My hobby is getting more interesting ... amateur troofers are now smarter than the professional troofers ... have you paid for AE911's latest report? ...
Why should we care if it was? The NIST cannot specify the total amount of concrete in two 1300 foot buildings in a 10,000 page report and most "twoofers" don't notice in FIFTEEN YEARS. But it is a personal demon. Potential Energy is a Personal Demon. ROFL psik PS - Nah, this can't possibly be a physics problem. I went to one of Richard Gage's dog and pony shows in May of 2008. I asked him about the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers. First he looked at me like I had grown a second head. Then he said that the NIST was not giving out accurate blueprints. Have you ever met him?
What people don't seem to notice is that I have not been talking about a CD. I have been talking about figuring out the physics of whether or not airliners could destroy the Twin Towers. But you can't figure that out if you do not understand how buildings that big and heavy must be designed to hold themselves up. Until we determine that airliners could not have done it, talking about CD makes no sense. If airliners could not do it then CD is the most probable next cause. Of course some people go in for nukes and energy beam weapons. Admittedly the way The Spire seems to turn into dust is certainly curious. But since steel had to hold up the weight at every level and concrete contributed weight at every level then knowing the steel and concrete distributions seems to be necessary data. I have already demonstrated that weight and its distribution would affect the motion of the structure after impact. psik
I don't know about "we" but I would personally be interested in a connection between the alleged collapse of the Plasco building to the WTC towers IF there was one. The NIST hasn't specified anything genuine relative to its mandate other than deception. What "twoofers" notice or not is irrelevant, I'm not interested in manufactured group-think classifications used to silence OCT skeptics. I was referring to the above term as a personal demon not PE. No. Not directly. You have it backwards though, the BOP is on the US government to prove they can. Once again, the logic is backwards. The claimant has not proven its claim that airliners have taken the buildings down in the manner seen on videos (collapsed naturally and totally in seconds as a result of damage by planes and fire). So one only has available what has been proven to take down steel framed skyscrapers (unless and until proven otherwise). Agree, that is a phenomenon worth investigating.
That is why I have referred to this as the 9/11 Religion. It ain't Logical. When has anyone proven the existence of any god. Have you noticed a shortage of churches or temples on this planet? So the problem is getting the illogical to think. That is why I have proposed a simulation that removes 5 levels, 91 thru 95, from the north tower. Drop 15 stories 60 feet onto 90 stories and simulate what happens. No airliner, no fire, but more damage than both could have done. If it comes nowhere near complete collapse then we have a really LOGICAL problem. psik
Interesting analogy as it applies to rabid OCT defenders. You have about as much chance of that as getting the religious to think. The above might work to show the OCT "collapse" theory can't be reproduced because physics prohibits it and is therefore unverifiable. In conjunction with that simulation, I have an alternate proposal. Create two LEGITIMATE computer simulations for each tower using the exact blueprints. Simulation A uses planes/damage/fires (for the twins) and damage/fires (for WTC7). And Simulation B in addition to planes/damage/fires uses controlled demolition of the 3 towers. The objective is to see which results in the closest match to the destruction of the 3 towers (including timing). Simulation A will need to let the timing work itself out naturally and the Simulation B timing can be programmed as a parameter because that's how CDs work. I'm sure most reasonable people can take an educated guess which simulation will come closest. Regardless, none of the above changes the fact that the BOP is always on the claimant.
Didn't watch the video but I thought this was interesting. Frontline a CIA funded show is basically saying the Russian government is responsible for their 9/11 event. Their case they make is founded on the clean up of the mess. Saying Russia got rid of the wreckage immediately. Didn't America do this the wreckage of the World Trade Center? They shipped the steal off to be recycled in China. So basically in their accusations against Russia, the CIA admitted it must have been an inside job. Logic says so. What's good for the goose is good for the gander
False flags are quite common with many governments. One of the similarities is that the first thing they do immediately after the event is to get rid of the evidence as quickly as possible. In the US this is a major felony but if the government does it, no one is prosecuted. "Everything Hitler did was legal." - Martin Luther King Jr.
All of which is just conspiracy theory rhetoric with no basis in fact. Once more your entire argument is you hate government and you never present facts or evidence because facts and evidence prove you wrong
My view is the same boredom that discussion of Northwood has elicited for YEARS. The facts are more important than my view. The fact is it is irrelevant. It is not about 911 and it was suggestion which was never implemented
Good humor there about religion. I have often called it (the zealous defense of the OCT) the Church of The Poisoned Mind, from the old Boy George song.
So you don't think it's bogus. It's relevant because it shows that the government is capable of planning false flag operations. No objective person would try to play this down.
Showing it is capable is irrelevant. Anyone or any organization is capable of lying or deceiving others. Any government has ALWAYS been CAPABLE of false flag operations It has no bearing whatsoever on specifically if and when they did so. There is nothing to play down and only someone refusing to think objectively would consider it evidence of ANYTHING
You're being a little vague here. There's a difference between having the ability to do something and actually writing a plan on how to do it.
Writing a plan to do something does not prove it was done. Especially in this case since the plan is not even about 911 or bears any resemblance to it.
Well actually, it DOES have some bearing on the issue. The US government over many decades has established a pattern of behavior, and that pattern involves deception. It lies about this, it lies about that, it obeys what laws it wants and breaks what laws it wants. In short, it is the governmental version of a sociopath. The false flag angle has been used many times. Pattern of behavior.
Provide evidence for this pattern and. Provide evidence of such a false flag angle used MANY TIMES. No pattern just historical revisionism
Just as a rainbow cannot be accurately described to a person born blind, I cannot describe the ample evidence of false flags over the years because you are in denial, a form of mental blindness, as to the real nature of your government. A man sees what he wants to see, and disregards the rest, to borrow from Simon & Garfunkel.
wrong. The fact is evidence of this sort can be provided to anyone if it existed and the fact that I requested it proves I am open to it. The fact is you have no evidence because your assertion is false. It is not on me it is on you and you failed you are proven wrong and it is fact. There is no such pattern period. You cannot provide evidence of false being used many times because you simply pulled that statement out of your ass and it is not true and THAT IS proven. You evasion is merely proof of your own weakness and the fact that you are wrong. And you know it.
Well put! Only a sociopathic government would seize power through murder and then stage an ongoing cover up that extends to this day.
Except there is no proof of his claim or yours. Eleuthera has been proven wrong by his inability to provide evidence of such a patter much as you have been every time with your failure to produce evidence. There is no evidence the government committed murder or seized power with JFK or with 911