Originally posted by: MicroChrome
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: morkinva
Hey I have an idea!
I think we should rebuild the buildings, load them with furniture, people (Dimocrats would love to serve, of course as they really love writing stuff on paper) and stacks of documents. Then we should fly planes into them again. While they are burning, we should sent John (Firefighter) Kerry into them with a mercury thermometer shoved up his grrass and have him write the readings on paper with a 5000 degree flash point. Then we will have scientific facts to study after they fall. We could also have thousands of liberals stand in the shadows of the buildings and take notes in pedantic prose. We could train them at Harvard using federal grants for the study. Sound good enough?
Yeah and we could send Bush up in the other tower... And watch him LIE about how he didn't do it.
Anyway, you need to stop listening to fox and Rush... And seek some mental help...
I find all of my mental help here. Reading liberal postings here reassure me that I truly represent normal - whatever that is.
Originally posted by: realsup
Originally posted by: morkinva
Here's an article from a guy that says he has degrees in physics and architecture, and he's a builder. As more people come forward to challenge the official explanation, I wonder at what point some of you will still hold fast to your beliefs about what happened. What would it take, a structural engineer? An impeachment of involved officials?
http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm [pancaking is not an option]
...Yet another observation one makes in watching the collapsing towers is the huge dust clouds and debris, including steel beams, that were thrown hundreds of feet out horizontally from the towers as they fell. If we are to believe the pancake theory, this amount of scattering debris, fine pulverized concrete dust, and sheetrock powder would clearly indicate massive resistance to the vertical collapse. So there is an impossible conflict. You either have a miraculous, historical, instantaneous, catastrophic failure that occurs within a fraction of a second of freefall and that kicks out little dust, or you have a solid, hefty building that remains virtually unaffected after a massive, speeding projectile hits it. You either have a house of cards or a house of bricks. The building either resists its collapse or it doesn't...
Why does a guy posting on gralicandgrass.org lol get more credit then Popular Science?
Originally posted by: smack Down
I would guess that no larger building can fail in any other fation then straight or alomst straight down. The buildings just are not made to put laterial forces aplied at one floor on to the next.
Originally posted by: morkinva
Here's an article from a guy that says he has degrees in physics and architecture, and he's a builder. As more people come forward to challenge the official explanation, I wonder at what point some of you will still hold fast to your beliefs about what happened. What would it take, a structural engineer? An impeachment of involved officials?
http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm [pancaking is not an option]
...Yet another observation one makes in watching the collapsing towers is the huge dust clouds and debris, including steel beams, that were thrown hundreds of feet out horizontally from the towers as they fell. If we are to believe the pancake theory, this amount of scattering debris, fine pulverized concrete dust, and sheetrock powder would clearly indicate massive resistance to the vertical collapse. So there is an impossible conflict. You either have a miraculous, historical, instantaneous, catastrophic failure that occurs within a fraction of a second of freefall and that kicks out little dust, or you have a solid, hefty building that remains virtually unaffected after a massive, speeding projectile hits it. You either have a house of cards or a house of bricks. The building either resists its collapse or it doesn't...
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: morkinva
Here's an article from a guy that says he has degrees in physics and architecture, and he's a builder. As more people come forward to challenge the official explanation, I wonder at what point some of you will still hold fast to your beliefs about what happened. What would it take, a structural engineer? An impeachment of involved officials?
http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm [pancaking is not an option]
...Yet another observation one makes in watching the collapsing towers is the huge dust clouds and debris, including steel beams, that were thrown hundreds of feet out horizontally from the towers as they fell. If we are to believe the pancake theory, this amount of scattering debris, fine pulverized concrete dust, and sheetrock powder would clearly indicate massive resistance to the vertical collapse. So there is an impossible conflict. You either have a miraculous, historical, instantaneous, catastrophic failure that occurs within a fraction of a second of freefall and that kicks out little dust, or you have a solid, hefty building that remains virtually unaffected after a massive, speeding projectile hits it. You either have a house of cards or a house of bricks. The building either resists its collapse or it doesn't...
