Nuclear Demolition

Discuss what you think really happened in New York on 9/11/2001

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby pigswillfly » Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:31 pm

Man, this is so autisic. :roll: EVIDENCE at 30 paces, what a dry old world. :lol:
User avatar
pigswillfly
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:03 am


Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby mosfet » Mon Dec 06, 2010 4:21 pm

To provide an example of how shake can be introduced into a video I made the following clip. The first part is unaltered and is repeated in the last half, however, shake is added and the amount and degree can be adjusted, a very simple effect. Quality of the video is low as it is only for demonstration.
Last edited by mosfet on Wed Dec 15, 2010 1:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
mosfet
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby ryguy » Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:00 pm

pigswillfly wrote: Also, I dispute that there is not a single bona fide expert who challenges the official story. Like I said before, lots of experts around, it's not difficult to find people who disagree on a set of findings.


Um - that is a clear black/white statement that needs supporting evidence. Especially since it's not true. You'll either have to admit that the statement above is untrue or cite a legitimate expert (with valid credentials).

If it's not difficult, I doubt it should take you more than a day or so to provide a citation?

And for the record, if you could provide that evidence it would in fact change my mindset and probably many others as well.

-Ryan
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby pigswillfly » Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:10 pm

ryguy wrote:by ryguy » Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:45 am

"pigswillfly wrote:
Also, I dispute that there is not a single bona fide expert who challenges the official story. Like I said before, lots of experts around, it's not difficult to find people who disagree on a set of findings."

"ryguy wrote:
Um - that is a clear black/white statement that needs supporting evidence. Especially since it's not true. You'll either have to admit that the statement above is untrue or cite a legitimate expert (with valid credentials)."


zep tepi wrote:Read it, and try to understand at least some of it. When you have, make note of the fact that not one single bonafide expert has disagreed with the findings. Not one. In the entire world. Just think about that for a second.


... and another clear black/white statement without supporting evidence. If these are the standards you hold up for others, I'm waiting for you to meet them yourself. That's an awful lot of credentials you need to check. :wink: You can't dismiss an expert simply because their findings don't support your view.
User avatar
pigswillfly
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:03 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby pigswillfly » Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:26 pm

mosfet wrote:To provide an example of how shake can be introduced into a video I made the following clip. The first part is unaltered and is repeated in the last half, however, shake is added and the amount and degree can be adjusted, a very simple effect. Quality of the video is low as it is only for demonstration.


http://s221.photobucket.com/albums/dd18 ... rent=s.mp4


Thanks for going to the trouble to make that video, nice job too. I concede it strongly resembles the shaking of the building video. Without documented witness testimony to support the shaking building video it really is worthless as evidence and as I said should be taken with a grain of salt.

btw. I know your Mufon alias now, :o I don't recall we had any disagreements over subject matter. As Tom said in the other thread we have to work this out for ourselves, I propose we just put the Mufon forum behind us.
User avatar
pigswillfly
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:03 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby Zep Tepi » Tue Dec 07, 2010 12:30 am

pigswillfly wrote:
ryguy wrote:by ryguy » Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:45 am

"pigswillfly wrote:
Also, I dispute that there is not a single bona fide expert who challenges the official story. Like I said before, lots of experts around, it's not difficult to find people who disagree on a set of findings."

"ryguy wrote:
Um - that is a clear black/white statement that needs supporting evidence. Especially since it's not true. You'll either have to admit that the statement above is untrue or cite a legitimate expert (with valid credentials)."


zep tepi wrote:Read it, and try to understand at least some of it. When you have, make note of the fact that not one single bonafide expert has disagreed with the findings. Not one. In the entire world. Just think about that for a second.


... and another clear black/white statement without supporting evidence. If these are the standards you hold up for others, I'm waiting for you to meet them yourself. That's an awful lot of credentials you need to check. :wink: You can't dismiss an expert simply because their findings don't support your view.


Huh? Are you for real? The burden is on you to show me that my statement is incorrect, by naming a bonafide expert who did disagree with the findings.

You have made specific claims wrt the events of 9/11, back them up or shut up. I think you should acquaint yourself with the rules of this forum, seriously.
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby pigswillfly » Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:43 am

Yeah, I'm for real. The burden is on Zep Tepi to prove "the fact that not a single bonafide expert has disagreed with the findings. Not one. In the entire world."

He has made that claim now let him back it up. Produce the EVIDENCE, please. The burden is not on me to disprove him.


[Mod Edit: discussion of this post continues in this thread]
User avatar
pigswillfly
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:03 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby Access Denied » Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:55 am

pwf, present the evidence to support your claim or retract it in your very next post...

You've been asked for it twice now, there won't be a third time.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby pigswillfly » Tue Dec 07, 2010 6:21 am

4. Posters are encouraged to cite supporting evidence when providing facts. If no evidence is provided, posters are encouraged to preface their statement with acknowledgement that the post is a statement of opinion only.


