| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
paul wright
Moderator
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
You're wrong because you are dependent on reductionist science using false hypotheses, around which supposedly scientific explanations are built to justify the original hypotheses
The earth was once flat and the planets sun and stars circulated around it
Proven fact to scientific upholders of the establishment paradigm
You people are craven in your dependency on establishment science delivered to you by your betters
You have nothing better to offer than the brittling of souls
Soon you'll be left chattering amongst yourselves here and will hopefully go back to your sneering malicious and mendacious jref world where you can howl at the moon in perpetuity
'Night
_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dh wrote: | You're wrong because you are dependent on reductionist science using false hypotheses, around which supposedly scientific explanations are built to justify the original hypotheses
The earth was once flat and the planets sun and stars circulated around it
Proven fact to scientific upholders of the establishment paradigm
You people are craven in your dependency on establishment science delivered to you by your betters
You have nothing better to offer than the brittling of souls
Soon you'll be left chattering amongst yourselves here and will hopefully go back to your sneering malicious and mendacious jref world where you can howl at the moon in perpetuity
'Night |
So are you saying that HALON gas is still legal for use in fire suppression systems? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:39 pm Post subject: Glutton for punishment |
|
|
This is like kicking a puppy to be honest but;
Err Chubb say the phase out date was 2003, get a calendar.
Accoring to the US EPA; NEW Halon systems were illegal to fit after the ruling but in fact existing systems were perfectly legal to operate. You should READ your sources
The pentagon photos are listed as body remains found inside pentagon.
As all but 5 passengers were apparently (officially) DNA identified the gov would know who they were.
However your photos are listed as found inside building, NOT named OR listed as passengers. (ie prob one of the 100+ construction workers killed)
Thus in fact the gov listed no evidence they were passengers.
You have cheered me up NO END tonight chaps!
Another sucessful credibility suicide from the twin geniuses.
Keep up the good work, its been great fun!
_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
President Eisenhower 1961 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:54 pm Post subject: Re: Glutton for punishment |
|
|
| Snowygrouch wrote: | This is like kicking a puppy to be honest but;
Err Chubb say the phase out date was 2003, get a calendar.
Accoring to the US EPA; NEW Halon systems were illegal to fit after the ruling but in fact existing systems were perfectly legal to operate. You should READ your sources |
You said there were companies around the world that fitted HALON systems. I showed this was FALSE.
HALON systems are used to protect mainframes. The WTC was not one giant mainframe room. Therefore the idea that they would've put out the wtc fires is FALSE
| Quote: | | The pentagon photos are listed as body remains found inside pentagon. |
Where do you think the plane went?
| Quote: | As all but 5 passengers were apparently (officially) DNA identified the gov would know who they were.
However your photos are listed as found inside building, NOT named OR listed as passengers. (ie prob one of the 100+ construction workers killed)
Thus in fact the gov listed no evidence they were passengers. |
Why would the government want, or need to name the individual body parts? How taumatic would it be for the families to see a photo that basically says "This is all that was left of your dad"?
| Quote: | You have cheered me up NO END tonight chaps!
Another sucessful credibility suicide from the twin geniuses.
Keep up the good work, its been great fun! |
So you've not answered any of my points then. Well done. Where's all this flurry of engineering? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry I have no idea what you just said,
Please say again?
_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
President Eisenhower 1961 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:14 pm Post subject: Re: Glutton for punishment |
|
|
| Snowygrouch wrote: | This is like kicking a puppy to be honest but;
Err Chubb say the phase out date was 2003, get a calendar.
Accoring to the US EPA; NEW Halon systems were illegal to fit after the ruling but in fact existing systems were perfectly legal to operate. You should READ your sources
|
You claimed that HALON systems were in use at the WTC. I said that HALON was illegal, which is currently the case, although you denied this, so I posted the Chubb link to prove you wrong.
HALON systems are used to protect computer mainframes, and they are restricted to operate only in those rooms where mainframes reside. They would not have extinguished the WTC fires because if they had've operated, they would've only extinguished fires in server rooms, assuming the room was still intact after the plane impact.
| Quote: | The pentagon photos are listed as body remains found inside pentagon.
As all but 5 passengers were apparently (officially) DNA identified the gov would know who they were.
However your photos are listed as found inside building, NOT named OR listed as passengers. (ie prob one of the 100+ construction workers killed)
Thus in fact the gov listed no evidence they were passengers. |
You asked for pictures of bodies, I gave you pictures of bodies. Bodies found admist plane wreckage.
| Quote: | You have cheered me up NO END tonight chaps!
Another sucessful credibility suicide from the twin geniuses.
Keep up the good work, its been great fun! |
You've focused on the fire point that I made. I also ruined all your other arguments. Please show me where I am wrong on those too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like weasels
Do YOU?
See the pointy ears! 
Note the cunning eyes! 
Awe the furry tail! 
_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
President Eisenhower 1961 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Snowygrouch wrote: | I like weasels
Do YOU?
See the pointy ears!
Note the cunning eyes!
Awe the furry tail! |
Refute my arguments, engineer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paul wright
Moderator
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dh wrote: | No - the Halon gas argument is irrelevant
Like I said
'Night |
I didn't bring it up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | Snowygrouch wrote: | Wonderful.
At last a reasonable response, much better than I have previously recieved.
Thankyou.
Since you ask for a general justification rather than an answer on specific points this will take a certain amount of time as its a fairly broad subject.
We seem to be getting somewhere, this is progress.
I could really do with a ream of paper but I dont have one so here goes. Since I suggested an engineering discussion I will concentrate on those points ALONE.
1: Structural steel is a fairly ductile brand of steel, there ought to be a twisted mass of girders instead of a pile of short sections. In short to actually cause a girder to fracture would require massive forces which would generally result in very large strain figures to an actual failure. |
[img]http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/6240/image5za0.jpg
[/img]
Large sections. buckling, bending etc.
| Quote: |
4: Symetry of failure in WTC7: I think ANY engineer must agree that for any structure to fall vertically downwards that really all (or at least the vast majority) of significant structural members must have failed simultainuously (or at least effectively so). This is highly puzzling in this case as the visable damage in terms of debris impact and fire damage is notably asymetric. Any object attempting to move in any direction will always follow the path of least resistance (hence why insulation works in electrical circuits, perhaps not a brilliant analogy but it is correct). |
Look at http://www.implosionworld.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208- 8-06.pdf
Explosives engineers determine no explosives were used in any building
| Quote: | 5: Failure of sprinker and fire control systems in the WTC. Indeed according to the NIST report the sprinklers likely failed due to massive pressure loss as the aircraft probably punctured the supply riser.
However this IGNORES the fact that there were in fact about 20,000 gallons in water tanks in the buildings. This includes tanks in the roof.
According to schematics of the sprinker pipework I posess the tanks are able to supply the system from 4 separate pipes vertically down. Hence Bernollious equation (wrong spelling I know) would still provide substancial pressure just from difference in height regardless of the pressurized mains supply being cut off. Since we know the fires were of a magnitude small enough that a firefighter thought them dampable with water we might ask why the sprinkers didnt work. this is quite without asking why the CO2 or HAYLON systems did not work.
|
For the sprinklers to work the pipes have to be intact. Being hit by a plane tends to ruin pipes. The sprinklers were designed for office fires, not jet fuel fires. CO2 systems would've killed anyone left alive in the towers, and that's not a desirable outcome, and HALON is not used becuase it is an ozone depleting chemical.
| Quote: | 6: The speed of the collapses. Especially in terms of WTC7 which is far easier to time accurately than WTC1 and2.
s=ut+0.5at sq.
