Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Previous 1 2 … 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 … 21 22 Next

Topic: Was 9/11 an 'inside job?' - Poll
Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sat 10/27/12 10:53 AM
I would move, but I prefer to die in my own country.

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Sat 10/27/12 10:56 AM
I would move, but I prefer to die in my own country. But,in all your posts you claim,that it isn't yours?

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sat 10/27/12 10:58 AM
I would move, but I prefer to die in my own country. But,in all your posts you claim,that it isn't yours? Where did I ever claim that? I was born in America.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sat 10/27/12 10:59 AM
You might say that I am a native American.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sat 10/27/12 11:08 AM
This is for people to read and evaluate on their own. Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics By David Chandler B.S., physics, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA M.A., education, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA M.S., mathematics, California Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA Running Title: Downward Acceleration of WTC The roof line of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared. A downward acceleration of the falling upper block implies a downward net force, which requires that the upward resistive force was less than the weight of the block. Therefore the downward force exerted by the falling block must also have been less than its weight. Since the lower section of the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper block, the reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to crush the lower section of the building. Therefore the falling block could not have acted as a "pile driver." The downward acceleration of the upper block can be understood as a consequence of, not the cause of, the disintegration of the lower section of the building. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf This has to be a hoax. No-one would put their name to such garbled nonsense. No-one with a reputation to defend anyway. What about the paper do you think is "garbled nonsense?" You always criticize but you never actually make any legitimate points about anything.

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Sat 10/27/12 12:59 PM
This is for people to read and evaluate on their own. Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics By David Chandler B.S., physics, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA M.A., education, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA M.S., mathematics, California Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA Running Title: Downward Acceleration of WTC The roof line of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared. A downward acceleration of the falling upper block implies a downward net force, which requires that the upward resistive force was less than the weight of the block. Therefore the downward force exerted by the falling block must also have been less than its weight. Since the lower section of the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper block, the reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to crush the lower section of the building. Therefore the falling block could not have acted as a "pile driver." The downward acceleration of the upper block can be understood as a consequence of, not the cause of, the disintegration of the lower section of the building. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf This has to be a hoax. No-one would put their name to such garbled nonsense. No-one with a reputation to defend anyway. What about the paper do you think is "garbled nonsense?" You always criticize but you never actually make any legitimate points about anything. JB, you always claim you understand when you really don't. Why don't you impress everyone and tell what is wrong with the above quote (that you posted) that the rest of us recognize almost instantly?

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sat 10/27/12 01:03 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Sat 10/27/12 01:08 PM
I have never claimed to understand everything. There is one thing I really don't understand, and that is how anyone can believe the official account of 9-11 and why people who ask questions about it are attacked viciously, fired from jobs, etc. There are too many red flags, and too many unanswered questions. I don't understand the hostility towards people who ask questions and want the truth.

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Sat 10/27/12 02:05 PM
I have never claimed to understand everything. There is one thing I really don't understand, and that is how anyone can believe the official account of 9-11 and why people who ask questions about it are attacked viciously, fired from jobs, etc. There are too many red flags, and too many unanswered questions. I don't understand the hostility towards people who ask questions and want the truth. I just asked you a question and wanted the truth and this is what you come back with? I think you answered your own question.

HotRodDeluxe Joined Sun 05/06/12 Posts: 2743	Sat 10/27/12 02:09 PM
This is for people to read and evaluate on their own. Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics By David Chandler B.S., physics, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA M.A., education, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA M.S., mathematics, California Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA Running Title: Downward Acceleration of WTC The roof line of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared. A downward acceleration of the falling upper block implies a downward net force, which requires that the upward resistive force was less than the weight of the block. Therefore the downward force exerted by the falling block must also have been less than its weight. Since the lower section of the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper block, the reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to crush the lower section of the building. Therefore the falling block could not have acted as a "pile driver." The downward acceleration of the upper block can be understood as a consequence of, not the cause of, the disintegration of the lower section of the building. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf This has to be a hoax. No-one would put their name to such garbled nonsense. No-one with a reputation to defend anyway. What about the paper do you think is "garbled nonsense?" You always criticize but you never actually make any legitimate points about anything. After reading the nonsense you posted, why would I bother reading the paper. Can't you see what is wrong with this rubbish? FFS, you have anything that might be considered scientific?