Evidence will show that I have complied with this rule and acknowledged "statement of opinion" in this thread, as did the originator of this thread.

"I'm not saying this guy is right on all or any of his points, but he does reconcile some of my nagging questions." (murnut)

"When a subject gets bogged down in differing opinions on detail it is helpful to take a step back ..." (pigswillfly)

"I personally don't believe it was "the gov't" per se although there would have to be gov't complicity at some levels." (pigswillfly)

10. Don’t make claims that extend beyond what your data (or the data you’re referencing) can support. If you consider something as unproven speculation – say so.


Hence the claim of "not a single bona fide expert have disagreed with the findings" .. etc, is unproven speculation, not FACT. At the very least it is an opinion, open to discussion.

by Access Denied » Tue Dec 07, 2010 2:40 pm

pwf, present the evidence to support your claim or retract it in your very next post...

You've been asked for it twice now, there won't be a third time.


What does that mean? I'll get banned for having an opinion, which apparently the do rules allow? Are you suggesting that "opinions" may not be discussed or argued?

Looking through this forum all the threads on 9/11 have come to grief. If members aren't allowed to discuss their opinions or hypothesis (which don't require proof) then why does this forum exist? Is it simply a poster board for the official findings?
User avatar
pigswillfly
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:03 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby pigswillfly » Tue Dec 07, 2010 6:34 am

9/11 - What Really Happened? Discuss what you think really happened in New York on 9/11

If you don't want discussion of personal opinion or alternate hypothesis perhaps the forum needs to be renamed?
User avatar
pigswillfly
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:03 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby Access Denied » Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:17 am

pwf's account has been suspended for a week.

If you fail to comply with Rule 4 in regards to the following claim with your very first post upon your return it will become permanent…

pigswillfly wrote:…I dispute that there is not a single bona fide expert who challenges the official story. Like I said before, lots of experts around, it's not difficult to find people who disagree on a set of findings.

According to you this should be easy.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby Access Denied » Tue Dec 07, 2010 9:39 am

mosfet wrote:You can almost think of the building as steel bell and when hit anywhere it would reverberate. Considering this,it's not surprising that seismic activity was registered even before the building visually started its cascading collapse.

In fact the impacts of planes were so strong they too were recorded on a seismograph 34 km away...

Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center, New York City
Kim Won-Young, Sykes L.R., Armitage J.H., Xie J.K., Jacob K.H., Richards P.G., West M., Waldhauser F., Armbruster J., Seeber L., Du W.X., and Lerner-Lam A
Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Vol. 82, No. 47, pages 565, 570-571, November 20, 2001
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20 ... EO_KIM.pdf
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby Zep Tepi » Tue Dec 07, 2010 12:00 pm

The evidence for my statement is patently clear. If there were any bonafide experts disagreeing with the findings, where are they hiding because they're keeping pretty quiet about it!

There are too many crackpots and shysters spouting a load of nonsense about the events of 9/11, nonsense that is easily refuted by the masses of evidence to the contrary. To claim otherwise is dishonest and lazy.
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby murnut » Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:46 pm

Access Denied wrote:pwf's account has been suspended for a week.

If you fail to comply with Rule 4 in regards to the following claim with your very first post upon your return it will become permanent…

pigswillfly wrote:…I dispute that there is not a single bona fide expert who challenges the official story. Like I said before, lots of experts around, it's not difficult to find people who disagree on a set of findings.

According to you this should be easy.



http://www.ae911truth.org/en/home.html
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby murnut » Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:35 pm

Access Denied wrote:pwf's account has been suspended for a week.

If you fail to comply with Rule 4 in regards to the following claim with your very first post upon your return it will become permanent…

pigswillfly wrote:…I dispute that there is not a single bona fide expert who challenges the official story. Like I said before, lots of experts around, it's not difficult to find people who disagree on a set of findings.

According to you this should be easy.


AE911Truth Structural Engineer Dismantles the NIST Analysis of WTC 7

http://cms.ae911truth.org/index.php/new ... wtc-7.html

Brookman is one of over 40 structural engineers who have signed the AE911Truth petition calling for a truly independent investigation of the events of 9/11, with emphasis on the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC building 7. He is also one of the interviewees in the article, 29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High–Rises on 9/11. For a broader book–length exposé on WTC 7 see also David Ray Griffin’s The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center7 — Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False.

Brookman received his M.S. in Structural Engineering (1986) from the University of California at Davis, following a B.S. in Civil Engineering from the same school in 1984. He has over 23 years experience in structural analysis, design, evaluation and rehabilitation of buildings in northern California.

"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

PreviousNext

Google

Return to 911 - What Really Happened?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron