patrick.net

Why is the government refusing to investigate aliens?

The Professor says

" a mentally disturbed individual, lost in delirium, harboring wild conspiracy theories.

Yeah, that's a pretty good description of truthers.

The Professor says

"Whoever dares raise questions about the official 9/11 narrative, will be excluded from both the mainstream and “progressive” media, dismissed as a mentally disturbed individual, lost in delirium, harboring wild conspiracy theories.

In reality, the governmental spoon-fed 9/11 myth crumbles like a house of cards when confronted to facts and scientific analysis."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/911-facts-fiction-and-censorship/?print=1

Like I said, you just copy and paste. How about your input? And quite clearly the official story doesn't 'crumble like a house of cards when confronted to facts and scientific analysis.' That is just very convenient bluster on the part of conspiracists. There is nothing scientific about the quotes you copy and paste and there is nothing scientific about the videos you post up.

The Professor says

Still waiting for you to present evidence to convince me the official story is true. Again, you may have run across something convincing that I have overlooked.

You overlook anything that doesn't fit with your predetermined viewpoint.

The Professor says

Arrow came with the original picture. It illustrates that debris was thrown over 200 feet from the collapsing building.

Proof indeed of er, erm, er... Perhaps you'd care to explain what you think would happen if a building of that size collapsed without the intervention of explosives. All the debris lands in a large plastic bag planted in the center of the building perhaps.

The Professor says

Explode. The Mass is not pushing down, it is being blown out.

Complete and utter bullshit. What explosions? The building collapses. An immense amount of debris falls and ... FFS, what the hell do you think is going to happen to the debris? Your argument is just comical.

You sound less and less like a professor with every additional post you make.

The Professor says

Your arguments, and evidence, is non-existent.

Try the official reports. Try the evidence of your own eyes. Oh sorry, I forgot you see and hear explosions where none exist.

The Professor says

You need to chill. I can feel your blood pressure rise in your posts.

Is there a reason you argue so vehemently for the official story?

Do you actually have any convincing evidence to counter the evidence I have cut and paste?

Perhaps you should give more consideration to what you post (being a supposed professor and all that), then people wouldn't get so irritated responding to the constant stream of absurd stuff you seem to consider as proof.

The Professor says

We are still waiting for you to cut and paste a link to a modern steel framed building that was pulverised by a couple of hours of fire. Never happened before 9/11, never happened after.

I rather think this point has already been covered before. Do you wear permanent conspiracy blinkers?

The Professor says

You do realize you are a nut for the official conspiracy story?

Another very foolish comment from a so called professor.

The Professor says

Facts that indicate a Controlled Demolition of WTC7:
*There was trace evidence of thermite in the WTC dust.
*There was earwitness and video account of explosions.
*The official story has WTC7 falling in a manner which defied physics.
*The official report neglected or denied evidence.

Still waiting for explanations to this CD evidence.

Reread the thread.

The Professor says

I thought we established that education was meaningless on the Internet?

Argue the facts!

It's relevant when it demonstrates you to be a complete and utter bullshitter.

The Professor says

THe NIST simulation stopped before total collapse. The data that created the NIST simulation is secret and unavailable for recreation.

You'll have to explain what you think you are proving with that video.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

It's relevant when it demonstrates you to be a complete and utter bullshitter.

I see you have no facts and are reverting to personal attacks.

The facts have been covered over and over in this thread. You just choose to ignore them in favour of your conspiracy theory. But hey, it's clear that your approach is to stick with a few themes that you've drawn from your website. Those are your sole go to points. Points you just repeatedly post up (devoid of any personal input of course) and claim are proof. Which college do you teach at? Is that how other professors approach research? Latch onto someone else's theory. Accept all evidence supplied in favour of it irrespective of the credibility of said evidence (amateur Youtube videos etc. etc. are all taken at face value), whilst simultaneously dismissing all evidence that runs contrary to your predetermined beliefs (such as painstaking scientific studies carried out by actual scientists using enormous amounts of data...). You really are an academic role model. Or more likely a teenager who lacks basic critical thinking skills.

The Professor says

NO it has not been covered before. Do you HAVE any evidence of a steel frame building utterly collapsing after a short fire?

Yes, it has been covered before.

The Professor says

@bigsby

This video does a little better job explaining why the NIST simulation is faulty. If it still doesn't make sense I will post some more for you later. I have to go to yoga with the wife.

