Ourbombers.com - Winnipeg Blue Bombers Message Board

Unoffical Bombers Board since 1997

911 related topics

All non-CFL football related discussion

Moderators: Colin Unger, Raydawg, bigg jay, kenny23

Postby Blue17to85 » Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:14 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I

Who is correct here,

NIST or a high school teacher?
Blue17to85
 
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:36 pm

Postby The Brain » Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:11 pm

I clicked on this thread hoping it was going to be about wormholes and other cool things.
User avatar
The Brain
 
Posts: 1407
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:24 am

Postby 17to85 » Tue Apr 20, 2010 4:41 pm

please tell me that this was posted for it's humour value and not to be taken seriously......
"You know me to be a very smart man. Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"
User avatar
17to85
 
Posts: 18940
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 3:18 pm
Location: Calgary

Postby Blue17to85 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 10:36 am

17to85 wrote:please tell me that this was posted for it's humour value and not to be taken seriously......


Really? You find this humerous?
Blue17to85
 
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:36 pm

Postby 17to85 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:10 am

absolutely because the guy in narrating the video is breaking one of the fundamental priciples of science. He's formed his conclusions before looking at things and is fitting what he sees into that. It's backwards, you look at the evidence THEN form conclusions.
"You know me to be a very smart man. Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"
User avatar
17to85
 
Posts: 18940
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 3:18 pm
Location: Calgary

Postby Blue17to85 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:30 am

17to85 wrote:absolutely because the guy in narrating the video is breaking one of the fundamental priciples of science. He's formed his conclusions before looking at things and is fitting what he sees into that. It's backwards, you look at the evidence THEN form conclusions.


Really I thought that was his explanation of nists report.

I thought he proved his case quite well, no?
Blue17to85
 
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:36 pm

Postby 17to85 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:11 pm

Blue17to85 wrote:
17to85 wrote:absolutely because the guy in narrating the video is breaking one of the fundamental priciples of science. He's formed his conclusions before looking at things and is fitting what he sees into that. It's backwards, you look at the evidence THEN form conclusions.


Really I thought that was his explanation of nists report.

I thought he proved his case quite well, no?


yeah but that's what i'm talking about, he says "no i don't believe that, here's an explanation that I think justifies my opinions on the matter" you see what i'm getting at? flawed reasoning and very unscientific. This is proof of nothing other than you can manipulate things to appear to support your line of thinking by making layman think you know what you're talking about.
"You know me to be a very smart man. Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"
User avatar
17to85
 
Posts: 18940
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 3:18 pm
Location: Calgary

Postby Hillbilly » Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:42 pm

17to85 wrote:
Blue17to85 wrote:
17to85 wrote:absolutely because the guy in narrating the video is breaking one of the fundamental priciples of science. He's formed his conclusions before looking at things and is fitting what he sees into that. It's backwards, you look at the evidence THEN form conclusions.


Really I thought that was his explanation of nists report.

I thought he proved his case quite well, no?


yeah but that's what i'm talking about, he says "no i don't believe that, here's an explanation that I think justifies my opinions on the matter" you see what i'm getting at? flawed reasoning and very unscientific. This is proof of nothing other than you can manipulate things to appear to support your line of thinking by making layman think you know what you're talking about.


And that's what the 9/11 conspiracy is all about.

They formed their conclusions first and then gathered "evidence" that supports that conclusion.

They look up in the sky and see a dragon, when the rest of us see a cloud.

What I would like to know is: Does a controlled demolition even fall at free fall speed?
User avatar
Hillbilly
 
Posts: 1973
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:52 am
Location: Winnipeg

Postby Blue17to85 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:35 pm

This building fell way too fast and symetrically for it to have been from fires.

Though margin for error taking into consideration. His explanation is far more in depth than the NIST report.

I'm sure every controlled demo is different based on the structure itself.
He's arguing that it does fall at or near freefall acceleration

, which only happens in controlled demos.
Blue17to85
 
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:36 pm

Postby Blue17to85 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:43 pm

cptkirk wrote:
Blue17to85 wrote:This building fell way too fast and symetrically for it to have been from fires.

Though margin for error taking into consideration. His explanation is far more in depth than the NIST report.

I'm sure every controlled demo is different based on the structure itself.
He's arguing that it does fall at or near freefall acceleration

, which only happens in controlled demos.


So where were the explosions that happen with every controlled demolition?

Why wait until 5:30 pm to bring them down? Why not concurrently with the twin towers, or with a 30 minute to one hour delay? Why keep the "mission" going for an extra eight hours when you want to get the F out of there and start making your alibis.

Why destroy the building in the first place? All the occupants have been evacuated hours ago, and you've already struck the two towers and the pentagon.


Easy... I'm not arguing with here. We've beat this to death already.

All I am saying is this "high school teacher" seems to have done a better job in the analysis of the "collaspe".

It points out huge flaws in NIST's explanation and I'm wondering who's science seems more likely after watching this as well as reading NIST's report on bldg 7?
Blue17to85
 
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:36 pm

Postby 17to85 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:57 pm

Blue17to85 wrote:All I am saying is this "high school teacher" seems to have done a better job in the analysis of the "collaspe".


only true if you want to believe the conspiracy BS. he's picking and choosing his information just as the other report I am assuming did.
"You know me to be a very smart man. Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"
User avatar
17to85
 
Posts: 18940
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 3:18 pm
Location: Calgary

Postby Blue17to85 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:58 pm

This guy points out a few errors in NIST's investigation also.

Food for thought...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY
Blue17to85
 
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:36 pm

Postby Hillbilly » Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:12 pm

Blue17to85 wrote:This building fell way too fast and symetrically for it to have been from fires.

Though margin for error taking into consideration. His explanation is far more in depth than the NIST report.

I'm sure every controlled demo is different based on the structure itself.
He's arguing that it does fall at or near freefall acceleration

, which only happens in controlled demos.


Can you prove that a controlled demo falls any different than a collapse due to structural damage and fire?

If it was controlled demo, then where are the explosions?

Why does not one Demolition company agree with your explanation of controlled demolition? NOT ONE.
User avatar
Hillbilly
 
Posts: 1973
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:52 am
Location: Winnipeg

Next

Return to General Discussion

  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 428 on Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:10 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest