I love it. A lengthy post refuting psik's claims including his claim no school has addressed the collapse and all he can do is whine about the age of the report and the lack of information about the weights. How utterly pathetic!
Again, bottom line...if you had anything, you'd be in front of a judge not here. Hence. You have nothing.
So you think the government is more important than physics. That is your problem. This fascist culture produces people who need to be told what to think. This entire 9/11 business is a demonstration of the psychology of the culture. Physics is not about psychology. A physical model is more important than any judge and any judge that can't figure that out is too stupid to qualify. But people in the government think they are more important than physics. It is the Galileo Incident all over again. But now it involves lots of engineering schools. psik
It is not my fault that you are not smart enough to use computers intelligently. I am not reading a paper that claims to be about a skyscraper that supposedly collapsed that never mentions the amount of steel in the building. Even the NIST report does that. That paper just proves that it is idiotic and the stupidity of anyone that reads it. Anyone can search it to verify what I said. psik
Keep running psik. The fact the only thing you responded to was a direct refutation of your claim no school had looked at the issue only proves just how weak your case is. The strengths and weaknesses of their work is immaterial. I put it out there as direct refutation of your claims. Not that being shown you are wrong will change what you post, but that is a different matter.
So what does Fangbeer's legitimate question about you reading work you are denying have to do with him being smart about computers? Or are you just using any excuse to insult others? Of course you're not going to read it. People don't like reading things that refute their claims and expose their claims for the lies and childish ignorance that they are. Everyone else apparently understands the fact that once a building of that scale and size starts to collapse, trying to figure out the exact weights isn't going to matter one bit. You're dealing with weights and forces that are far beyond the design tolerances of the building. It doesn't take a genius to understand that a floor designed for a maximum capacity of 250 pounds per square foot isn't going to hold up to many tens of thousands of tons of material crashing down on it.
Nor is your inability ours. If you had the proof, you wouldn't be here. Hence your presence impeaches all that you say.
ROFL You keep throwing around those words PROOF and PROVE and yet the paper you linked to says at the very top THEORY. Don't you know the difference between a PROOF and a THEORY. Theories have to be PROVEN. psik
Careful. This a violation of TOS. Don't tell me what the paper mentions or doesn't mention when you didn't read it. It's 32 pages. Try reading it.
Wrong yet again. I didn't say the paper PROVED anything other than your claim no school had looked into the issue was a lie. Once again you've been reduced to nit picking details instead of addressing the issues you've brought up. Unfortunately for you and your credibility, you can't even nit pick the details correctly.
Do you? Oops. I guess not. Scientific theories can never be proven. They can accurately describe observed phenomenon, and they can accurately predict future results, but you cannot prove them.
This paper explains exactly what I was trying to explain to you in the counter knowledge forum. Mass can't hold itself in the air. It isn't magically suspended by its own inertia. It has to be held in place with a structure. That structure's strength is highly dependent on its shape. If the shape of the structure changed due to buckling then there was nothing to hold the mass in the air.
Ha ha ha! Good one!!! Sorry for overestimating your intelligence in thinking you'd know what I meant by just responding "Court Reports?" to your following post: "Given his record, both online and in the court reports, I'm surprised anyone would take him seriously.. " Let me carefully type it out again so it doesn't confuse. What do these "court reports" say about his alleged actions? They are basically the same people. Give em' a call!
They may be the same people, but Hannibal is reporting what they say. You report what you think they are hiding. The difference is huge if one is going to be honest about it.
How do you know Hannibal isn't lying? He doesn't have a very good track record around here with all of his wild unsubstantiated claims.
Hmmmm..... let's see. What is the more realistic scenario? Everyone but suede is lying or suede is lying. It doesn't take much brain power to figure out that Hannibal championing what was said and what was meant is true and your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims are false. If the people you're pretending back you up are really backing you up, where are they? Why haven't they gone public with what you claim? Oh right. They're not bat(*)(*)(*)(*) crazy insane.
Who's "everyone"? What am I "lying" about? The only thing he is a champion of is making wild and unsubstantiated claims. You wanna associate with people like that?! And "what was said..." -- who's word do we have to take for that again? Which of my claims are false? No one has proved any false yet. Who are you speaking of?
Sorry. Forgot I have to hold your hand through everything. You claim you and Hannibal use the same sources. Hannibal and the sources say one thing. You pretend the sources say another. Either Hannible and the sources are right or you are. Get it now? If not, maybe you should try a new forum. Hannibal is not the one making wild and unsubstantiated claims. He is re-stating what was reported. YOU are the one making the wild and unsubstantiated claims in that you are saying everyone else is lying and you are the one telling the truth and you have no evidence to back up your claims. Trying to pretend that since nobody can provide you with sufficent evidence to convince you of parts of the plane being buried makes all your other bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims true is just jackassed claims, nothing more. You claim that none of the plane was buried regardless of what was reported and with no evidence that what was reported was wrong. Do try and keep up. You're embarassing yourself! You made the claim your sources are the same as Hannibals. Get it now? Probably not.
I said "They are basically the same people." You even quoted it. And I never said they said anything. I just said that basically the sources are the same. Maybe you should try some new reading glasses. Are you so naive? He claims to have evidence basically no one else has (or else it would have been released on the internet by now) that he says will put this conspiracy theory to rest, but WON'T release this claimed evidence. His claim is wild AND unsubstantiated. Where did I say that? Why do you keep lying about that? http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...ly-lacking-flight-93-mostly-buried-claim.html Nobody has really produced any! Except that the reports have extremely little proof to back them up! Look who's talking! Basically the same. Obviously you didn't.
Every single one of my claims and statements has been sourced. If someone is too ignorant, lazy or married to their agenda to follow up on those sources, that is their problem. I understand that a few will squeeze their eyes closed and whine: "I can't see it! The claim is unsubstantiated!" but their credibility has already been shown to be lacking.
Notice Hannibal didn't say: "Every single one of my claims and statements has been [proven]." And speaking of sources for your wild and unsubstantiated claims... Where's your "source" to this wild claim of yours about these alleged "court reports"? Funny how you seem to have evidence no one else has. Ironic comment of the century! No, we can't see your proof of your claims because you've never provided any, hence "unsubstantiated."
Once again, it is impossible to prove anything to someone unwilling to let go their paranoid delusions and look at the facts. He has supplied sources and evidence that you have turned your nose up to, but have failed to refute. Once you can refute all the witnesses, all the photographic evidence, and all the reports, THEN you can claim he has unsubstantiated "proof" Pretending that since you don't wish to believe his evidence that it doesn't exist doesn't make the evidence disappear. So when are you going to get around to refuting all the evidence you like to pretend doesn't exist?
To prove my claims are true, all one has to do is contact the sources I provided. The lazy and the dishonest will refuse to do this simple task. To provide the court reports, I'd have to reveal his real name. I've been warned to not do this again. Beyond that, killtown's criminal record is not part of this topic. Suffice it to say; he's worthless. The people who worked the scene, both professionals and volunteers, all tell the same story. Contact them and hear it for yourself.
