Author Topic: See-no-evil approach to terror attacks is scary  (Read 1807 times)

Eric15210

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1207
  • poor people are crazy I'm eccentric
See-no-evil approach to terror attacks is scary
« on: May 18, 2010, 06:19:40 AM »
It would be wrong to blame the Obama administration for three terror attacks on U.S. soil in the past six months. In an open democracy it’s simply impossible to stop everything.

Still, in our view the administration is culpable for a see-no-evil posture toward America’s radical Islamist enemies — exemplified last week in Attorney General Eric Holder’s bob-and-weave testimony on Capitol Hill, during which he repeatedly balked at acknowledging that radical Islam motivated the Fort Hood shooter in November, the Christmas Day bomber and the Times Square bomber earlier this month.

In the aftermath of each, the administration was reluctant to connect the attacks (thankfully, neither of the bombing attempts succeeded) to radical Islamist groups like al-Qaida and the Taliban, only to learn the perpetrators basically were proxies for those groups — exposed to their ideology and/or recipients of their training.

Recall that after Maj. Nidal Hasan allegedly shot 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, Obama administration officials downplayed his faith as a factor, though he reportedly yelled "Allahu Akbar!” as he opened fire. Investigators soon found evidence Hasan had significant ties to radical Islamists, yet it took the administration weeks to call the slaughter an act of terrorism.

After Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was is accused of trying to bring down a commercial airliner on Christmas Day with a bomb hidden in his underwear, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said there was no indication the attempt was part of anything larger — although months earlier Abdulmutallab’s father had warned U.S. embassy officials in Nigeria that his son had extremist views and had disappeared into an al-Qaida stronghold in Yemen. Three days after the attack, President Obama called Abdulmutallab an "isolated extremist.”

A day after the May 1 Times Square bombing attempt, Napolitano told ABC News there was no evidence Faisal Shahzad’s plot was "anything other than a one-off.” Inside of a week the Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility, and we learned Shahzad got bomb training from that group.

In isolation, these might be explained as officials being cautious. But taken together — with statements by Holder, the administration’s decision to stop calling the war on terror the "war on terror” and eliminating words like "jihad” and "Islam” from security documents — and it looks like an administration that doesn’t want to see a radical Islamist threat.

In this Americans are ahead of their government. When such attacks occur, most people assume they’re terror-related; the Obama administration’s first inclination seems to be to dismiss the possibility.

It’s the wrong posture for keeping America safe. Paraphrasing a line from a classic Coen brothers film: Americans would worry a lot less if they thought the president and his administration were worrying enough.



http://newsok.com/see-no-evil-approach-to-terror-attacks-is-scary/article/3461811?custom_click=lead_story_title
RIP Bob Probert

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: See-no-evil approach to terror attacks is scary
« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2010, 06:49:48 AM »
obama doesn't grab his junk and scream 'bring it on.'  he's very diplomatic, gentle, submissive, whatever.

the proof is in the motherfooking pudding.  After 15 months in office, compare what Bush and Obama have done in their 'war on terror'.

Bush had already ignored vital warnings and 911 had happened.  Anthrax had already happened, and bush let the FBI destroy their samples so we'd never find out the exact strain sent from, well, the FBI.  Reid had already pulled his shoe shit.

Obama has had a couple of reid-like half-assed attacks, but he's killing bad guys left and right in pakistan, afghanistan, and iraq.  No 911 or anthrax on his watch.

Who has spent more $?  Obama.  he's spent more on anti-terrorism and wars than Bush ever did.


So um, aside from obama being a kiss-ass, isn't the results - safety of americans - what really matters?  We're safe, that's all that is important.  I dont care if our prez is a rude cowboy, or an effeminate kissass... safety of americans is what matters!

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: See-no-evil approach to terror attacks is scary
« Reply #2 on: May 18, 2010, 07:01:15 AM »
Bush had already ignored vital warnings and 911 had happened. 
wait I thought bush was in on 9/11??

see 240 this is why you need to post a list so us ppl not in the know can keep up  ;)

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: See-no-evil approach to terror attacks is scary
« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2010, 07:07:10 AM »
see, you're talking about why santa claus is way cooler than the easter bunny at this point.  you're arguing about the number 5 being greater than 4.

elementary shit dude.  youre a newb on this topic ;)

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: See-no-evil approach to terror attacks is scary
« Reply #4 on: May 18, 2010, 07:09:00 AM »
see, you're talking about why santa claus is way cooler than the easter bunny at this point.  you're arguing about the number 5 being greater than 4.