Gives us about the same time as the fall +/- 10% this is highly irregular as we have very large masses present in terms of floors,walls, and internal columns not accounted for. Again in terms of inertial mass it takes TIME for any mass to begin moving regardless of means. Historical data (never happened before) and the fact the OFFICAL NIST report states this fire hypothesis has only a very low probability of occurance again gives us cause for concern here. The speed is just not practical if 90% of the superstructure is intact. |
The towers did not fall too fast. If you actually time them then you can see this. I know it doesn't sound like much of a counter argument, but seeing as your argument is they fell in X seconds, then the fact they didn't disproves this.
| Quote: |
7: Total destruction: This applies to all WTCs, I HAVE NO ARGUMENT THAT STATES THE BUILDINGS MAY NOT HAVE SUFFERED SOME FORM OF STRUCTURAL FAILURE DUE TO PLANE IMPACT!
I would not have been surprised at all if the top sections of the WCT caved in a little or maybe even buckled and detatched!
However this does NOT account for the 80% of the TOTALLY UNDAMAGED structure that would be present below being utterly destroyed.
ALL ENGINEERS design structures with a safey factor. Basically (for those who arent engineers) this means if you design an object with A SF of 5 your object will withstand 5 times your maximum anticipated service load. Now in civil engineering this figure may vary but is generally between 5 and 10.
So in other words the UNDAMAGED portions of the buildings would have withstood between 500 and 1000% the loads caused in a state of maximum service load. Now according to my lecturer this would often mean calculating the service load by calculating the load caused by every floor being at maximum capacity (in terms of body count) while experiencing high winds.
So the fact that the vast majority of undamaged building virtually evaporated in seconds is very ODD to me.
This is expecially true in view of the fact that the clever chap Yamasaki made the core colums taper in thickness so that they would be far thicker at the base than at the top. Obviously in view that the lower loads at the top (less mass above) required less support.
This also adds weight to the argument that the collapse if it occured at all should not have occured at the rate it did or be able to destroy the lower sections. |
You fail to take into account the fact that the building was deisgned for static loading vertically. The only dynamic load was wind forces which acted horizontally. Buildings are designed with safety factors in mind but it's hard to design a building that withstands collapsing on itself.
| Quote: | 8: Loose Change is WRONG!
Steel does not need to get anywhere near melting point to fail when stressed. HOWEVER the official theory of thermal expansion causing the failure of the floor trusses in the foor above from underneath heating makes me raise an eyebrow.
Now for starters the following problems with this theory occur:
8a: The beams were fireproofed
8b:Even though I`m certain a fair bit of insulation was blasted off in impact again we get back to this problem of aysmetric damage causuing symetrical behaviour! How likely is it that the plane blasted off all the insulation over ALL (or 95%) of the beams? Not very, one would expect from the damage report in the NIST report showing the area of plane impact damage on that floor that the damage to fire proofing to be rougly confined to the damage zone. Again we have this problem,
-if the fire insulation was damaged on effectively ONE half of a floor
-if the plane caused 90% of the damage on ONE side of the floor
-if the heating caused truss joint failure because of thermal expansion caused by lack of heatproofing in the damage zone one ONE side of the floor we expect the floor to AT LEAST BEGIN to fail on ONE SIDE!
-Yet all the video evidence I can find shows INITIALLY the collapses are perfectly symetrical.
-I believe the one top section that leans over did so once the collapse was underway. However I`ll have to have a look at the videos again another day, no broadband here!
Now also steel is a farily reasonable conductor of heat (as are all metals) AL, Cu or Beryllium are better but thats by the by. This is in fact ESPECIALLY important in view of the likely exposure of only localised sections of beams to the fire.
Just because we have a FIRE of 600 degrees or even 1000 degrees (which it did not attain by available evidence) does NOT mean the steel is elevated to that temperature. Temperatures are just a relative measurement not some sort of absolute level. Temperature is just a measure of how fast the atoms `dance around` in the atomic structure.
Atoms dancing bumps the ones next to them and then they start moving too. Hence thermal conduction, to get any material capable of conduction very hot THROUGH the entire cross section really requires a "closed system". Or in real terms an OVEN, otherwise the energy escapes (is conducted out or air movement cools the system).
Given hours and hours of exposure to concentrated high temperature fire the beams would have heated significantly but they didnt have hours and hours.
And even then we are just back to if it did how could it create a sytmetrical failure from aysmetric damage!
