In Support Of The Twin Towers Collapsing Due To Fire .

double post. I took the liberty of sending you a decent list of sources. So now, finally, you can stop saying things like "there is no science that supports the OS LIES".

[edit on 8-6-2010 by iamcpc]

reply to post by iamcpc


Most people know that office fires and jet fuel did not bring down the WTC. BTW, what brought down WTC 7 jet fuel! Again there is no credble science that supports the OS lies.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by iamcpc

 

Most people know that office fires and jet fuel did not bring down the WTC. BTW, what brought down WTC 7 jet fuel!

Again there is no credble science that supports the OS lies.

This post is about the twin towers. I will never know what caused the collapse of WTC7.

So the teams of professors at MIT and their INDEPENDANT investigation into the collapse of the twin towers with detailed physics explaining the speed and force of the aircraft and the amount of damage caused by the aircraft is not credible science?

So the teams of professors at Perdue and Northwestern doing a similar investigation is not credible science?

I guess you can never lose a debate ever all you have to do is say that whatever evidence, experts, science, or even teams of experts are not credible(or liars, or part of the conspiracy).

I don't know when professors like steven jones became credible and the teams of professors that I have listed are suddenly not credible. Then again I am not qualified to determine what expert professors and the papers they publish are or are not credible. I guess you are though. You're so qualified that you can say that all the evidence that weakens your hypothesis (or even supports an alternate hypothesis) is not credible.

I wish I could do that. I wish i could just blindly dismiss all the evidence that supports the OS theories like you can. For that matter I wish I could blindly dismiss the evidence that supports the various truther theories. It would almost be easier than knowing that there is a possibility that our government was involved in the murder of thousands of civillians.

Well I really admire you for that. I see it a lot in both truther and debunkers. The unique ability to say "everyone that does not support my own personal hypothesis is not credible, a liar, or part of the conspiracy".

So do you have a source that says the teams of professors at MIT, Northwestern, and Perdue are not credible? Or when you said "there is no credble science that supports the OS" was that your 100% un-expert opinion?


[edit on 8-6-2010 by iamcpc]

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by iamcpc

 

Most people know that office fires and jet fuel did not bring down the WTC. BTW, what brought down WTC 7 jet fuel!

Again there is no credble science that supports the OS lies.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by impressme]

Impressme, just so we are clear on this...

It's your position that the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, the Journal of Structural Engineering, the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Civil Engineering staff at the most prestigious engineering university on the planet, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as all the other universities engineering staffs' who contributed to the papers iamcpc and myself cited above.......are all "not credible science"?

That's your position? Really?

[edit on 9-6-2010 by 767doctor]

reply to post by 767doctor

Impressme, just so we are clear on this...

Does A&E support them?
Second line...

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by 767doctor

 

Impressme, just so we are clear on this...

Does A&E support them?
Second line...

Is that a yes or a no?

I don't think you answered his question:

It's your position that the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, the Journal of Structural Engineering, the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Civil Engineering staff at the most prestigious engineering university on the planet, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as all the other universities engineering staffs' who contributed to the papers iamcpc and myself cited above.......are all "not credible science"?

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by 767doctor

 

Impressme, just so we are clear on this...

Does A&E support them?
Second line...

This a plain admission that you have zero ability, nor the logic necessary to be able to make your own evaluation.

Instead, you rely solely on the opinion of those that agree with your delusion that the cd tripe is real.

How sad it truly is that you have zero ability to make your own determination. I guess Dave is correct. You are getting mind raped by charlatans.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by 767doctor

 

Impressme, just so we are clear on this...

Does A&E support them?
Second line...

This a plain admission that you have zero ability, nor the logic necessary to be able to make your own evaluation.

Instead, you rely solely on the opinion of those that agree with your delusion that the cd tripe is real.

How sad it truly is that you have zero ability to make your own determination. I guess Dave is correct. You are getting mind raped by charlatans.

The delusion is not that the CD tripe is real. It might be there has been evidence presented to support it. The delusion is that there are no credible sciences that support the OS theories.

The delusion is that the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, the Journal of Structural Engineering, the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Civil Engineering staff at the most prestigious engineering university on the planet, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as all the other universities engineering staffs' who contributed to the papers cited above.......are all "not credible science"?




too funny

i still thnk that the planes were holograms of some sort

Originally posted by teosty
i still thnk that the planes were holograms of some sort

A hologram that left an airplane sized hole in the building? A hologram of an airplane when that kind of technology does not exist today 9 years after the attack?