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sat 10/27/12 02:10 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Sat 10/27/12 02:13 PM
This is for people to read and evaluate on their own. Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics By David Chandler B.S., physics, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA M.A., education, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA M.S., mathematics, California Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA Running Title: Downward Acceleration of WTC The roof line of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared. A downward acceleration of the falling upper block implies a downward net force, which requires that the upward resistive force was less than the weight of the block. Therefore the downward force exerted by the falling block must also have been less than its weight. Since the lower section of the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper block, the reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to crush the lower section of the building. Therefore the falling block could not have acted as a "pile driver." The downward acceleration of the upper block can be understood as a consequence of, not the cause of, the disintegration of the lower section of the building. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf This has to be a hoax. No-one would put their name to such garbled nonsense. No-one with a reputation to defend anyway. What about the paper do you think is "garbled nonsense?" You always criticize but you never actually make any legitimate points about anything. After reading the nonsense you posted, why would I bother reading the paper. Can't you see what is wrong with this rubbish? FFS, you have anything that might be considered scientific? So you just make remarks like that based on nothing at all?? Why do you even bother?

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sat 10/27/12 02:11 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Sat 10/27/12 02:13 PM
I have never claimed to understand everything. There is one thing I really don't understand, and that is how anyone can believe the official account of 9-11 and why people who ask questions about it are attacked viciously, fired from jobs, etc. There are too many red flags, and too many unanswered questions. I don't understand the hostility towards people who ask questions and want the truth. I just asked you a question and wanted the truth and this is what you come back with? I think you answered your own question. Another thing I don't understand is this odd interrogation and your odd "questions."

HotRodDeluxe Joined Sun 05/06/12 Posts: 2743	Sat 10/27/12 02:14 PM Edited by HotRodDeluxe on Sat 10/27/12 02:15 PM
This is for people to read and evaluate on their own. Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics By David Chandler B.S., physics, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA M.A., education, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA M.S., mathematics, California Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA Running Title: Downward Acceleration of WTC The roof line of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared. A downward acceleration of the falling upper block implies a downward net force, which requires that the upward resistive force was less than the weight of the block. Therefore the downward force exerted by the falling block must also have been less than its weight. Since the lower section of the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper block, the reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to crush the lower section of the building. Therefore the falling block could not have acted as a "pile driver." The downward acceleration of the upper block can be understood as a consequence of, not the cause of, the disintegration of the lower section of the building. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf This has to be a hoax. No-one would put their name to such garbled nonsense. No-one with a reputation to defend anyway. What about the paper do you think is "garbled nonsense?" You always criticize but you never actually make any legitimate points about anything. After reading this nonsense, why would I go any further? Do you have anything better than this unscientific gibberish? And as for your ad hominem about me never making legitimate points about anything, please stop telling lies. You just dismiss everything I present with diversions, evasions and a lack of understanding. Clearly, you have no interest in what anyone posits apart from your own point of view. As a result of your poor technique and reasoning skills, I have no interest in pursuing any debate with you, as it has been demonstrated to be an exercise in futility.

HotRodDeluxe Joined Sun 05/06/12 Posts: 2743	Sat 10/27/12 02:16 PM
This is for people to read and evaluate on their own. Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics By David Chandler B.S., physics, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA M.A., education, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA M.S., mathematics, California Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA Running Title: Downward Acceleration of WTC The roof line of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared. A downward acceleration of the falling upper block implies a downward net force, which requires that the upward resistive force was less than the weight of the block. Therefore the downward force exerted by the falling block must also have been less than its weight. Since the lower section of the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper block, the reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to crush the lower section of the building. Therefore the falling block could not have acted as a "pile driver." The downward acceleration of the upper block can be understood as a consequence of, not the cause of, the disintegration of the lower section of the building. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf This has to be a hoax. No-one would put their name to such garbled nonsense. No-one with a reputation to defend anyway. What about the paper do you think is "garbled nonsense?" You always criticize but you never actually make any legitimate points about anything. After reading the nonsense you posted, why would I bother reading the paper. Can't you see what is wrong with this rubbish? FFS, you have anything that might be considered scientific? So you just make remarks like that based on nothing at all?? Why do you even bother? It is based on the rubbish YOU posted. You clearly have no understanding of what you consider to be evidence.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sat 10/27/12 02:16 PM
Your opinion on the link is noted then, even if you didn't read it. However, I'm not going to make this personal as you seem to want to do.