I think I`ve gone on enough on that point. |
You might want to get that broadband connection. There is clear buckling in one side of the first tower to collapse. This was observed by the NYPD helicopter hovering nearby. They saw the top section of the tower tilting by several degrees, and the inside was ablaze. That's why the helicopter pulled away, because the external wall was buckling. You can see it on several videos, the wall buckles, collapses inawards, and then the top section falls. Because one side has fallen downwards, it rips the other side upwards. The top section then collapses because the support is not designed to take such a load in such a way.
| Quote: | 9: According to anaysis of WTC7 debris there are says S.Jones vapourised sections of steel in the detritus. This is really strange and CANNOT be accounted for reasonably by any other means than an localised event of extremely high pressure and/or extremely high temperatures.
ONE way of explaining that is high explosive, the more destructive grades of which work exactly on that basis (ultra high pressures). Cyclonite for example according to my Enc.Britannica creates a pressure wave of about 9000 feet.sec. And thats a 1960s grade explosive.
Even if you put steel beams in one of our high temp ovens in the labs, heated them to 1400 degrees and beat the hell out of them in a hydraulic press its just going to behave like a warm thermoplastic. Bend, weld itself together under pressure, twist, deform etc. Really vapourization cannot be reproduced without resorting to some really very extreme experimental gear!
At the very least it requires temperatures FAR in excess of those that would likely have been present. |
As stated above, explosives experts, who were present at the WTC7 collapse, deny the use of explosives. They were present around manhatten with seismometers for monitoring other construction work in the city. None registered the use of explosives, and they know what they're looking for.
| Quote: | 10: The vapourization of the pentagon plane. (now dont get me wrong I think A plane hit. Just not of the type alledged). They acually use the word vapourized; its really very poor physics!
Now if you fly a plane into a vast solid block of steel, it will likely come out looking like a large collection of small bits combined with some compressed bits of engine. Its NOT going to vanish.
Now in a high speed impact there is likely to be some small scale localised dinsintegreation on an atomic scale. For example, the extreme tip of the nosecone probably experienced such massive pressures that it utterly vanished, however suggesting that this occured to A WHOLE PLANE is really very silly stuff.
Not least as the pentagon clearly WASNT bahaving like a massive solid block of steel, "cos theres a hole in it see?"
Now evidently there ought to be large bits left over (and there are I believe SOME bits, a wheel, a solitary landing gear, a turbine impeller and 2 sections of airframe about the size of a tea tray). However HOW did they identify all but 5 of the bodies through DNA analysis if 98% of the plane vapourised? |
You didn't see the debris scattered across the lawn, and throughout the pentagon? No-one claims it was vaporised. It was very badly damaged, but that's what happens when a 500mph plane hits a wall. It's not going to come out in large pieces, ever.
| Quote: | I have NEVER seen a picture of a burned seat frame or even a charred fragment of bone?
Certainly there is evidence a plane hit, but I do not see evidence it was a passenger plane. Where are the seats and baggage (even minute bits of)? |
I'm linking to these pictures rather than showing them directly because of the fact that they do show charred corpses. So I'll put a warning here too:
FOLLOWING LINKS SHOW CHARRED CORPSES AND BODY PARTS:
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200042-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200045-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200048-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200047-1.jpg
| Quote: |
The Gov chaps cant have it BOTH ways ok! Either the whole damn thing vapourized except half a dozen little bits or it didnt (by and large) as I said localised vapourization in the main impact points is likely but I`m talking about zones the size of a beer mat.
When the forces transfer the energy is able to be absorbed by deformation see? Only at localised points is disintegration caused by the instant application of large forces unable to be transferred elsewhere concievable.
11: I doubt there was much "steel" in the engines, alot of it is actually nickel "super alloy" which has amazingly good high temperature performance. Probably alot of stainless too. Again err where is it?
Apparently one turbine element is available, I would have imagined we might get corroboration of multiple engines. Unfortunately we cannot tell if the diffuser belongs to that turbine element. |
So when they do show you plane parts, you're still not happy? Super alloys may well have amazing high temperature performance, but there aren't many engines designed to hit a wall at 500mph and survive.
| Quote: | 12: The destruction of evidence, my last point (I cant be arsed to write 15, I think there is enough to get our teeth into here).