May I suggest you meditate on the absurdity of your views whilst you are there.

The Professor says

@bigsby

This video does a little better job explaining why the NIST simulation is faulty. If it still doesn't make sense I will post some more for you later. I have to go to yoga with the wife.

I look forward to seeing your alternative mathematical model for what happened on that day.

In the meantime, I think the NIST response effectively covers the issue (including the fact that these models aren't meant to exactly replicate what happened, but are simply 2 distinct analyses using 2 different data sets, one of which is strikingly similar to the actual collapse). Taken from NIST FAQs:

NIST conducted two global collapse analyses, one that included damage due to debris-impact from the collapse of WTC 1, and one that did not include any debris-impact damage. These two analyses were conducted to determine the influence of the debris-impact damage on the response of WTC 7 when subjected to the effects of the fires that burned on floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. In its comparison of the two analyses (see NIST NCSTAR 1A Section 3.5), NIST showed that the analysis with the debris-impact damage better simulated the sequence of observed events, and it is this simulation that is considered here.
NIST believes that the simulation of the collapse, based on the analysis with debris-impact damage, does capture the critical observations derived from the digital video recording. The critical observations and corresponding failures identified in the structural analysis include: 1) east-west motion of the building beginning at approximately the same time as failure of floors 6 through 14 around Column 79, 2) the formation of the “kink” in the roofline of the east penthouse approximately one second after Column 79 was found to buckle, 3) window breakage on the east side of the north face as the buckling of Column 79 precipitated the failure of upper floors, and 4) the beginning of global collapse (vertical drop of the building exterior) within approximately one-half second of the time predicted by analysis. Both measured time and analytically predicted time, from the start of failures of floors surrounding Column 79 to the initial downward motion of the north face roofline, was 12.9 seconds (see NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Table 3-1). The collapse observations, from video analysis of the CBS News Archive video, are covered in detail in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A Section 3.5 and NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 8.3. Only in the later stages of the animation, after the initiation of global collapse, do the upper exterior wall deformations from the NIST analysis differ from the video images.
Uncertainties associated with the approach taken by NIST are addressed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.5, where it is noted, “Once simulation of the global collapse of WTC 7 was underway, there was a great increase in the uncertainty in the progression of the collapse sequence, due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling debris.” The contribution to stiffness and strength of nonstructural materials and components, such as exterior cladding, interior walls and partitions, was not considered in the analyses conducted by NIST. It is well known that such non-structural components can increase the stiffness and strength of a structural system, but their contribution is difficult to quantify. Given these factors, disparities between the video and the animation in the later stages of collapse would be expected.

The Professor says

We are still waiting for you to cut and paste a link to a modern steel framed building that was pulverised by a couple of hours of fire. Never happened before 9/11, never happened after.

That didn't happen on 9/11 either. Some buildings were hit by large passenger jets full of fuel which took out some of the support structure of the building, then the heat of the resulting fire caused the steel beams to weaken and then collapse. It was not "pulverised [SIC] by a couple hours of fire."

When is the government going to investigate the alien invasion? The official story has too many holes in it.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/eRyZyvcyeGI

Here is absolute proof of the 9/11 conspiracy. It was in the planning stages for a long time. Even Fox TV knew about it:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/rIZ205ccX8M

The Professor says

That is the entire point. Even with secret data inputs NIST could not replicate the actual collapse in their computer model.

They go through a convoluted chain reaction where "Column 79 was found to buckle" followed by a cascade of thousands of failed structural steel connections culminating in a smoldering building imploded into its own footprint.

NIST: "Progressive collapse is defined as the spread of local damage from a single initiating event, from structural element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it."

In other words, "A beam slipped and caused all of the other important connections in the building to fail".

Watch again, In the NIST simulation every column or beam you see falling means a weld or a bolt has failed.

That's not the entire point. You posted up a video that is devoid of context and is clearly meant to misrepresent what they did.
NIST aren't like you. They didn't have a predetermined conclusion and then made the evidence fit with that. How easy do you think it would have been to manipulate a model to fit exactly with those videos? That isn't how they work. They took the information that they believed to be accurate and created 2 mathematical models based on two very distinct sets of data (where was that explained in your video). One of those models clearly produced a result very similar to what happened. Not identical, but very similar and that demonstrates their model is a pretty good indication of what took place. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Why do you have to dismiss the entire thing despite them clearly stating why it isn't identical? That's a clear indication there wasn't a conspiracy, but no, you take that and twist it completely. You jump straight to a video that entirely misrepresents the two simulations and deliberately places them out of context. It's very clear to me who is being deliberately misleading, and it isn't NIST.

