artu said:So, the BBC is a part of the plot, too...
BBC and National Geographic presented documentaries about 9/11 in which they "disprove" the possibility of the WTC collapsing due to usage of thermite. A guy who holds no Ph.D in physics, like some of us do (I'm so enjoying this, professor), shows it's possible in his backyard. It's in "The Great Therimte Debate" video above, it's 15 minutes long.
Question is, who would watch any of those posts as credible sources of information after seeing their obvious manipulation? Besides you...
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted April 30, 2014 07:58 PM
I didnt click your links. I've read and watched enough pseudo-scientific junk about this years ago and saw them each been disqualified by reliable sources. There can be a thousand differences in the conditions, type of steel, timing etc etc.. that your "guy in the backyard" doesnt mention or simply doesnt know about.
artu said:I've read and watched enough pseudo-scientific junk about this years ago and saw them each been disqualified by reliable sources.
Classic branding an experiment as a being pseudo-science without actually knowing what that experiment is.
artu said:There can be a thousand differences in the conditions, type of steel, timing etc etc.. that your "guy in the backyard" doesnt mention or simply doesnt know about.
Rofl. Well he is actually a building engineer so I doubt he wouldn't know what steel is or what steel's properties are. So in this respect, he is highly qualified. He actually said that he's not "an explosive expert", so that was counterproductive to his experiment. But even having that working against him, he still showed that thermite is a reliable explosive that can melt and cut steel easily.
No matter how you put it, he showed BBC and NG that they're either incompetent or liars.
Edit: Also the aftereffects of thermite are matching to what was seen on 911. White pyroclastic smoke, melted steel, horizontally and vertically cuttings in steel, noises heard by witnesses and last but not least naturally formed iron mini-spheres from thermite usage that were found at the scene and in the surroundings.
Who the hell believes Zeitgeist? Have you ever read their references? No? Neither did I, you know why? CUZ THEY DON'T EXIST. And what does exist is so far fetched from their points and interpretations, if not totally beside them, that every non-Ph.D idiot can see it. Emphasis on Ph.D
There is nothing specific enough to ignore or not to ignore in what you wrote. It's basically saying "goverments are evil, so why not". I gave my reasons of why not in the previous page in many posts and since you claim nothing new or substantially different, I have nothing else to add to my posts in the previous page. It's pure speculation and a very unlikely speculation: Occham's Razor cuts it.
@stevie
Quote:Just like a true ignorant.
Knowing what and who to ignore is not ignorance. I only replied to you because your attention craving got you to a point where you directly asked me to and I didn't want to be rude since you said "please" but I see now, that turned out to be the mistake I was afraid it was going to turn into. You are the perfect example of the deadly combination between bad education and overconfidence. If you are not a plain troll and care for the truth like you claim you do, you must reinvent yourself completely, and I mean from scratch. I seriously doubt if you have the capacity to do that but unless you do, you are beyond any help.
Dude, I provided you with sources for what I say constitutes enough proof to dismiss the 911 official story. You didn't bothered to address any of those sources. What you did was outright dismiss them, therefore my reasons for calling you an ignorant.
You're not interested on what the opponent of a debate brings on the table, you just triumphantly proclaim whatever the media says without questioning it. That is why I specially selected the BBC & NG episode and tried to show you that what you consider to be a reliable source of information is actually not.
Then there's your usual elephant hurling. "blablabla has been disqualified by reliable sources" WITHOUT EVER ACTUALLY PROVIDING THE SOURCES.
Fred's proposal is actually good. Why don't you start using your OWN brain, rather than regurgitating whatever your scientismic priests say on BBC and NG as if it was the ultimate truth?
Because you cant be an expert on everything, on matters that demand expertise you can learn to distinguish between junk material and actual resources though. That's what people who use their brain do, the ones who claim to understand everything in five seconds are the ignorant ones. NG and BBC may not be omniscient but they trump "youtube guy expeimenting in the backyard."
I have reopened the thread. Please try to post in a respectful manner.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
regarding the subject, not only NY was attacked. Pentagon as well. yet somehow we didn't saw much footage of it. What, are we going to find some classified crap while looking at a pile of rubble?
more and more yanks think that this was a staged act by the goverment. even architects and such agree on that. smash planes however you bleeping please, no building would collapse like that without the help of high explosives planted at the foundations.
recently I've read that FBI is concerned about mercs and crap who now fights Al Assad. they compared that to Soviet invasion to Afghanistan, where mercs and so who fought against the reds were later turned into Al-Quaida agents.
so the yanks preached about the danger about new 9/11.
We'll see.
____________
"Kip is the Gavin McInnes of HC" - Salamandre
"Ashan to the Trashcan", "I got PTSD from H7. " - LizardWarrior
BBC conveniently loses the original tapes "for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy". They say "If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that." Source.
I don't know if he talked to any other press showbiz or whatever, just ABC.
And about BBC... well, is there anything more to be said? A news post states WTC 7 collapsed approx 30 mins before actually collapsing. An error, right.
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 05, 2014 06:45 PM
Kip, I am not going to spend time on each and every conspiracy theory involving the demolitions, if you do, all of them will turn out to be easily explained though. (And if there were no explanations, since all this stuff is very public, it would inevitebly lead to legal investigations with peered experiments, the ones which did lead to nothing).
As I've said on the previous page, the whole thing is absurd becuse no one would hijack planes to cover up demolitions. Hijacking the planes is the harder part and once you do that why would you need the demolitions. Do you think ANYTHING would have been different if the towers stood still? It's still an attack on US soil and loss of civilian life, why would I care about the towers collapsing once I got the planes crashing in? I already have everything I need.
This kind of stuff is usually produced by the people who are in the habit of thinking themselves so unfoolable but not very bright when it comes down to it. Or they have simply political agenda in the sense of mud-slinging. Throw enough dirt and some will stick. And then you have your audience who will buy it simply because their political stance and ideology fits and the wishful thinking starts. Of course, conspiracy theories always bring the illusion of how unfoolable they are too, especially when it comes to masses who are not analytical when it comes to history. In reality, history is mostly about plans gone wrong, unexpected results, irreversable social reactions which can not be predicted and so on, while people who buy conspiracy theories are under the delusion that it's all about perfect masterplans that works like a charm.
I don't deny that. It's normal to evacuate a building on fire. But that wasn't the motive he heard from the firemen. If what he said is true, what they told him was that the building was gonna collapse. How did they knew that?
Exactly. And very simple, isnt it. But the conspiracy theorist would rather believe it is an ultra-secret/classified self-destruct black-op and the regular firemen somehow knew about it, plus they openly warned people about it. I guess, it slipped their mind that the plan was a secret.
Fauch said:because you may expect a building to collapse after it has been hit by a plane?
artu said:Exactly. And very simple, isnt it. But the conspiracy theorist...
So there's 2 of you that have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE that WTC 7 was NEVER hit by a plane!?
"Exactly... but the conspiracy theorists!" Rofl. And it couldn't be thermite cuz it can't cut steel beams! BBC and NG experts documented it. Sure, conspiracy theorists...
Omg. That's not the point! No one would stay in a building on fire. Problem is, why was the mayor informed that it would collapse?! Is it reasonable to think a steel framed building would collapse to an office fire? AND in the way it did? Free fall conditions? Without detonations? Unprecedented in the entire history of buildings to say the least, if not outright impossible. Out of the 3 towers it was the most odd collapse. For Ohforf's sake, it was even REPORTED to have collapsed before it did!! Is this not sufficient evidence for FOREKNOWLEDGE?
This thread is pages long: 
posted April 30, 2014 07:42 PM