That is highly irregular and very un-scientific.
If there had been flight accident reconstructions we could have answers to many questions, even TWA800 which got bloody blown up and sunk was dreged up and put back together in a hanger. |
TWA800 never hit anything at 500mph. Being blown up is not the same as hitting something at highspeed. There's a limit to being able to put things back together. |
Please, refute all of the above points, engineer.
Last edited by Johnny Pixels on Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:55 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This weasel is VERY interesting,
Note his posture 
Study his determined demeanor! 
_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
President Eisenhower 1961 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:26 pm Post subject: Re: Monty Python here we come |
|
|
| Snowygrouch wrote: |
So BRING IT ON!
Give me your best and I`ll confidently cut you both to shreds using materials science, logic, mathematics and physics before your fingers have finished typing.
Come on and HIT ME!! |
And you're posting pictures of weasels? Well done. That's some really fancy logic you've got there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:27 pm Post subject: Weasels! |
|
|
This weasel is a personal favourite of mine. 
Check him OUT!
Prove the weasel wrong....
_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
President Eisenhower 1961 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
YAYY!!!!
you GOT it!
I AM posting pictures of weasels!
I have loads.
Big ones/small ones/mean ones/cool ones.
Want to see more?
_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
President Eisenhower 1961 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JP, JR, CS and Gravy and their ilk
I thought that I would take a minute
To write another little sonnet
The last one seemed to go down quite well
And prompted a response from Chipmunk’s “Bell”,
We are passionate volunteers
Many of us have no fears
However “clever” you think you are
What is it that drives you to “wound” and “scar”?
Your efforts will ultimately fail
Those seeking truth will prevail
They don’t need us, they don’t need you.
Like I’ve said before - truth’s in plain view
As we struggle here "behind the curtain"
They’ll see the “fight” and become quite certain
That what they’ve been told on the nightly news
Is sadly lacking in basic truths
So end your futile struggle now -
Before you leave just take a bow.
You may be doing your job - your hobby
But to us it looks like you’ve “blotted your copy”
Those reading this can now see through
All the things you try to do.
Good night, good luck - I wish you well
What happens next? Only time will tell…
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Last edited by Andrew Johnson on Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Except all they see is the fact that I refuted the arguments made, and then no-one in the 9/11 denial movement had anything to offer but bad poetry and pictures of weasels.
Well done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
WEASEL WEASEL WEASEL WEASEL WEASEL
_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
President Eisenhower 1961 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Snowygrouch wrote: | | WEASEL WEASEL WEASEL WEASEL WEASEL |
Well done, you've blow my arguments out of the water. You truly are a master engineer. I'll phone your university and tell them you don't need to complete the rest of your course, you've already got it all nailed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paul wright
Moderator
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dh wrote: | Topic done
Weasels rule
No more circumlocution |
Ok topic done. I was right. I settle for that. 9/11 wasn't an inside job. I'm glad we agree at last. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paul wright
Moderator
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | Except all they see is the fact that I refuted the arguments made, and then no-one in the 9/11 denial movement had anything to offer but bad poetry and pictures of weasels.
Well done. |
Oh Johnny My Darling,
I claim no ability at writing poetry and verse - being a software engineer and developer, it's actually not my bag. But I have to say this...
You are so poetic, aren't you?
Take care, dude
You'll need something to settle that "rumbling tummy". Milk of magnesia usually works for me.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Last edited by Andrew Johnson on Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dh wrote: | Yeah Piss on ya and your hidebound state
You 're useless in your present perspective |
You want to show me how the points I made were wrong, seeing as the chief engineer here can't seem to manage it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | Except all they see is the fact that I refuted the arguments made, and then no-one in the 9/11 denial movement had anything to offer but bad poetry and pictures of weasels.
Well done. |
Oh Johnny My Darling,
You are so poetic, aren't you? |
Or you could try if you like, take the role of engineer in chief, and smack me down with science and reasoning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | Andrew Johnson wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | Except all they see is the fact that I refuted the arguments made, and then no-one in the 9/11 denial movement had anything to offer but bad poetry and pictures of weasels.
