- On 19 May 2013
in
OAS says No more drug war in Latin America,
The Professor said:
Drug laws should be a state rights issue.
Prohibition is always about controlling people not substances. Declaring war on a concept like terrorism or an inanimate object like drugs will always fail in their stated purpose but will be successful in its real purpose of population control.
It is cheaper to let a pothead puff in peace than to house them in prison.
- On 19 May 2013
in
I don't understand Paul Krugman,
The Professor said:
At the risk of appearing arrogant
Don't worry about it.
- On 19 May 2013
in
Is real estate bubble 2 showing some strain?,
The Professor said:
There are NO SIGNS WHATSOEVER of this market reversing and ALL SIGNS point to big gains in the near future.
Who is going to buy with "big gains" in prices?
- On 17 May 2013
in
9/11 Continuing the War on Liberty,
The Professor said:
I was finished with this thread but then I got drawn into that other thread.
Truthers can be so nutty. There are people out there that think a directed energy weapon destroyed the WTC and that there are airplanes emitting chemtrails to poison us.
I am not one of those truthers.
I just want to understand why our government rushed through on the cheap an investigation that concluded exactly what the news from the day of the event predicted, "The damage from the plane hit and then the weakening of the steel caused by the incredibly hot fire caused the buildings to fail".
I believed it for a decade. It made sense. Life went on in a new more dangerous world where we had to fight them in the caves of Afghanistan and give up some of our freedom in order to be safe.
Do you feel safe?
The investigation was flawed. Even some of the investigators admitted that they did not believe the results of the report. WTC7 was not hit by a plane and the official report claims that fire alone caused this skyscraper to fall.
All I hope to achieve from this thread is to inform more people of the controversy and make an attempt at debating the deniers.
- On 17 May 2013
in
9/11 Continuing the War on Liberty,
The Professor said:
Very interesting paper on the weakness and inconsistencies in the official NIST report of 9/11
http://www.nistreview.org/NCSTAR1-REVIEW-DOUGLAS.pdf
"This paper will conclude that the findings of the NIST investigation, although not necessarily incorrect, are
not inherently linked to the reality of the failure mechanisms that took place in WTC buildings 1 and 2.
The author calls on NIST to explain the discrepancies in its reports, admit the level of uncertainty in its
findings, broaden the scope of its investigation, and make its raw data available to other researchers." - On 17 May 2013
in
Insider Trading: This was a doozy folks. 911 Trading,
The Professor said:
Credible evidence of explosives would warrant an investigation. Your 'evidence' doesn't.
Explosives leave tell-tale signs in the rubble that are fairly obvious to those in the field. If those signs are not visible, there's no reason to do detailed swipe tests.
They could have tested for explosives anyway. But explosives would not fit into the conclusion that was reached on 9/11/2001.
You guys really have to contort yourselves to cover for the official story.
- On 17 May 2013
in
Insider Trading: This was a doozy folks. 911 Trading,
The Professor said:
NIST has been asked about this important issue recently, by investigative reporter Jennifer Abel:
Abel: "..what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?"
Neuman [spokesperson at NIST, listed on the WTC report]: "Right, because there was no evidence of that."
Abel: But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first?
Neuman: "If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time... and the taxpayers' money."
- On 17 May 2013
in
Insider Trading: This was a doozy folks. 911 Trading,
The Professor said:
It wasn't painstaking. They never tested the steel for thermite.
they never tested the site for space unicorn dna either.
Or nun flatulence.
You usually do not find either of those in fallen buildings. With all the people who saw and heard evidence of explosions you think they would have at least tested for explosives.
The story of weakened steel caused by fires came out within hours of the building collapse. The conclusion was already reached before the investigation was started.
Why were explosives never even tested for?
- On 16 May 2013
in
Insider Trading: This was a doozy folks. 911 Trading,
The Professor said:
http://newsone.com/742485/the-11-most-compelling-911-conspiracy-theories/
- On 16 May 2013
in
Insider Trading: This was a doozy folks. 911 Trading,
The Professor said:
If you dropped an olympic bar with 185 pounds from 12 feet above, the strongest man in the world, who can probably hold 500 pounds above his head, would be smashed into the ground, without slowing the weight down much at all!