elementary shit dude.  youre a newb on this topic ;)
well enlighten me damn it

ive asked many times for help with the assistance of your brilliance and you always deny me  ???

phreak

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5084
  • Food is amazing
Re: See-no-evil approach to terror attacks is scary
« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2010, 07:24:20 AM »
As an outside observer I have to ask the following question:

- a guy with a so-called bomb in his shoe
- a guy with a malfunctioning underwear firecracker
- a guy with a smoke bomb

Three amateurs with a total of zero kills in almost a decade. On a population of 300+ million. With borders so open that literally millions of illegals can waltz in at any time. Why is terrorism even an issue for americans?

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: See-no-evil approach to terror attacks is scary
« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2010, 07:24:58 AM »
www.google.com is your friend.

please don't settle for a 6 year old Pop Mech article, nor any single "liveleak" video, supporting either side.

Look at 100 videos - 50 of them saying "911 was 19 pricks, that's it, and here's why".
Then look at 50 videos breaking down the policitical, logistical, historical, and science aspects of that day and the year before.

THEN make your decision.  It's not about "why won't the FBI release the 85 videos from the pentagon they admit exist"....  it's more about "Why did the US tell UK and India in summer 2001 that we'd be warring in afghanistan in mid oct 2001, so move your people out?  Oh, we were negotiating wirth taleban, and they rupped us off for 40 million bucks then handed the oil pipeline contract to argentina? oooohhh"

See, shit like that isn't "911 101 message board debates".  It's what you learn after soaking in the entire spectrum of 911 info.  You look at the total picture, what people did in the months ahead of time, why they fought the investigation, why all of these things happened.

So anyway, there isn't one clip nor one argument that will lead you to the truth that is best for you.  It'll take a year of research.  If you want to do it, good luck.  If you want to cite a single video for either side of the issue, well, feel free.  There's a lot of info you're missing.  Remember dude - I was nonstop bashing gore and kerry on getbig for YEARS before I spent a year learning about 911.  I was a total pro-Bush robot.  What changed?

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: See-no-evil approach to terror attacks is scary
« Reply #7 on: May 18, 2010, 07:36:14 AM »
www.google.com is your friend.

please don't settle for a 6 year old Pop Mech article, nor any single "liveleak" video, supporting either side.

Look at 100 videos - 50 of them saying "911 was 19 pricks, that's it, and here's why".
Then look at 50 videos breaking down the policitical, logistical, historical, and science aspects of that day and the year before.

THEN make your decision.  It's not about "why won't the FBI release the 85 videos from the pentagon they admit exist"....  it's more about "Why did the US tell UK and India in summer 2001 that we'd be warring in afghanistan in mid oct 2001, so move your people out?  Oh, we were negotiating wirth taleban, and they rupped us off for 40 million bucks then handed the oil pipeline contract to argentina? oooohhh"

See, shit like that isn't "911 101 message board debates".  It's what you learn after soaking in the entire spectrum of 911 info.  You look at the total picture, what people did in the months ahead of time, why they fought the investigation, why all of these things happened.

So anyway, there isn't one clip nor one argument that will lead you to the truth that is best for you.  It'll take a year of research.  If you want to do it, good luck.  If you want to cite a single video for either side of the issue, well, feel free.  There's a lot of info you're missing.  Remember dude - I was nonstop bashing gore and kerry on getbig for YEARS before I spent a year learning about 911.  I was a total pro-Bush robot.  What changed?
as a person who is well versed on the subject I appeal to your knowledge...the thing is 240 you recommended loose change to me in which i found that it was quickly and easily debunked...

so please give me the info im missing, ive watched clip after clip read article after article and to me they dont point to the things you say so maybe im missing those articles and clips so again i implore you to give me them...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39449
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: See-no-evil approach to terror attacks is scary
« Reply #8 on: May 18, 2010, 07:49:41 AM »
240 - after spending years and years of research as you claim, since you dont believe the "official story" do you believe the following:

1.  WTC was brought down by demolition?
2.  Pentagon was hit by a missle?
3.  The plane in PA never happened?

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: See-no-evil approach to terror attacks is scary
« Reply #9 on: May 18, 2010, 07:53:21 AM »
240 - after spending years and years of research as you claim, since you dont believe the "official story" do you believe the following:

1.  WTC was brought down by demolition?
2.  Pentagon was hit by a missle?
3.  The plane in PA never happened?
indeed after spending years of exhaustive late night caffiene fueled years of research surely 240 you can answer these questions?