The Professor says

I think another wrong has happened in this world and I want to know the truth. I am convinced that there is a cover up of what really happened on 9/11/2001.

I am not sure we can convince each other of what the "truth" of 9/11 is but I appreciate a civil debate on such an important topic.

If you want to know the truth, then you should stop claiming a conspiracy at every turn and realize that the truthers are clearly manipulating and distorting the facts so as to mislead the uninformed.

The Professor says

Now imagine taking a blowtorch and destroying all of the connections that might have been damaged by debris from the twin towers. Now take the blowtorch to column 79 until all of its connections were melted and destroyed.

Would this cause the rest of the building to be dragged down?

And how again are you qualified to make this engineering determination and to second-guess NIST's determination?

The Professor says

That is exactly what they did!

They predetermined that fires weakened the structure of WTC 7, causing it to implode.

They never even checked for explosives!!!

Don't be stupid. They took the available data and created the simulation using that data. That simulation shows the building falling down in a very similar manner to that witnessed (and surprise, surprise without the aid of explosives). And what the hell your lego post has to do with anything is anyone's guess. You use no data, post up entirely inaccurate and misleading videos, and then shout conspiracy every time proper research shows you to be wrong. You are simply questioning the wrong things. You are utterly dismissive of all mainstream research and entirely accepting of all the truther videos - intellectual dishonesty at its most obvious.

The Professor says

If you want to know the truth, then you should stop claiming a conspiracy at every turn and realize that the official story is clearly manipulating and distorting the facts so as to mislead the uninformed.

A lazy and childish response, one regularly used by Darrell in Phoenix/War/Realtors are Liars. The official report was a painstaking analysis carried out independently. You rely on videos posted by kids and conspiracy nuts that deliberately set out to mislead the gullible by being utterly selective and deceptive in what they portray. And as a purported academic you choose to go with the latter rather than the former. Very strange. Very strange indeed.

The Professor says

"Consensus 9/11 seeks "best evidence" proof to dispel official story falsehoods. It's founded on:

(1) The opinions of respected authorities, based on professional experience, descriptive studies, and reports of expert committees.

(2) Physical data in the form of photographs, videotapes, court testimony, witness reports, and FOIA releases.

(3) Direct rather than circumstantial evidence.

Determining "best evidence" depends on "integrating individual professional expertise with the best available documentary and scientific evidence.""

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/consensus-911-panel-seeking-truth.html

They have already decided what is right and wrong before even doing the research. They create their 'theory' and fit the 'evidence' to that. It's utterly arse backwards and you would be aware of that if you actually were a scientist.

The Professor says

@bigsby
I just cut, pasted, and modified your post and reposted it. You then call it a lazy and childish response. I agree, your responses are lazy and childish.

Mirroring back somebody else's post is a childish and lazy method of response. Get it now?
And you claim to be a professor and yet here you are saying you are an evangelist for a 9/11 conspiracy theory. Very academic. More befitting of someone in their teens I'd say.

The Professor says

"The data provide strong evidence that chemical reactions which were both violent and highly-exothermic
contributed to the destruction of the WTC buildings. NIST neglected the high-temperature and fragmentation
evidence presented here: it appears nowhere in their final report".

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

Ah, surprise, surprise. Another copy and paste effort. Why is all this sort of stuff the 'truth' to you and yet the far, far, far more detailed work done by NIST is merely taken by you to be some sort of elaborate disinformation effort and dismissed out of hand?

The Professor says

We don't live on the earth

Speak for yourself.

The thread for non-censored discussion of truther conspiracy theories.

Homeboy says

bob2356 says

Homeboy says

There's an incredible amount of crap out there about aliens. Doesn't mean it's true.

It's not true?

Of course it's true. You can't find an official group of scientists who say that alien abductions aren't happening, so therefore it's true.

There's not an official group of scientists who say that the WTC wasn't brought down by mutant steel eating earthworms either, so it must have been mutant steel eating earthworms that destroyed the WTC. The truth is finally out at last.

The Professor says

I expect Bob to pop in with alien talk anytime now.

No I am forming 911mutantsteeleatingearthwormstruth.org. Aliens clearly didn't do it, mutant steel eating earthworms are the true culprits..

How are the contributions going to ae911truth.org by the way? Any extra money coming in from all your shilling on this post?

bob2356 says

There's not an official group of scientists who say that the WTC wasn't brought down by mutant steel eating earthworms either, so it must have been mutant steel eating earthworms that destroyed the WTC. The truth is finally out at last.

Those puffs of smoke you see coming out of the windows are actually earthworm farts. It makes so much more sense than the "official" story.

Hey Professor, why did you start another thread, and why do you delete anyone's post who proves you wrong? We all know you contradicted yourself. First, you argued that a steel skyscraper has never before in history collapsed due to fire. Then you argued that just because something never happened before doesn't mean it can't happen. You are contradicting your own arguments, and you started a new thread because you don't want to own up to your mistakes.

The Professor says

All your "arguments" are here for all to see.

Thanks for your contribution and have a good night.

You deleted my arguments in your other thread. Why do you refuse to comment on your contradiction where you refuted your own point? Is it because you are embarrassed? Too bad for you that you can't delete posts in this thread.

The Professor says

@homeboy

All your "arguments" are here for all to see.

Thanks for your contribution and have a good night.

And so are all yours, so why do you feel the need to post them all again in another thread? Oh, I forgot it's because you can censor posts that disprove your points in that thread.

The Professor says

Just keeping it clean. You can write whatever you want on this thread. My new thread is for sincere argument and actual evidence. I did not delete the half of your post that was not personal.

There is a lot of real arguments and evidence for the official story out there. Convince me that they are correct!

You deleted multiple posts from a number of people, including at least one of your own. Perhaps you'd like to explain why you deleted your sophistry post and my response.

Your new thread is about nothing more than censoring responses to the lies you are peddling.

And give the 'convince me' line a rest. You've already made up your mind. All the points have been covered in this thread. There is absolutely no need to repeat your exact same claims in a different thread. It is just utterly ridiculous and intellectually bankrupt.

The Professor says

... there is evidence of thermite at the crime scene.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

The Professor says

Personal attack, belittle the evidence, and then appeal to the memory of the victims. A trollish trifecta!

Brilliant bigsby!

It's not trolling, it's a fact. You keep posting that bloody image. It's childish and insulting. You claim you want to discuss the evidence, yet you post up that image multiple times and claim it to be evidence. Says all that needs to be said about what you are up to. Pathetic.

The Professor says

Homeboy says

The Professor says

I don't expect to convince the deniers. The truthers are so far up in conspiracy that they believe things like "mutant steel eating earthworms".

Do you really not understand sarcasm or the concept of "reductio ad absurdum" or are you being deliberately obtuse?

Do you understand the concept of "feed the trolls"?

Yes.

Do you really not understand sarcasm or the concept of "reductio ad absurdum" or are you being deliberately obtuse?

And as I said in the other thread, no, it isn't.

new contribution to the debate.

http://grtv.ca/2012/11/air-defense-911-anomalies-and-questions

The Professor says

Whether the buildings were intentionally demolished is not near as important as the fact that the whole thing was an excuse to pay off contractors, distract the public, spend trillions of dollars, murder many thousands of innocent civilians, kill thousands of our soldiers, and further limit our civil rights.

Ah, so you are finally back-peddling from all your ridiculous copy and pasted CD arguments.

what’s goin on in kuala lumpur?

September 11, 2001: The Crimes of War

Committed “in the Name of 9/11″

Initiating a Legal Procedure

against the Perpetrators of 9/11

Michel Chossudovsky

* * *

International Conference on “9/11 Revisited – Seeking the Truth”

Perdana Global Peace Foundation (PGPF)

Kuala Lumpur, November 2012

Introduction

http://www.globalresearch.ca/september-11-2001-the-crimes-of-war-committed-in-the-name-of-9

bring the prosecutions on!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUPLAYER_globalresearchtv&feature=player_embedded&v=8Z0Lsyox2zg

The Professor says

Do you understand the concept of "feed the trolls"?

If you ever come up with some sincere and valid arguments I will entertain them. I already have.

Thank you for your continuing contributions.

you go professor! you are a gentleman and a scholar!