What would it take for me to think that the official explanation is not the truth? Simple, a better explanation. That's it, nothing fancy. If what we think happened isn't what really happened, surely a more reasonable alternative exists. But yet, I have not heard anything to that effect. All the alternative explanations are long on casting doubt, but short on explaining what REALLY happened. Does this mean that the official story MUST be the truth? Of course not, maybe no one has figured out what really happened yet. But at the end of the day, the theory that makes the MOST sense has to got to be the answer, for now at least. The unanswered questions have been answered to some degree, and I'm confident that they will either be fully answered or a better theory will come forward. But right now, we don't have anything else. And as someone who is looking for the truth, as opposed to hearing what I want to hear, I don't see how I can reasonably "believe" anything else.
You want to know what major question none of those theories answers? Why. Forget technical explanations of buildings falling down, forget experts and officials. This is something everyone can understand. If what we were told isn't what happened, what is the motive? One thing Dave Heller got right is that it makes no sense for the terrorists to have been responsible, so that leaves the government conspiracy explanation. And ignoring how feasable one of those is in this country, you still need a motive. Why would the government level the towers with demolitions and then lie about demolitions being involved? Or, more broadly, why would they lie about what happened at all? Nobody has answered that question yet.
Originally posted by: realsup
Why does a guy posting on gralicandgrass.org lol get more credit then Popular Science?
Originally posted by: morkinva
Your 'official story' is so full of holes it's laughable. To believe this fairy tale at this point is naive and ignorant, no matter how you spin it. It's like my five year old telling me a story. After 150 hard to believe 'facts' the preponderance of the evidence tells me the whole thing is total nonsense. Swallow this canard and you do this country a great disservice.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think it was termites.
Originally posted by: Helenihi
Originally posted by: morkinva
The PM hit piece is a clear conflict of interest with the cousin of Chertoff as chief editor.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/">Popular Mechanics Attacks Its
"9/11 LIES" Straw Man</a>
The cousin of Chertoff means its all lies? You people are hilarious.
Originally posted by: mOeeOm
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I'm sorry but if explosives were planted why even hit the buildings with planes? Seriously, if Al-Queda planted them then why didn't they just detonate them and be done with it instead of hijacking planes from ANOTHER CITY and flying them into the WTC and then detonating the explosives. If the gov planted the explosives why not just detonate them and claim it was AQ instead of hijacking planes from another city, etc etc...
it doesn't add up.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
- Joseph Goebbels
And after 30 years of eating steel and concrete and weakening the towers, these termites grew to immense proportions, as big as a man. These termites then attended flight schools and hijacked planes to fly them into the towers. It's all coming together now. Al Qaeda is termites!Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think it was termites.
For once i agree with Moonbeam. But these termites were specially developed by Haliburton to not feast on wood but concrete and steel.
I heard they take some time to eat away their intended target and GHB when head of the CIA back in the early 70s could have arranged to have these super termites implanted when they built the twin towers.
Originally posted by: BoberFett
And after 30 years of eating steel and concrete and weakening the towers, these termites grew to immense proportions, as big as a man. These termites then attended flight schools and hijacked planes to fly them into the towers. It's all coming together now. Al Qaeda is termites!Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think it was termites.
For once i agree with Moonbeam. But these termites were specially developed by Haliburton to not feast on wood but concrete and steel.
I heard they take some time to eat away their intended target and GHB when head of the CIA back in the early 70s could have arranged to have these super termites implanted when they built the twin towers.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: BoberFett
And after 30 years of eating steel and concrete and weakening the towers, these termites grew to immense proportions, as big as a man. These termites then attended flight schools and hijacked planes to fly them into the towers. It's all coming together now. Al Qaeda is termites!Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think it was termites.
For once i agree with Moonbeam. But these termites were specially developed by Haliburton to not feast on wood but concrete and steel.
I heard they take some time to eat away their intended target and GHB when head of the CIA back in the early 70s could have arranged to have these super termites implanted when they built the twin towers.
That were developed back in the 1960s by Haliburton and deployed by Bush senior in 1970 to help get the Patriot act through in 2001 by his son and complete the complete takeover of the universe by Neo Cons.
Damn it is amazing how conspiracy theories seem to come together isnt it?
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: BoberFett
And after 30 years of eating steel and concrete and weakening the towers, these termites grew to immense proportions, as big as a man. These termites then attended flight schools and hijacked planes to fly them into the towers. It's all coming together now. Al Qaeda is termites!Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think it was termites.
For once i agree with Moonbeam. But these termites were specially developed by Haliburton to not feast on wood but concrete and steel.
I heard they take some time to eat away their intended target and GHB when head of the CIA back in the early 70s could have arranged to have these super termites implanted when they built the twin towers.
That were developed back in the 1960s by Haliburton and deployed by Bush senior in 1970 to help get the Patriot act through in 2001 by his son and complete the complete takeover of the universe by Neo Cons.
Damn it is amazing how conspiracy theories seem to come together isnt it?
Not to mention the fact that the secrecy invoked by the current administration is covering up the fact that Bush has personally developed a time machine with which he has gone back in time to assassinate JFK. We've been barking up the wrong tree the whole time. It wasn't Bush Sr. that was involved in JFKs assassination, Dubya was on the grassy knoll! He had to get JFK out of the way because JFK was onto Halliburton and Project Termite.
Originally posted by: rahvin
http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/bergeson/physics1/atomic/jones_cv.htm
All the papers this guy has ever published have been on chemistry and particle physics yet he steps out and starts talking about building design and you give him credit. This doesn't even take into account BYU's problems with academic freedom and the disservice their policies and stances have on true academic exploration and rational thought.
On top of this you have completely and totally disregarded the reports prepared by experienced professional structural engineers including the ones who designed the buildings. You might as well have suggested the flying spagetti monster caused the buildings to fall for all the credibility you have. You are a nut, nothing more and everything you have to say on the matter should be treated with the same respect any of your readers would give to that guy on the bus who claims to be jesus.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: mOeeOm
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I'm sorry but if explosives were planted why even hit the buildings with planes? Seriously, if Al-Queda planted them then why didn't they just detonate them and be done with it instead of hijacking planes from ANOTHER CITY and flying them into the WTC and then detonating the explosives. If the gov planted the explosives why not just detonate them and claim it was AQ instead of hijacking planes from another city, etc etc...
it doesn't add up.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
- Joseph Goebbels
I always find it funny liberals and communists quoting a Nazi to prove a point.
Well, while we're being glib with medical advice, I offer this to you, Mork (Nanoo, Nanoo!)Originally posted by: morkinva
Eight Main Symptoms of Group Think
Illusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly optimistic.
Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.
Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.
Excessive Stereotyping:The group constructs negative sterotypes of rivals outside the group.
Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.
Self-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments.
Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.
Mindguards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency
What is Paranoia?
Paranoia involves feelings of persecution and an exaggerated sense of self-importance. Paranoia occurs in many mental disorders and is rare as an isolated mental illness. Since the delusions involve only one area, a person with paranoia can usually work and function in everyday life, however, their lives may be limited and isolated. There are different types of paranoia including conjugal paranoia, erotomania, hypochondriacal paranoia, and different types of paranoid disorders such as paranoid personality and paranoid schizophrenia.
Symptoms of Paranoia:
Symptoms of paranoia and paranoid disorders include intense and irrational mistrust or suspicion, which can bring on sense of rage, hatred, and betrayal. Some people suffering from paranoid personality may have a high capacity to annoy or enrage others because of rigid and maladaptive behavior. Some identifiable beliefs and actions of paranoid-related disorders include mistrust, taking offense easily, difficulty with forgiveness, defensive attitude in response to imagined criticism, preoccupation with hidden motives, fear of being deceived or taken advantage of, inability to relax, argumentative, abrupt, stubborn, self-righteous, and perfectionistic.
What Causes Paranoia?
The cause of paranoia is a breakdown of various mental and emotional functions involving reasoning and assigned meanings. The reasons for these breakdowns are varied and uncertain. Some symptoms of paranoia may arise from repressed, denied or projected feelings. Paranoid thoughts and feelings can become part of a delusional system through an accident, a misunderstanding or minor injustice, heightened intimacy, or increased responsibility.
Treatment of Paranoia
Treatment of paranoia is usually via behavior therapy which is aimed at reducing sensitivity to criticism and improving social skills. It can be difficult to treat a person with paranoia as they may be irritable, emotionally guarded, hostile, and unwilling; therefore, progress is slow. Therapy attempts to break the cycle of suspicion and isolation by using relaxation and anxiety management and by aiding the person to change certain behaviors.
The CLUE once again.
Originally posted by: dannybin1742
The CLUE once again.
popular mechanics is not an accredited journal that the engineering community reads for research material, i have three relatives that are engineers, 1 civil and 2 mechanical/structural