240 do this for us please tell us your assertions about 9/11 and its events? and why you dont have to go into detail

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: See-no-evil approach to terror attacks is scary
« Reply #10 on: May 18, 2010, 07:55:27 AM »
New beginning - same old Religion of Peace.  In the year since Obama's pledge for a "new beginning" with the Islamic world, Muslims in America have: 1) Plotted to set off a car bomb in Illinois, 2) Plotted to blow up a skyscraper in Dallas, 3) Attempted to detonate an airplane over Detroit, 4) Murdered an army recruiter in Arkansas,  5) Planted a car bomb in Times Square, and 6) Massacred thirteen people in Texas.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: See-no-evil approach to terror attacks is scary
« Reply #11 on: May 18, 2010, 08:25:18 AM »
240 - after spending years and years of research as you claim, since you dont believe the "official story" do you believe the following:

1.  WTC was brought down by demolition?
2.  Pentagon was hit by a missle?
3.  The plane in PA never happened?

1- yes - too many NYPD and FDNY witnesses of bombs all over the building, and seismic activity showing large blasts in basement 10 seconds before planes hit.  You knew that though, right?
2- I dunno - brutal distraction on this one. 
3- I dunno - I agree with Rumsfeld and Michelle Malkin - it was probably shot down, broke up in mid aid.


As far as "manning the fuuuck up', I just saw this thread and now I'm responding.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: See-no-evil approach to terror attacks is scary
« Reply #12 on: May 18, 2010, 08:26:51 AM »
tony,

loose change 3 should be the first clip you watch.

not 2 - the one they debunked years ago - but THREE - built entirely from the govt's own words, media reporting, and 100% backed.

Then, you should watch 49 OTHER videos, all of higher quality and content, regarding political and economic circumstances, building infrastructure.  Loose change 3 is just an intro.  other videos are way deeper in content and detail.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39449
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: See-no-evil approach to terror attacks is scary
« Reply #13 on: May 18, 2010, 08:27:40 AM »
Ok.  So you believe it was internal demolition?  Both buildings were rigged up?  

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: See-no-evil approach to terror attacks is scary
« Reply #14 on: May 18, 2010, 08:30:07 AM »
I don't know if internal or extrenal.  But I believe there were more intentional explosions than two planes dumping most of their jet fuel outside in 2 seconds.

Maybe all the witnesses, video, and seismic data are wrong lol...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39449
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: See-no-evil approach to terror attacks is scary
« Reply #15 on: May 18, 2010, 08:33:31 AM »
Really?  Because the videos I saw show the opposite? 

So lets get this started: 

1.  How much explosives would it take to do an internal demo? 
2.  How long would it have taken to rig up two buildings?
3.  How many people would it have taken to rig up the buildings?  10, 20, 50?  No one saw anyone?  the camera, the security guards, the workers, janitors?  What floors were the explosives placed on?  Were those spaces occupied? 
   
I am going to have you never ever discussing 911 again by the time we are done for fear of embarassment.   

BM OUT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8229
  • Getbig!
Re: See-no-evil approach to terror attacks is scary
« Reply #16 on: May 18, 2010, 08:35:58 AM »
So,we are going to blame Bush for 911,ok fine.Then this economy and the job losses are 100% Hussein Obamas fault.He has been in there for a year and a half and UE is at 9.9% its HIS FAULT 100% !!I dont want ONE of these dumb ass libs saying he inherrited it.Bush was in there for 9 months and gets 100% of the blame for 911,Obama year and half and the economy in a pile of shit,ITS HIS FAULT!!

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: See-no-evil approach to terror attacks is scary
« Reply #17 on: May 18, 2010, 08:36:08 AM »
1.2.3.4. I have no fuucking idea.


I just said I believe there were more explosions than those initial two from the planes hitting it.

Now, if YOU wish to spend all day pondering "what if", that is cool.  I did that for years here and at the end of all that debates, we wer still back at square one.


I believe there were more explosions in the towers.  So do a shitload of FDNY and NYPD.  Maybe they're wrong and you're right.  Who the fvvck knows, and who cares?

Please, spend your beautiful day creating and destroying scenarios, what if, what if...

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: See-no-evil approach to terror attacks is scary
« Reply #18 on: May 18, 2010, 08:39:02 AM »
I don't know if internal or extrenal.  But I believe there were more intentional explosions than two planes dumping most of their jet fuel outside in 2 seconds.