Well done. |
Oh Johnny My Darling,
You are so poetic, aren't you? |
Or you could try if you like, take the role of engineer in chief, and smack me down with science and reasoning. |
Oh dear - exposed tactics again (see picture)
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=13061#13061
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=15509#15509
"Say what you see" (well, almost....)
Round and round - and round it goes...
Where it stops, no one knows...
Abra Abra Cadabra
Abracadabra
(That's the Steve Miller Band....)
So here is the tactic - plainly exposed for ALL to see. Circular Argument. Oh How crass of me to be so blunt as to state what I was hinting at. Just wanted to try and make myself absolutely clear and prove beyond doubt to ANYONE reading what you are doing. OK?
Thanks for your participation in this "exposure" project. You have been a brilliant contender!
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paul wright
Moderator
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Abracadabra
That's the exact name of the game they play
Well suited to an organisation coming from a paedophile children's party magician
Oooh - it twists and squirms and inserts itself in itself doesn't it?
_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gravy
Minor Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 65
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 8:07 am Post subject: Re: Monty Python here we come |
|
|
| Snowygrouch wrote: | I`m loosing my patience here.
I just suggested we appoint all critics to our board of directors and dont ban anyone.
As for ignore the engineering comminity, well you obviously ignored my profile as I`m an undergraduate mechanical engineer in Oxford. I am part of the engineering establishment and am willing to take head on ANY challenge you or anyone else can provide on any mathematical basis (your treading on thin ice there as my maths score was 95% last semester).
So BRING IT ON!
Give me your best and I`ll confidently cut you both to shreds using materials science, logic, mathematics and physics before your fingers have finished typing.
Come on and HIT ME!! |
I would think that curiosity, not intellectual arrogance, would be the hallmark of an undergrad. And please remember that Judy Wood is a mechanical engineer, and she doesn't know boo about structural engineering.
I accept your challenge to "bring it on." At this site is a paper about momentum transfer in the towers by another mechanical engineer, Gordon Ross. http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Please point out its major errors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | Andrew Johnson wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | Except all they see is the fact that I refuted the arguments made, and then no-one in the 9/11 denial movement had anything to offer but bad poetry and pictures of weasels.
Well done. |
Oh Johnny My Darling,
You are so poetic, aren't you? |
Or you could try if you like, take the role of engineer in chief, and smack me down with science and reasoning. |
Oh dear - exposed tactics again (see picture)
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=13061#13061
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=15509#15509
"Say what you see" (well, almost....)
Round and round - and round it goes...
Where it stops, no one knows...
Abra Abra Cadabra
Abracadabra
(That's the Steve Miller Band....)
So here is the tactic - plainly exposed for ALL to see. Circular Argument. Oh How crass of me to be so blunt as to state what I was hinting at. Just wanted to try and make myself absolutely clear and prove beyond doubt to ANYONE reading what you are doing. OK?
Thanks for your participation in this "exposure" project. You have been a brilliant contender! |
Lets see, snowygrouch made some points, I showed he was wrong, and now I'm guilty of circular argument because he can't respond?
I think the problem here is that he's wrong and he doesn't know how to admit it, because if he does, you'll all jump on him as a shill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
You didnt engage any of my points technically except a semantical argument about the cut off date for installing Hylon and posted some body pics that can in no way be proven to be passengers rather than the 100+ people that are known to have died who were in the building when the plane hit.
If the points you put are your idea of proving me wrong then
WHATEVER.
I and everyone else can see you for what you are.
You are a pathetic hypocritical liar and I am now ashamed to be seen posting in the same thread as you.
And as for the rest of you.....am I going to show intellectual arrogance to someone who graduated and says buildings cant be designed not to collapse inwards.
Yes!
How can I answer you as when I do you post pathetically superficial rebuttals based in fantasy land and start an idiotic cyclic argument based on farcical leaps of logic.
Good day to you.
_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
President Eisenhower 1961 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