If you're going to believe that it was top secret super high technology then at least thing it was something cool like the death star. If someone says it couldn't be the death star because it's the size of a moon and we would have seen it then just say it was a death star with a cloaking device.

reply to post by iamcpc

Originally posted by teosty
i still thnk that the planes were holograms of some sort

This loon has posted the same thing to every active thread on the board

Suffice it to say it will be his last posting.....

ALPHA MIKE FOXTROT

reply to post by thedman


He could at least be clever with his top secret future technology and say the death star!

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by iamcpc

 

Originally posted by teosty
i still thnk that the planes were holograms of some sort

This loon has posted the same thing to every active thread on the board

Suffice it to say it will be his last posting.....

ALPHA MIKE FOXTROT

IOW, a seagull poster:

One who fliesin drops crap all over the place, and flies away again, never to be seen.....

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by 767doctor

 

Impressme, just so we are clear on this...

Does A&E support them?
Second line...

Who said anything about A&E? Just answer. It's a very simple question.

You said that there is no credible science behind the OS. When you say that, you are also saying all the journals I mentioned aren't credible as they have released numerous peer reviewed studies which support the OS, and none which support the truth movement.

So, I'll ask again: is it YOUR contention that these highly respected engineering journals aren't credible? Be aware that answer of "yes" to that question will reduce your credibility to absolute zero; appropriately so.

Originally posted by 767doctor

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by 767doctor

 

Impressme, just so we are clear on this...

Does A&E support them?
Second line...

Who said anything about A&E? Just answer. It's a very simple question.

You said that there is no credible science behind the OS. When you say that, you are also saying all the journals I mentioned aren't credible as they have released numerous peer reviewed studies which support the OS, and none which support the truth movement.

So, I'll ask again: is it YOUR contention that these highly respected engineering journals aren't credible? Be aware that answer of "yes" to that question will reduce your credibility to absolute zero; appropriately so.

The answer is obviously yes because after being presented with those sources he moves on to another post and says:


"Some of us have done years of research and the nonsense you are supporting has no credible sciences into support itself, nothing."

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by 767doctor

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by 767doctor

 

Impressme, just so we are clear on this...

Does A&E support them?
Second line...

Who said anything about A&E? Just answer. It's a very simple question.

You said that there is no credible science behind the OS. When you say that, you are also saying all the journals I mentioned aren't credible as they have released numerous peer reviewed studies which support the OS, and none which support the truth movement.

So, I'll ask again: is it YOUR contention that these highly respected engineering journals aren't credible? Be aware that answer of "yes" to that question will reduce your credibility to absolute zero; appropriately so.

The answer is obviously yes because after being presented with those sources he moves on to another post and says:


"Some of us have done years of research and the nonsense you are supporting has no credible sciences into support itself, nothing."

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yeah I saw that. I guess some people would prefer to live in their own little worlds, where reality rarely, if ever, intervenes.

Originally posted by 767doctor

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by 767doctor

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by 767doctor

 

Impressme, just so we are clear on this...

Does A&E support them?
Second line...

Who said anything about A&E? Just answer. It's a very simple question.

You said that there is no credible science behind the OS. When you say that, you are also saying all the journals I mentioned aren't credible as they have released numerous peer reviewed studies which support the OS, and none which support the truth movement.

So, I'll ask again: is it YOUR contention that these highly respected engineering journals aren't credible? Be aware that answer of "yes" to that question will reduce your credibility to absolute zero; appropriately so.

The answer is obviously yes because after being presented with those sources he moves on to another post and says:


"Some of us have done years of research and the nonsense you are supporting has no credible sciences into support itself, nothing."

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yeah I saw that. I guess some people would prefer to live in their own little worlds, where reality rarely, if ever, intervenes.

Even after this discussion and the sources cited to him he goes to another post and says:

"the nonsense (OS) you are supporting has no CREDIBLE sciences into support itself, nothing."

Even after we have shown him those sources. So I say that if we list our sources and he continues to say there are no credible sciences that support the OS then he does not think our sources are credible


www.abovetopsecret.com...