HotRodDeluxe Joined Sun 05/06/12 Posts: 2743	Sat 10/27/12 02:19 PM Edited by HotRodDeluxe on Sat 10/27/12 02:23 PM
Your opinion on the link is noted then, even if you didn't read it. However, I'm not going to make this personal as you seem to want to do. You already did. So, is the preamble to your link your own words then? No, it is from the paper. This is from the paper as well: Explicitly invoking Newton's Third Law puts this result in another light. Since the forces in the interaction are equal and opposite, the falling block exerts a force of only 36% of its weight on the lower section of the building. In other words, as long as the falling block is accelerating downward we have the counter-intuitive result that the force it exerts on the lower section of the building is significantly less than its static weight. It is difficult to imagine how an upper block exerting a force of only 36% of its static weight could crush the larger, stronger, undamaged lower section of the building to the ground, when the building, at any level, was designed to support several times the weight above it. Assuming a safety factor of between 3 and 5 [12], the observed acceleration implies that close to 90% of the strength of the lower section of the building must have been eliminated by forces other than the supposed "pile driver," suggesting that some sort of controlled demolition was at work. So, can you tell what this idiot missed?

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sat 10/27/12 02:23 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Sat 10/27/12 02:24 PM
Your opinion on the link is noted then, even if you didn't read it. However, I'm not going to make this personal as you seem to want to do. You already did. So, is the preamble to your link your own words then? I am not making it personal any more than I would with anyone else's remark. When I ask for an opinion I would like to see a more intelligent response than "this has to be a hoax. No-one would put their name to such garbled nonsense. No-one with a reputation to defend anyway." That does not really speak much to the actual report. (especially if you didn't even read it.) Oh well.

HotRodDeluxe Joined Sun 05/06/12 Posts: 2743	Sat 10/27/12 02:25 PM Edited by HotRodDeluxe on Sat 10/27/12 02:29 PM
Your opinion on the link is noted then, even if you didn't read it. However, I'm not going to make this personal as you seem to want to do. You already did. So, is the preamble to your link your own words then? I am not making it personal any more than I would with anyone else's remark. When I ask for an opinion I would like to see a more intelligent response than "this has to be a hoax. No-one would put their name to such garbled nonsense. No-one with a reputation to defend anyway." That does not really speak much to the actual report. Oh well. Because you don't understand my point is not my problem, it's yours. If I tried to explain it to you it would take the usual three pages and then you'd just dismiss my answer and evade any questions, so why would I bother? Oh well.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sat 10/27/12 02:30 PM
Your opinion on the link is noted then, even if you didn't read it. However, I'm not going to make this personal as you seem to want to do. You already did. So, is the preamble to your link your own words then? No, it is from the paper. This is from the paper as well: Explicitly invoking Newton's Third Law puts this result in another light. Since the forces in the interaction are equal and opposite, the falling block exerts a force of only 36% of its weight on the lower section of the building. In other words, as long as the falling block is accelerating downward we have the counter-intuitive result that the force it exerts on the lower section of the building is significantly less than its static weight. It is difficult to imagine how an upper block exerting a force of only 36% of its static weight could crush the larger, stronger, undamaged lower section of the building to the ground, when the building, at any level, was designed to support several times the weight above it. Assuming a safety factor of between 3 and 5 [12], the observed acceleration implies that close to 90% of the strength of the lower section of the building must have been eliminated by forces other than the supposed "pile driver," suggesting that some sort of controlled demolition was at work. So, can you tell what this idiot missed? No, why don't you explain it to me.

Lpdon Joined Thu 02/25/10 Posts: 18772	Sat 10/27/12 07:37 PM
You are missing the whole point. I would think that attacking all the messengers by calling them "clowns" should be getting old by now. and The number of professionals who are debunking the official story are growing and growing and nothing can be done about that. and It is inevitable. The chain of events for unveiling the truth of this corrupt system we are living in cannot be stopped now. and Bankers are in deep deep trouble. They cannot save themselves with false flags and terrorism. People are getting wise to their game. ** As far as your own qualifications, I would not know anything about that since you are basically anonymous. The people I refer to are at least real people with real names and verifiable qualifications. They are brave enough to put themselves out there and say what they think and I respect that. And they have to subject themselves to countless abuse from nameless and anonymous unknowns all over cyber space. You are missing the point. You post lies constantly and try to sell them as the truth. You don't understand any of the facts so you wouldn't know the truth if it hit you on the head. Your credibility and that of the clowns you post is zero as all have been debunked. You say that many professionals are joining your bandwagon which is just another lie. I am a professional and I know of no one who does anything but laugh at the crap you sell as the truth. Unlike you, quite a few minglers know me outside of cyberspace so my credibility isn't in question. I think everyone on here knows your qualifications, I just don't think anyone want's to realize you know more then most of us on this subject because it doesn't fall in line with their twisted world view.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sat 10/27/12 07:38 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Sat 10/27/12 07:40 PM
It is clear he does not know as much as he claims. He simply is not very convincing and never has been.