Would the man be crushed flat or would the falling weight push him aside as the weight accelerated toward the floor? Wouldn't inertia slow the weight down, a lot?
- On 16 May 2013
in
Insider Trading: This was a doozy folks. 911 Trading,
The Professor said:
Everything you need to know about 9/11 in less than 5 minutes.
- On 16 May 2013
in
Insider Trading: This was a doozy folks. 911 Trading,
The Professor said:
The NIST report stated that it fell 18 stories in 5.9secs, freefall would take 3.9secs. That is the report. Let me say, I'd take that ahead of your made up stopwatch timings (or should I say just another of your conspiracy website go to points?).
- On 16 May 2013
in
Insider Trading: This was a doozy folks. 911 Trading,
The Professor said:
So was it your intent to prove I'm right? Because you just did it.
You are always right. Congratulations because of your superior intellect you have won the debate. However, you have not convinced me of your position.
We will have to just disagree.
- On 16 May 2013
in
Insider Trading: This was a doozy folks. 911 Trading,
The Professor said:
I don't care about morons who put up conspiracy sites.
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911nutphysics.htm
"The other primary difference between these two types of operations is that implosions are universally conducted with the utmost concern for adjacent properties and human safety---elements that were horrifically absent from this event. Therefore we can conclude that what happened in New York was not a “building implosion.” "
- On 16 May 2013
in
Insider Trading: This was a doozy folks. 911 Trading,
The Professor said:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201
- On 16 May 2013
in
Insider Trading: This was a doozy folks. 911 Trading,
The Professor said:
LACK of support on your side. The fact you cite "experts" such as Jessie Ventura shows just how stupid and disingenuous your claim is.
AE911truth.org Don't be so disingenuous. There are a lot of smart not anonymous people that question the official story of 9/11.
- On 16 May 2013
in
Insider Trading: This was a doozy folks. 911 Trading,
The Professor said:
If you don't answer the question I will block you from this discussion. I will erase any future posts you make on this discussion
That's no fun.
- On 16 May 2013
in
Insider Trading: This was a doozy folks. 911 Trading,
The Professor said:
Several even tried to warn authorities what would occur before the buildings even came down.
Links?
I already posted links.
I missed the link. Was it in this thread? Can you repost?
- On 16 May 2013
in
Insider Trading: This was a doozy folks. 911 Trading,
The Professor said:
Does it matter anyway???
Where have we heard that lately?
- On 16 May 2013
in
Insider Trading: This was a doozy folks. 911 Trading,
The Professor said:
Your arguments have no substance. None. You twist everything to try and make it fit your preconceived ideas. The process is tortuous.
That is exactly what the NIST report did. They started with the pre-conception that fire caused the building to collapse and went on from there. They never even tested for explosives because there were no loud noises. THEY NEVER EVEN TESTED FOR EXPLOSIVES!!! In spite of many ear witness reports of explosions.
- On 16 May 2013
in
Insider Trading: This was a doozy folks. 911 Trading,
The Professor said:
Several even tried to warn authorities what would occur before the buildings even came down.
Links?
- On 16 May 2013
in
Insider Trading: This was a doozy folks. 911 Trading,
The Professor said:
the greatest conspiracy of all time and nobody has spoken of it in the 12 years since.
Really?
- On 16 May 2013
in
Insider Trading: This was a doozy folks. 911 Trading,
The Professor said:
Here's a video of the controlled demolition
Looks very much like the twin towers exploding except the twin towers cutter charges were quieter and the demolition was much more violent.
- On 16 May 2013
in
Insider Trading: This was a doozy folks. 911 Trading,
The Professor said:
I only started to look into the controversy of 9/11 less than a year ago. The debate surrounding what really happened has been going on for over a decade without me. Up until a year ago I accepted the official story of the jihadi flying planes into the Towers and the Pentagon.
There is so much info out there. The conspiracies range from disrupter beams to Saudi mercenaries looking to payback America for the evil it does in the world.
I don't know the complete story of what happened on 9/11/2001 because I don't believe the official reports from NIST and the 9/11 commission. Many smart people who are not anonymous posters on Patnet agree with me.
- On 16 May 2013
in
Insider Trading: This was a doozy folks. 911 Trading,
The Professor said:
So you, a random little shit on the internet
you're projecting again.