groups.

"Thanks, take as much time as you need."

and thanks for that comment. Well done. I was worried there for a bit.

[parky76]

so now we have

Scholars for 9-11 Truth
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth
Pilots for 9-11 Truth
Lawyers for 9-11 Truth

am I missing any Truth groups?

...but you know, the interesting thing is, we have ALL these groups, but NO revolution or investigation. is this about changing the world or making Youtube videos and fanclubs?

[CptColumbo]

so now we have

Scholars for 9-11 Truth
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth
Pilots for 9-11 Truth
Lawyers for 9-11 Truth

am I missing any Truth groups?

...but you know, the interesting thing is, we have ALL these groups, but NO revolution or investigation. is this about changing the world or making Youtube videos and fanclubs?
Isn't there a Veterans or Patriots one?

[parky76]

yes...Patriot for 9-11 Truth and Veterans for 9-11 Truth.

..but still no revolution or 16th investigation.

=)

i think these folks really need to get a goal, get a priority, or let it go.

[psikeyhackr]

You seem to have a very difficult time understanding this principle. You are aware that the law of conservation of momentum applies to isolated systems, are you not?

You are aware that the WTC was not an isolated system?

You mean the law can be broken if the system is not isolated?

The problems they give in physics class always involve separate masses colliding but that does not mean that the conservation of momentum can ever be violated, only that the analysis gets more complicated. Once the falling top mass of the building collided with the top of the intact portion there could be no further free fall acceleration but the mass coming down would still have to move the mass below for a gravitational collapse to occur.

psik

[DGM]

You mean the law can be broken if the system is not isolated?

The problems they give in physics class always involve separate masses colliding but that does not mean that the conservation of momentum can ever be violated, only that the analysis gets more complicated. Once the falling top mass of the building collided with the top of the intact portion there could be no further free fall acceleration but the mass coming down would still have to move the mass below for a gravitational collapse to occur.

psik
And this post proves you didn't pay attention in any of your classes. Stop trying to sound smart and start studying (or stop partying)

ETA The mass per floor information is readily availably to anyone smart enough to find (or need) it.

[16.5]

You mean the law can be broken if the system is not isolated?

psik

I am saying that your rote repetition of the law of conservation of momentum is infantile under the circumstances

[psikeyhackr]

I am saying that your rote repetition of the law of conservation of momentum is infantile under the circumstances

Tough!

People that can't demand the distribution of steel and concrete on destroyed skyscrapers in less than SEVEN YEARS of their destruction are to infantile for me to give a damn about their opinions of me anyway.

Maybe we will have to explain the precedence to the lawyers. :D

psik

[16.5]

Tough!

People that can't demand the distribution of steel and concrete on destroyed skyscrapers in less than SEVEN YEARS of their destruction are to infantile for me to give a damn about their opinions of me anyway.

Maybe we will have to explain the precedence to the lawyers. :D

psik

Tough?

Infantile as in you don't freaking understand it ya moron.

The remainder of your bears little resemblence to English, so why don't you go freaking try to understand what we are talking about?

[Liszt]

Tough?

Infantile as in you don't freaking understand it ya moron.

The remainder of your bears little resemblence to English, so why don't you go freaking try to understand what we are talking about?

is it OK to insult people now? Fine. 16.5, you are a stupid ****. What have bears got to do with this? You managed to be off topic, rude, wrong and hypocritical all at the same time.

[psikeyhackr]

is it OK to insult people now? Fine. 16.5, you are a stupid ****. What have bears got to do with this? You managed to be off topic, rude, wrong and hypocritical all at the same time.

Chill out dude he doesn't bother me in the least.

You cannot build a 110 story skyscraper without figuring out AND DOCUMENTING the amount of steel and concrete to put on every level.

The nation that put men on the moon has insulted itself far beyond what any insulting words can do by not providing that information about buildings designed before the moon landing. Curiously the Empire State Building was completed 70 years before the WTC was destroyed. What kind of electronic computers did they have in 1931? How many people were thinking about landing on the moon in 1931?

But in only two places in that 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report do they say that the distribution of mass or weight are important in analyzing that building and as far as I can tell they still didn't do it. ROFL

Some people just think they can order or intimidate people into being dumber than they are. That is rather difficult on the internet.

I really don't see what lawyers have to do with figuring out what happened to the buildings. They just need to be involved in tracking down those responsible.

psik

[16.5]

is it OK to insult people now? Fine. 16.5, you are a stupid ****. What have bears got to do with this? You managed to be off topic, rude, wrong and hypocritical all at the same time.

That is HILARIOUS! Good job Liszt! Anyhow, how is your research going into the separation of powers? It seems you primary objection to the 911 Commission report was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of that concept, and i hope you are educating yourself on it.

psikeyhackr:

It has already been established that you do not understand the concept of the law of conservation of momentum, so stop wasting our time.

THANKS!

[psikeyhackr]

It has already been established that you do not understand the concept of the law of conservation of momentum, so stop wasting our time.

It has only been ESTABLISHED that there are a lot of liars on this board.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/52039/

psik

[dtugg]

It has only been ESTABLISHED that there are a lot of liars on this board.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/52039/

psik

Don't you have better things to do than proving that people on this board are liars? Like for example, bringing those really responsible to justice. It's been more than seven years, I haven't seen even an inkling that this is ever going to happen.

[16.5]

It has only been ESTABLISHED that there are a lot of liars on this board.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/52039/

psik

It is very honest for you to admit that you lied. Seriously! Good on ya mate!

So in your link you lied about this: "The NIST says the tower that took longer to collapse did it in 11 seconds." Well, we all know that is false and you lied about it.

Here is what NIST actually said:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A)."

Thanks for pointing out where you lied.

[Liszt]

That is HILARIOUS! Good job Liszt! Anyhow, how is your research going into the separation of powers? It seems you primary objection to the 911 Commission report was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of that concept, and i hope you are educating yourself on it.



What research? I haven't even read the 911 Commission report.

[psikeyhackr]

It is very honest for you to admit that you lied. Seriously! Good on ya mate!

So in your link you lied about this: "The NIST says the tower that took longer to collapse did it in 11 seconds." Well, we all know that is false and you lied about it.

Here is what NIST actually said:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A)."

Thanks for pointing out where you lied.

So you are trying to tell us that 11 seconds is not longer than 9 seconds?

Is the NIST's verbosity causing your reading comprehension to malfunction?

Is this dude an escapee from The Twilight Zone.

It truly amazes me how many people come on the internet and advertise their stupidity and seem to not notice they are doing it. :D

psik

[dtugg]

So you are trying to tell us that 11 seconds is not longer than 9 seconds?

Is the NIST's verbosity causing your reading comprehension to malfunction?

Is this dude an escapee from The Twilight Zone.

It truly amazes me how many people come on the internet and advertise their stupidity and seem to not notice they are doing it. :D

psik

You must have severe reading comprehension problems. Either that, or you are a flat out liar. Which one is it?

NIST does not say WTC1 collapsed in 11 seconds.

[16.5]

So you are trying to tell us that 11 seconds is not longer than 9 seconds?

Is the NIST's verbosity causing your reading comprehension to malfunction?

Is this dude an escapee from The Twilight Zone.

It truly amazes me how many people come on the internet and advertise their stupidity and seem to not notice they are doing it. :D

psik

Hee hee!! First, the "first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated" does NOT EQUAL TOTAL COLLAPSE!!

Second, I was baiting you into showing that you do not understand anything about NIST's report. Here is what ELSE they said:

"From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse."

Actually new videos show it was probably longer than that. Thus the exterior panels falling in near free fall hit in 9 or 11 seconds and the total collapse lasted long after that!

It truly amazes me how many people come on the internet and advertise their stupidity and seem to not notice they are doing it. :D

[Mangoose]

If you synchronize the videos of the WTC2 collapse, you can easily see that ONE SECOND before the exterior panels first crashed into the ground, there were still columns standing as high as the 78th floor.

[psikeyhackr]

, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A)."

We are supposed to believe wall panels created those seismic signals? ROFL

RIGHT!

I have just searched the NCSTAR1 report. The word seconds appears 144 times in 21 documents. They don't specify the collapse times there at all. VERY CURIOUS FOR A 10.000 PAGE REPORT supposedly explaining the collapses of two 400,000 ton buildings.

That summary also says this:
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

If parts of the core were still standing and visible that means all of the material around the core was gone. The material above those portions of the core was also gone. So quibbling over trivia can get almost any time you want. So where is the data on the distribution of steel and concrete so we can figure out how that much mass could come down in less that 18 seconds. Why did what was left of the core collapse if it no longer had so much other weight to support? That is an interesting question in itself.

Maybe we need lawyers because the NCSTAR1 report and the NIST summaries were written by people deliberately quibbling with words. Just like lawyers.

psik

[dtugg]

Will you acknowledge that you were egregiously wrong about NIST saying the collapse took 11 seconds? Or should we just assume that you are an incompetent fraud meaning there no reason to even respond to anything that you say?

[16.5]

We are supposed to believe wall panels created those seismic signals? ROFL

RIGHT!

So where is the data on the distribution of steel and concrete so we can figure out how that much mass could come down in less that 18 seconds. Why did what was left of the core collapse if it no longer had so much other weight to support? That is an interesting question in itself.

psik

I LOVE IT! This excercise began when I pointed out that you were lying in an earlier link. You concede it, excellent!

Next, yeah, pal? Doing a word search in a document rather than reading the freaking thing is pathetically lazy.

Why don't you answer your own question about why what was left of the core collapsed? Stop being wrong and dishonestly lazy

[psikeyhackr]

Will you acknowledge that you were egregiously wrong about NIST saying the collapse took 11 seconds? Or should we just assume that you are an incompetent fraud meaning there no reason to even respond to anything that you say?

You may assume whatever you like. It's a free planet.

I had seen videos of the remains of the cores still standing after most of the building was gone plenty of times before now. So if someone wants to insist that the collapse time is what it took for all of that to come down then obviously it was longer than 11 seconds.

Thanks for making me search the NICSTAR1 report for "seconds" though. I didn't know that they NEVER bothered to try to specify the collapse time in their 10,000 pages.

"Egregious" NO. Skipping over details that some people want to make a big deal of YES.

psik

[dtugg]

OK, got it. You are an incompetent fraud. Thanks for making that clear.

[jmcvann]

dtugg and 16.5: I guess I just don't have the patience to deal with people like psik, but I'm sure glad you do. That was some fun reading!

[psikeyhackr]

OK, got it. You are an incompetent fraud. Thanks for making that clear.

Here is Dr. Sunder Dunderhead of the NIST:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

Notice he also says they came down so fast because they were 70% air by volume. That comes to 15 tons of air per level by the way. Who cares about an AVERAGE of 800 tons of steel per level? Who knows what the average for concrete was? So why don't we have a table specifying the distribution of steel and concrete after SEVEN YEARS?

Now has REALITY changed because of the words of one official nitwit.

You people want to argue on the basis of WORDS instead of comprehension of the physics of the event. Now you can tell Dr. Sunder he was wrong about the time.

ROFLMAO

psik

PS - Dr. Sunder Dunderhead is definitely an incompetent fraud by the way.

PS2 - What does that say for people who need THE VOICE OF AUTHORITY instead of comprehending the physics for themselves?

[GStan]

Here is Dr. Sunder Dunderhead of the NIST:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

Notice he also says they came down so fast because they were 70% air by volume. That comes to 15 tons of air per level by the way. Who cares about an AVERAGE of 800 tons of steel per level? Who knows what the average for concrete was? So why don't we have a table specifying the distribution of steel and concrete after SEVEN YEARS?

Now has REALITY changed because of the words of one official nitwit.

You people want to argue on the basis of WORDS instead of comprehension of the physics of the event. Now you can tell Dr. Sunder he was wrong about the time.

ROFLMAO

psik

PS - Dr. Sunder Dunderhead is definitely an incompetent fraud by the way.

PS2 - What does that say for people who need THE VOICE OF AUTHORITY instead of comprehending the physics for themselves?

Many people here, unlike yourself, do understand physics and have read the entire NIST report, both of them, and the entire FEMA report, and many other documents published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. They have done so because, unlike yourself, they have the knowledge and background to review and respond to them intelligently.

You, on the other hand, do a keyword search for the word "seconds" and declare the report to be a fraud, and then ROFLYAO. Great work!

[dtugg]

Since you have exposed Sunder and NIST for the frauds that they are, I can expect to hear this in a paper that you submit to a scholarly journal, right?. I guess you will be the twoofer that finally proves to the world that 9/11 was inside job. I can't wait. Or perhaps you think that your time is better spent arguing on the internet with people that think you are an idiot.

I would say that Sunder is wrong when he said the collapses took 9 and 11 seconds. Or rather that he misspoke. It is pretty clear in the FAQ what those times mean.

BTW, why the hell are you arguing about this in this thread? There are plenty of threads that talk about NIST, the tower collapses, ect. Or start a new one if you really want to show us all how NIST and the debunkers don't know what they are talking about. Do it. I dare you.

[Dave Rogers]

So why don't we have a table specifying the distribution of steel and concrete after SEVEN YEARS?

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf

Gregory Urich, one of the few people I actually respect among those who doubt or disbelieve that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda with no US Government involvement, chose a slightly different approach to yours. Instead of spouting nonsense on Internet forums about how he hadn't been spoon-fed the detailed information that was of interest to him, he reviewed what information was actually available and analysed it. And guess what? He worked out the distribution of steel and concrete, from published information. He wasn't too lazy to work it out, or immature enough to complain that nobody had worked it out for him.

Now you have two choices. You can either accept that there is enough information in the public domain to work out the information you're demanding, or you can pretend that the information still doesn't exist and continue to complain about it. The latter course of action is unlikely to yield better public understanding of the events of 9/11.

Dave

[NobbyNobbs]

Osama da Bomba must've arranged for the wargames that day.

How can the "truth" movement get anywhere when lawyers take control of the process? They're all on the same side. It's all just for show. Lawyers just want to make money off of it.

JREF doesn't even believe in free speech so how can forums like this help? So you all can get things off your chest?

Look, it's very simple. Wargames = diversion. How did Osama da Bomba know about the wargames? Who was/is feeding him info. Bhutto told David Frost he was dead (bin Laden, not Frost who is only almost dead). She named his killer.

There wasn't even a second plane folks. They just blew up the building and the media created the images of a plane impacting. They're fakes. Don't you youtube? I downloaded all the ones that I found. In one (Chan 4 chopper) the ladies commentating don't see the plane but they sure see an explosion when a fireball erupts from 2. Then there's the reporter who says, "I didn't see a plane go in! That just exploded!" Others said the same thing. Were they all in the same place behind the building?

Do you know anything about lines of perspective and scale? Of course no plane hit the tower if people who were outside there were saying they didn't see one. There was no second plane. They just blew up the building. Mossad operation all over it. Five dancing Israelis can't be wrong.

Do some research and you'll find the speech Kennedy made denouncing secret societies that are undermining open societies. Shortly thereafter, poof. Cap in the toque. Start connecting the dots.

The monarchy is a mix of inbred royals being manipulated by Zionists. It's an evil symbiosis that must be stopped before some authoritarian fool decides to push all the buttons. JREF isn't helping any by moving relevant posts because they include criticism of the attitude of someone who doesn't know the meaning of the word "Challenge". That would be JR.

This is just Masonic/Zionist baiting. There's no truth to lots of things you're told to believe.

That's why I plan to go to the police with Palm Pilot in palm and say, "Hey, officer, look at this. Did you see a plane? Did you hear them mention a plane? Neither did I. Hey, officer. I sued the government of Alberta for putting me in Alberta Hospital and the judge said I can't force people to believe me. I guess that's because I don't own a chain of media outlets."

That's right, officer. An extortion racket is our legal system. Do you think they'll shoot me or listen? Cuzzin ah gots lots ta say!!!

Remember to have that million smackers ready JREF. Like I said in the post that your automod moved, 26 years ago I was told by the woman who said she loved me and would marry me and then broke up with me when I needed her most because she was scared of an actors future, "You shouldn't care what other people think." And I don't care what you think. I only care about what I know. And I know I can prove that 17 days after 9-11 I saw the light of God with the songs I wrote about it.

You don't like criticism? Try being blamed for things you haven't even done and then being prevented from telling your own side of the story. Psychiatry is a fraud of the legal system. If lawyers don't want to help you defend yourself what good are they.

I walked into a lawyer’s office about, oh, seven years ago now. I introduced myself and everything was going fine. That is, until I said the next thing. I looked at him, then sort of gestured to the ceiling in a general way. I said, "“This is not reality.” That’s all. His reaction was somewhat startling. Suddenly, he was Mr. I Don’t Wanna. When I asked him to look at my songs it was, “I don’t want to see them!”

He was afraid of me. Needless to say, I was not pleased. So a lawyer has the right to charge people money to defend their interests or even lives but if I don’t have money I can’t defend my sanity because an extortion racket member says so. Really. Why, that’s just sociopathic doublethink. That just robs me of the chance for legitimate commerce. Defend such to rob me of free speech and a living at your peril.

Poe's Law?

You mean the law can be broken if the system is not isolated?

psik


He means the law only applies to isolated systems. Being in an isolated system is part of the law. You can't apply it to unisolated systems. Etc.

The law is, "In an isolated system, momentum is conserved."

[psikeyhackr]

I would say that Sunder is wrong when he said the collapses took 9 and 11 seconds. Or rather that he misspoke. It is pretty clear in the FAQ what those times mean.

Yeah, this is what I expected from you JREFers. He mispoke but I LIED because I quoted him.

Did he misspeak by saying the buildings came down so fast because they were 70% air by volume? Anyone that read the entire NCSTAR1 report is STUPID. Just understanding basic physics means you must know the importance of the vertical distribution of steel and concrete in the towers. But the NIST only admits that in two places. And they don't even specify the total amount of concrete though they did it for steel in three places.

On the matter of mass distribution of the towers the NIST says this:

2.4.3 Single Impulse Excitations

Accurate estimation of the tower’s motion during the airplane impact required detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and impact velocity of the aircraft, as well as detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and structural strength of the tower. At the time of this test series (fall 2003), much of this information was unknown, and the impact motion could only be roughly estimated. To allow this estimate to be made quickly, many simplifying assumptions were made regarding the nature of the impact.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5D.pdf page 74


Since people don't just accidentally decide how much steel and concrete to put on every level of a 1360 foot building that can withstand 100+ mph winds the above statement is not surprising. The peculiar thing is that this was not discussed A LOT in preparing to analyze the event back in 2001.

I don't understand why they couldn't have had that info on the building by fall 2003 though and I certainly don't understand why we don't have it now. WTF

I love the jargon they have to come with for these kind of reports, " Single Impulse Excitations". You have to stop and think, "What the hell does that mean?" Oh. it was hit real hard one time and started vibrating. DUH! 500 mph airliners do that, but only once.

The south tower moved 12 inches at the 70th floor which was 130 feet below the impact at the 81st floor. The tower oscillated for FOUR MINUTES.

http://stj911.org/jones/docs/Jones_ma3deb0b.jpg

These are physical data, showing a characteristic nearly exponential decay (damping) of the oscillation. Observed oscillation of the WTC 2 Tower provides compelling empirical evidence that it was hit by a fast-moving jetliner. Any claim to the contrary must confront these published data or the analysis thereof.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5.pdf p. 26 It will not do in scientific inquiry to ignore data like this – even if one does not trust the source for some reason. In other words, the argument must be to the DATA, not to the source (ad hominem).
http://stj911.org/jones/Jones_Replyto_Reynolds_Wood.html

So that Single Pulse Excitation was caused by a lot of kinetic energy from the plane and the amount of energy which produced structural damage cannot be computed from the total energy of the aircraft without calculating how much went to producing this behavior in the building and that requires reasonably accurate distribution of steel and concrete information. But where does the NIST show that data and do those calculation?

I have searched the NCSTAR for more statements containing "weight distribution". "mass distribution", "distribution of weight" and "distribution of mass" but that "2.4.3 Single Impulse Excitations" is the only instance that clearly stated the relevance of the vertical distribution of mass to analyzing the impact. My impact demonstration was intended to make the importance of that information obvious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

So I guess we need lots of lawyers to sort out this misspeaking from lying so we can drag this out another SEVEN YEARS on a problem that should have been settled in LESS THAN ONE. If the planes could do that the NIST should have been able to explain it in less than 500 pages.

psik

PS - This site didn't let me specify the width and height of the graph so it would not stretch the post.

[dtugg]

Yeah, this is what I expected from you JREFers. He mispoke but I LIED because I quoted him.

You never said that you were quoting Sunder earlier. It probably would have cleared a lot up. I doubt you had even knew that he said that. You probably just got lucky and found this video to throw in our faces.

As for the rest of your gibberish, it doesn't concern me at all that NIST didn't go into extreme detail about the motion from the impact and figure out the exact mass distribution of the towers since they were tasked with finding out how the collapse initiated. They did do that. Do you how the collapse started according to NIST? And after it happened it was all over making your quibbling about mass distribution unimportant. This is proven by math and physics. Also common sense which dictates that the floor below the collapse wasn't designed to hold the dynamic load of millions of pounds crashing down on it. Same for the floor below that and so on. NIST didn't really go into detail about exactly what happened after the collapse started because it was too complex to model.

You should really start another thread this if this really concerns you since this is totally off topic.

Also, I have to wonder what you are doing arguing with us if you are so sure that NIST is a bunch of liars. You should go expose them to the world or something.

[psikeyhackr]

You never said that you were quoting Sunder earlier. It probably would have cleared a lot up. I doubt you had even knew that he said that. You probably just got lucky and found this video to throw in our faces.

As for the rest of your gibberish, it doesn't concern me at all that NIST didn't figure out the exact mass distribution of the towers since they were tasked with finding out how the collapse initiated. They did do that. Do you know what they say?. After it happened it was all over and the mass distribution didn't really matter.

You should really start another thread this if this really concerns you since this is totally off topic.

ROFLMAO

You can doubt it all you want, but all you have to do is use Google to search on "psikeyhackr" and "dunderhead" to see how often I quoted him on that 70% air business. That has been in my bookmarks for over a year.

Here is one from April 2008 and the thread is locked so I can't change it.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=794466#p794466

December 2007

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=568846#p568846

Don't you like being given enough rope to do what you do best? :D

Does what one man says, who happens to be at the NIST, affect the physics of what occurred on 9/11? You people think in terms of trusting in AUTHORITY rather than comprehending physics.

It never occurred to me that the information wasn't in the NCSTAR1 report though.

psik

[dtugg]

Whatever dude, you have evidence one of the greatest frauds of all time and all you care about apparently is pwning debunkers. You should put your money where your mouth is and sue NIST, otherwise you are just another anonymous twoofer making noise on the Internet. Judy Wood, for example, even though she is insane, actually tried to do something about it (and failed epically but that is beside the point).

And no, what one man at NIST doesn't change the physics about what happened on 9/11. I understand it perfectly well myself, and there is nothing strange about the physics of the twin towers collapsing. Not unless you are an idiot twoofer looking for a conspiracy. I don't even care what he said in that one, short interview, it is likely that he was trying to simplify it for laymen.

But anyway, I am done with you. You are just another twoofer who thinks he was uncovered one of the biggest frauds of all time but won't leave his keyboard to do anything about it.

[DGM]

Anyone that read the entire NCSTAR1 report is STUPID. .

Here we have the "truth" movement in a nut shell. Never actually read a report that would explain why you have no clue what your talking about (yes it's in there). That would kill the deluded fantasy.

[psikeyhackr]

And no, what one man at NIST doesn't change the physics about what happened on 9/11. I understand it perfectly well myself, and there is nothing strange about the physics of the twin towers collapsing.

So you must have the distribution of steel and concrete.

I provided the quote and the link from the NCSTAR1 report where the NIST admitted that distribution of mass was necessary. Curiously that was the only report where they use the term "center of mass" but it was a report about suspended ceilings. WHAT!!!

That made no sense since the only video I have seen of anyone talking about things falling from the ceiling was in the basement. But the word basement is not in that report. Searches can be so useful. Wading through 10,000 pages of drivel would be so ridiculous.

We can insult each other forever but since a skyscraper must hold itself up and the Empire State Building was designed and constructed without computers why can't we just get the info on STEEL and CONCRETE on every level after SEVEN YEARS? And why shouldn't people who say they know so much about physics admit that it is important? Ever heard of "damped oscillation". Wouldn't the steel provide spring and mass and the concrete provide mass?

How much of the plane's kinetic energy went into starting that mass oscillating?

OOPS! That's right lawyers don't do laws of physics. :D

psik

[psikeyhackr]

Here we have the "truth" movement in a nut shell. Never actually read a report that would explain why you have no clue what your talking about (yes it's in there). That would kill the deluded fantasy.

So was there any concrete in the towers?

Tell us where the NCSTAR1 report specifies the amount. They tell us there were "roughly 200,000 tons of steel" in three different places in the report. That is both towers combined of course though they are not very explicit about it. So why can't they do that with the concrete?

We must need some lawyers to force that information out of them.

psik

[scott75]

Originally Posted by DGM
Here we have the "truth" movement in a nut shell. Never actually read a report that would explain why you have no clue what your talking about (yes it's in there). That would kill the deluded fantasy.

So was there any concrete in the towers?

Tell us where the NCSTAR1 report specifies the amount. They tell us there were "roughly 200,000 tons of steel" in three different places in the report. That is both towers combined of course though they are not very explicit about it. So why can't they do that with the concrete?

We must need some lawyers to force that information out of them.

I sincerely doubt it's in there myself. -However-, truth movement web site 9/11 Research has apparently found the answer based on FEMA's description of the towers' construction:

True, others have mentioned other figures, but I trust 9/11 Research more then most sites. Here's the relevant excerpt from The North Tower's Dust Cloud page (can't put up URL's yet):
******************************
Jerry Russell estimated that the amount of energy required to crush concrete to 60 micron powder is about 1.5 KWH/ton. (See www(dot)911-strike(dot)com/powder(dot)htm.) That paper incorrectly assumes there were 600,000 tons of concrete in each tower, but Russell later provided a more accurate estimate of 90,000 tons of concrete per tower, based on FEMA's description of the towers' construction.
******************************

[DGM]

So was there any concrete in the towers?

Tell us where the NCSTAR1 report specifies the amount. They tell us there were "roughly 200,000 tons of steel" in three different places in the report. That is both towers combined of course though they are not very explicit about it. So why can't they do that with the concrete?

We must need some lawyers to force that information out of them.

psik
NCSTAR1-6D
Please try to read things that you choose to demonstrate your ignorance toward.

No NIST does not spoon feed the ignorant the totals but anyone can calculate (as they did) them if they really cared (or needed) to know.

Have you checked out what Gregory Urick has done (like we suggested)? Why are you so lazy about something you claim to care about?

[psikeyhackr]

Whatever dude, you have evidence one of the greatest frauds of all time and all you care about apparently is pwning debunkers.

Not unless you are an idiot twoofer looking for a conspiracy. I don't even care what he said in that one, short interview, it is likely that he was trying to simplify it for laymen.

But anyway, I am done with you. You are just another twoofer who thinks he was uncovered one of the biggest frauds of all time but won't leave his keyboard to do anything about it.

Saying the buildings came down so fast because they were 70% air by volume is making things simple for the laymen? That is nothing but a stupid lie.

I don't give a damn about any conspiracies. The nation that put men on the moon can't tell the entire world the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of buildings designed before the moon landing. And so called debunkers claiming to know physics don't even ask such obvious questions.

That is HILARIOUS!

The laws of physics could not care if the planes were flown by drunken Hell's Angels snorting coke. Or lawyers snorting coke for that matter. :D

psik

[Disbelief]

NCSTAR1-6D
Please try to read things that you choose to demonstrate your ignorance toward.

No NIST does not spoon feed the ignorant the totals but anyone can calculate (as they did) them if they really cared (or needed) to know.

Have you checked out what Gregory Urick has done (like we suggested)? Why are you so lazy about something you claim to care about?

Don't bother, as he will never learn. He has spouted the same nonsense for at least 90% of his posts, and he hasn't learned anything yet.

[psikeyhackr]

Don't bother, as he will never learn. He has spouted the same nonsense for at least 90% of his posts, and he hasn't learned anything yet.

I have Gregory Urich's data on my hard drive. Urich admits that his data on the perimeter columns is INTERPOLATED which means it is wrong.

The NIST admits that there were 12 different types of perimeter wall panels. They do not tell us the number and weights of each type of panel. But they tell us that the original design called for 14 types and two types were upgraded so only 12 were used. What good does it do to know the original design was 14? All that matters is waht was actually on the building on 9/11. The NIST bombards us with trivial crap but not important distilled info. Why Urich defends them I don't know.

We only know that the heaviest wall panel was 22 tons because it was in an engineering article from 1970, but we don't know how many there were. So lots of NIST worshipers will study shallow drivel. How many tons of steel and tons of concrete were on the 70th level to move 12 inches as a result of the impact. The NIST tells us about the 12 inches, why not the rest?

Skyscrapers do have to be strong enough on every level to hold themselves up don't they? The curious thing is I can't find that information on ANY SKYSCRAPER. You would think this is some kind of guild secret. Considering how old the Empire State Building is why would anyone give a damn if it weren't for 9/11? Curious that Richard Gage and his buddies don't make a stink about this I emailed him in June of 2007 about Frank Greening and his peculiar potential energy calculations.

So I guess we are back to needing lawyers to get the information necessary to solve a grade school physics problem.

psik

[Dave Rogers]

The curious thing is I can't find that information on ANY SKYSCRAPER.

So what you're saying is that the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy has cunningly concealed information about the tons of steel and concrete on every level of the WTC towers by concealing information on the tons of steel and concrete on every level of every skyscraper everywhere in the world ever, except for the WTC where it's published all the information except for the perimeter column masses, which had to be interpolated? A thorough, if somewhat unfathomable, approach, to be sure.

Dave

[psikeyhackr]

So what you're saying is that the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy has cunningly concealed information about the tons of steel and concrete on every level of the WTC towers by concealing information on the tons of steel and concrete on every level of every skyscraper everywhere in the world ever, except for the WTC where it's published all the information except for the perimeter column masses, which had to be interpolated? A thorough, if somewhat unfathomable, approach, to be sure.

Dave

Why don't you stop throwing the word conspiracy around and try finding the information on any skyscraper yourself?

I worked for IBM for four years and never saw the term "von Neumann machine" on any documenataion or heard anyone use it. von Neumann worked for IBM as a consultant in the early 50s and almost all computers are von Neumann machines. Try finding a good explanation of how one works though.

I would suggest chapter chapter 10 of The Art of Electronics. But the curious thing is they never use the term von Neumann machine. There is a kind of Gresham's Law of information. Important information habitually disappears. Trivial MBE is everywhere.

psik

[funk de fino]

Why don't you stop throwing the word conspiracy around and try finding the information on any skyscraper yourself?

I worked for IBM for four years and never saw the term "von Neumann machine" on any documenataion or heard anyone use it. von Neumann worked for IBM as a consultant in the early 50s and almost all computers are von Neumann machines. Try finding a good explanation of how one works though.

I would suggest chapter chapter 10 of The Art of Electronics. But the curious thing is they never use the term von Neumann machine. There is a kind of Gresham's Law of information. Important information habitually disappears. Trivial MBE is everywhere.

psik

No one cares, its irrelevant. You are mistaken on what is important.

NIST December 2007 FAQ's tell you all you need to know about why the collapse progressed once it started.

[Dave Rogers]

Why don't you stop throwing the word conspiracy around and try finding the information on any skyscraper yourself?

I'm quite happy to accept your findings that detailed lists of the structural weights of skyscrapers are not generally released into the public domain. Let's see what the differences are in the conclusions you and I draw from this.

You: Detailed structural weights are not available for the WTC. This is suspicious, because you think they ought to be. Detailed structural weights are not available for any other skyscraper either. Given that you have decided in advance that the unavailability of detailed structural weights for the WTC is suspicious, you conclude that this further absence is therefore even more suspicious.

Me: Detailed structural weights are only partially available for the WTC. This may or may not be suspicious. Detailed structural weights are not available for any other skyscraper either. Given that I have not decided that the unavailability of detailed structural weights for the WTC is suspicious, this further absence is therefore an indication that it is normal not to make this information available. In the light of that indication, this suggests that the absence of the information for the WTC is not suspicious.

The big difference is that I'm not reasoning backwards from a conclusion that I refuse to re-examine.

Dave

[A W Smith]

psikeyhackr your complaint about the weight of concrete and steel per floor being publicly available is irrelevant to the question of the strength of the towers, it is the shape of the structural members, the distribution of columns. the spans, the connections, the dampers, that are important and determine the amount a structure will sway from impact. Using mass alone wont get you there. if you were to take the exact same weight of steel and concrete per floor and instead built a skyscraper in a typical grid or boxed bay method of construction the towers would have been a lot less resistant to sway.

[psikeyhackr]

psikeyhackr your complaint about the weight of concrete and steel per floor being publicly available is irrelevant to the question of the strength of the towers,... Using mass alone wont get you there.

WOW! You're such a genius for pointing out the obvious. I'm SO Impressed!

But how do you get the strength of steel without the weight? Do architects decide how much steel to put into a building on the basis of the weight?

My point is that the EXPERTS who expect us to believe that the buildings underwent gravitational collapse haven't been telling us the weights. Doesn't weight have something to do with gravity? Do you have some other circularly obvious trivia to tell us to demonstrate how smart you are?

My model showed the behavior changed under impact simply by changing the weight and its distribution. If I had altered the arrangement of the metal providing the spring tension that would have changed the behavior also but my only intent was to demonstrate to LAYMEN that we were missing IMPORTANT and NECESSARY information.

psik

[A W Smith]

Do architects decide how much steel to put into a building on the basis of the weight?
No. they don't. You really don't know the difference between architects and engineers do you?

[psikeyhackr]

No. they don't. You really don't know the difference between architects and engineers do you?

YAWN!

My pledge father was an architect. We had a joke at IIT that architecets studied funny physics and funny math. Since then I have gotten a lot more cynical about school. They compartMENTALIZE knowledge and make subjects much more difficult than they really are. Make knowledge expensive and difficult to obtain.

This WTC business should have been settled in less than a year.

Everybody wants to guard their little piece of knowledge and pretend it is so difficult to understand. You still can't separate the strength of steel from the weight of the steel.

psik

PS - Spending 5 years to become an architect and still not knowing the engineering was ridiculous. Need to trash all of that elective garbage we had to take. The Empire State building was designed without computers. How much could structural engineers be eliminated today because all of that stuff could be built into the architectural software? ROFLMAO Electronics simulators practically didn't exist when I was in school. We were doing our programming with keypunch machines. :eek: :mad: :D

[WildCat]

YAWN!

My pledge father was an architect. We had a joke at IIT that architecets studied funny physics and funny math. Since then I have gotten a lot more cynical about school. They compartMENTALIZE knowledge and make subjects much more difficult than they really are. Make knowledge expensive and difficult to obtain.

This WTC business should have been settled in less than a year.

Everybody wants to guard their little piece of knowledge and pretend it is so difficult to understand. You still can't separate the strength of steel from the weight of the steel.

psik

PS - Spending 5 years to become an architect and still not knowing the engineering was ridiculous. Need to trash all of that elective garbage we had to take. The Empire State building was designed without computers. How much could structural engineers be eliminated today because all of that stuff could be built into the architectural software? ROFLMAO Electronics simulators practically didn't exist when I was in school. We were doing our programming with keypunch machines. :eek: :mad: :D
And therefore 9/11 was an inside job?

Do you really not know how to calculate the weight of the concrete if that's so damned important to you? Shouldn't be that difficult. You know the area of each floor, and the area used up by elevators. You know the thickness of the concrete, and the composition.

Doesn't take a hell of a lot of brains to figure that out. And you say you can't do that, eh?

[A W Smith]

YAWN!

My pledge father was an architect. We had a joke at IIT that architecets studied funny physics and funny math. Since then I have gotten a lot more cynical about school. They compartMENTALIZE knowledge and make subjects much more difficult than they really are. Make knowledge expensive and difficult to obtain.

This WTC business should have been settled in less than a year.

Everybody wants to guard their little piece of knowledge and pretend it is so difficult to understand. You still can't separate the strength of steel from the weight of the steel.

psik

PS - Spending 5 years to become an architect and still not knowing the engineering was ridiculous. Need to trash all of that elective garbage we had to take. The Empire State building was designed without computers. How much could structural engineers be eliminated today because all of that stuff could be built into the architectural software? ROFLMAO Electronics simulators practically didn't exist when I was in school. We were doing our programming with keypunch machines. :eek: :mad: :D

Good grief PSi. you cant even spell Architects. Let me clue you in. architects consult with the client, determine the clients needs and design the concept. Engineers take that concept and determine how it can be built structurally. Two different disciplines. if you were studying architecture for five years hoping to be an engineer. you were an idiot.

[psikeyhackr]

Good grief PSi. you cant even spell Architects. Let me clue you in. architects consult with the client, determine the clients needs and design the concept. Engineers take that concept and determine how it can be built structurally. Two different disciplines. if you were studying architecture for five years hoping to be an engineer. you were an idiot.

Dude, that isn't the first time I used the word on this page. If the most you can do is make a big deal of a typing error you are a total waste of time.

I never said I was studying architecture.

psik

[johnny karate]

If the most you can do is make a big deal of a typing error you are a total waste of time.

Maybe you missed the part where he demonstrated you don't know the difference between an architect and a structural engineer.

[WildCat]

Bump!

It seems our little truthy lawyer has gone running to the last bastion of honest, good clean government and protectors of human rights left on the planet to help him get out The TruthTM.

Of course, I'm speaking of Iran. From the Tehran Times (http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=184539):
Mark my words. President Obama will follow in the footsteps of his predecessors by not holding his predecessor, George W. Bush and members of his administration, liable for violating the United States Constitution and criminally responsible for treason, 9/11, financial fraud, mass murder and war crimes.


Along the same lines as his predecessors, President Obama will deal with the current financial crisis by pointing his finger at everyone except the real culprit, the Federal Reserve Bank, the U.S. executive and legislative branches and their partners in crime, the Wall Street financial institutions.

The Federal Reserve Bank is a cartel of private banks with only one motive-profit. Presidents like Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson all knew about the all pervasive control that a private central bank has when it is permitted to print the money for the government and then lend it back to the government at interest. The end result of this scheme is that U.S. government is in debt to the Federal Reserve Bank and taxes our income in order to pay this debt. As a result, we all live our lives in debt. Being in debt is a form of slavery.

John F. Kennedy passed an Executive Order six months before his assassination. This Executive Order would allow the federal government to print money based on a silver standard. This order was the beginning of the end of the Federal Reserve Bank.
You'd think a lawyer would be able to avoid the truther habit going wildly off-topic in the first paragraph of an essay, but apparently not.

Tin foil nuttery at it's finest! :p

[MarekM]

You'd think a lawyer would be able to avoid the truther habit going wildly off-topic in the first paragraph of an essay, but apparently not.

Tin foil nuttery at it's finest! :p

Additionally, you'd expect a lawyer to have some understanding of proper research, but apparently not.

In early 2005, I started researching 9/11. It only took me less than one hour of looking at the evidence to know that the official 9/11 conspiracy theory was completely bogus and unsupported by the facts.

That's not even enough time to get through Loose Change!

[WildCat]

That's not even enough time to get through Loose Change!
The trailer was all it took.

[dudalb]

I love the way a certain poster here based his whole argument for An Inside Job on one of the laws of physics, then showed he has no real understanding of physics.
And, noting his avatar, it confirms my opinion that 90% of people who have "kewl,rebellous, anti establishment" avatars are crackpots.

[twinstead]

Yup. And one thing you can always count on is you can trust somebody with beer in his avatar. Always.

[jaydeehess]

Wow, I selected the last two pages of this thread just to see whether or not the Lf911T had bothered to actually do anything with their talents to further the cause.

What I find is discussion on aspects of physics instead.

So what have the lawyers been up to. Gathered any evidence to use in any legal matter they will be putting before a court?
Perhaps they are taking physics and engineering courses so as to be able to understand the subject matter.

[psikeyhackr]

Additionally, you'd expect a lawyer to have some understanding of proper research, but apparently not.

Lawyers would understand information hiding alright. They specialize in it.

10,000 page reports about skyscrapers that don't specify the quantity of concrete.

Not knowing the distribution of steel after SEVEN YEARS when that has to be a critical aspect of skyscraper design.

But of course lawyers could not possibly comprehend the Precedence of the LAWS OF PHYSICS, no judges and legislators to argue with.

ROFLMAO

psik

[WildCat]

10,000 page reports about skyscrapers that don't specify the quantity of concrete.
You really have no idea how to estimate the quantity of concrete in the WTC? Really? :eye-poppi

ROFLMAO
Ignorance isn't funny, particularly when it's your own. Why are you ROFLYAO?

[DGM]

You really have no idea how to estimate the quantity of concrete in the WTC? Really? :eye-poppi


Ignorance isn't funny, particularly when it's your own. Why are you ROFLYAO?
Don't bother trying to talk to this one.

His/her whole approach to education is what he/she can find by "key word" search.

Anyone could find the info he/she was looking for if not for shear laziness.

[psikeyhackr]

Don't bother trying to talk to this one.

His/her whole approach to education is what he/she can find by "key word" search.

So what has stopped you from telling us what the NIST said about the total amount of concrete in the towers and where it is in the 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report?

Why did they tell us in THREE places that there were "roughly 200,000 tons of steel" but not the total quantity of concrete? They are obviously inconsistent. I am merely advertising the fact. Shouldn't they have been able to come up with that information in 3 years with $20,000,000?

Yes don't bother trying to talk because you might have to concede that I am correct. LOL

I demonstrated that changing the mass and its distribution would alter the effect of an impact on a structure like a WTC tower. That required a bit more than a "key word" search.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

psik

[Jonnyclueless]

Why would NIST need to cover the total amount of concrete?

[dtugg]

Why would NIST need to cover the total amount of concrete?

Because, since it is not in table form like psik demands, that must mean the towers should have fell sideways like he says. Unless of course, they were destroyed using magical silent explosives.

[jaydeehess]

I'm still waiting to hear about the lawyers arranging for a court date and just what they will be argueing and against whom.

There have been two court cases so far and neither has resulted in anything that the TM can seen spin as an accomplishment. I would assume that now that the Lf911T are on the case (albeit 7 years late to the ball) that something will be getting going soon.

Perhaps psikey has some insight to this, the subject of the thread?

[DGM]

So what has stopped you from telling us what the NIST said about the total amount of concrete in the towers and where it is in the 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report?

Why did they tell us in THREE places that there were "roughly 200,000 tons of steel" but not the total quantity of concrete? They are obviously inconsistent. I am merely advertising the fact. Shouldn't they have been able to come up with that information in 3 years with $20,000,000?

Yes don't bother trying to talk because you might have to concede that I am correct. LOL

I demonstrated that changing the mass and its distribution would alter the effect of an impact on a structure like a WTC tower. That required a bit more than a "key word" search.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

psik
Congratulations you've shown that the sway of the building would change due to the distribution of mass. WHO GIVES A CRAP! Any first year engineering student could tell you that.

Now why again should NIST have focused on your obsession? Let me clue you into a secret (2 actually). NIST was tasked to study why the buildings collapsed and the plane impacts (alone) did not cause the buildings to collapse.(don't tell anyone)

You can calculate the mass of concrete in the towers from information provided but, it was not their primary concern.

Now what is your point and how does it effect the COLLAPSE of the towers?

[jaydeehess]

Congratulations you've shown that the sway of the building would change due to the distribution of mass. WHO GIVES A CRAP! Any first year engineering student could tell you that.

Now why again should NIST have focused on your obsession? Let me clue you into a secret (2 actually). NIST was tasked to study why the buildings collapsed and the plane impacts (alone) did not cause the buildings to collapse.(don't tell anyone)

You can calculate the mass of concrete in the towers from information provided but, it was not their primary concern.

Now what is your point and how does it effect the COLLAPSE of the towers?

Thank you DGM. Having come into this particular conversation late, and not feeling like looking for its beginning, I was unsure of where psikh was going with this. It did look like he was using it to show that the amount of swaying that an aircraft would impart was his concern but I failed to see just how this would negate the NIST findings on the collapse.

If the building was heavier then it would have swayed less, lighter and it would have swayed more. Too much sway and the building might break up much earlier it it affected the steel by taking it farther than it was designed to allow for, but less sway in a heavier building (due solely to the mass of concrete) is not going to affect the amount of damage caused directly to the steel by the transfer of momentum from the aircraft and certainly would not affect the loss of strength due to the heating of the steel in the resultant fires.

Now IIRC NIST does give a total mass of the structure and the mass of steel. Since all psikh is concerned with is the non-steel mass simple subtraction will give the mass of concrete plus mass of contents.

Bazant showed that the energy available after the initial collapse was 30+ times greater than the ability of the lower structure's floor to resist the falling upper section. So unless his estimate is for a total mass of the upper section 1/30th of what Bazant puts it at then the point is moot.


ETA: psikeyhackr, what are the lawyers doing? You know, the topic of this thread!