Maybe all the witnesses, video, and seismic data are wrong lol...
please link the wintesses, video and seismic data...LOL

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39449
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: See-no-evil approach to terror attacks is scary
« Reply #19 on: May 18, 2010, 08:39:11 AM »
So you know more than these people?
________________________ ________________________



Structure Magazine, a well respected magazine for structural engineers, has come out with a probable collapse hypothesis. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7" points out that the failure of column 79 in the lower levels will create the very effect we see in videos.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Yet another peer reviewed paper from a respected Journal finds the towers were doomed to collapse.

9/11 demolition theory challenged

An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.
The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.

One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".

The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.

Resistance to collapse

Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localized failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.

In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.

"The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.

Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.

His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.

This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.

He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behavior of the buildings.

The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronized rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center.

This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.

Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.

Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm

Dr. Keith A. Seffen

http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~kas14/

Below is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...

For those who may think that no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...

"Walter P. Murphy Professor of

Civil Engineering and Materials Science

Northwestern University

The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:

Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).

That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.

I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove its hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "theory of intelligent design" except on Christian web sites, there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books."

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/

The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html

Editor:

Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu

http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?corotis

Editorial Board:

Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html

Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html

Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/

Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php

Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/

Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html

Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/

Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/

Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5

Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/who/stafflists/academicAlpha.htm

Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm

Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm

Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592

George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiadjis_George/Voyiadjis_Gbio.htm

Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi

 

 Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee

Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/

James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/

Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml

Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i

Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show

Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact

Journal of Engineering Mechanics

 

More links to civil engineering papers and other information concerning the WTC collapse...

 

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis"  (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Clifton, Charles G.  
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
 “Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of  Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.  

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell:  A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)  

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: See-no-evil approach to terror attacks is scary
« Reply #20 on: May 18, 2010, 08:45:57 AM »
so we can both post a list of 1000s of people with PhDs who believe the exact opposite thigns about 911.


Splendid. 



Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: See-no-evil approach to terror attacks is scary
« Reply #21 on: May 18, 2010, 08:46:36 AM »
It's Getbig. Everyone has 170 IQs and PhDs in physics from MIT.  ::)

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: See-no-evil approach to terror attacks is scary
« Reply #22 on: May 18, 2010, 08:53:37 AM »
LOL... i actually do have a MBA and an actual 137 IQ.
33 and a few other have legit law degrees.

There are a few brain cells here among us.  We just soak them in alcohol and msnbc/fox and they become less useful :)

Skip8282

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7004
Re: See-no-evil approach to terror attacks is scary
« Reply #23 on: May 18, 2010, 10:50:41 AM »
www.google.com is your friend.

please don't settle for a 6 year old Pop Mech article, nor any single "liveleak" video, supporting either side.

Look at 100 videos - 50 of them saying "911 was 19 pricks, that's it, and here's why".
Then look at 50 videos breaking down the policitical, logistical, historical, and science aspects of that day and the year before.

THEN make your decision.  It's not about "why won't the FBI release the 85 videos from the pentagon they admit exist"....  it's more about "Why did the US tell UK and India in summer 2001 that we'd be warring in afghanistan in mid oct 2001, so move your people out?  Oh, we were negotiating wirth taleban, and they rupped us off for 40 million bucks then handed the oil pipeline contract to argentina? oooohhh"

See, shit like that isn't "911 101 message board debates".  It's what you learn after soaking in the entire spectrum of 911 info.  You look at the total picture, what people did in the months ahead of time, why they fought the investigation, why all of these things happened.

So anyway, there isn't one clip nor one argument that will lead you to the truth that is best for you.  It'll take a year of research.  If you want to do it, good luck.  If you want to cite a single video for either side of the issue, well, feel free.  There's a lot of info you're missing.  Remember dude - I was nonstop bashing gore and kerry on getbig for YEARS before I spent a year learning about 911.  I was a total pro-Bush robot.  What changed?



Serious question for you 240:  Why do you keep throwing out this 1 year of research as if it makes you somehow informed?

You keep implying that others are somehow uniformed as if you are "in the know".

Take the BBC video as an example.  After a year or MORE of "research", you can't even answer the most basic of questions:

After a year of research, do you know if the BBC's video was even in the back-up stage?

After a year of research, can you even state what the BBC's back-up policy was on 9/11?

After a year of research, can you name other companies like 3rd party providers that may store the BBC's back-ups?

After a year of research, can you explain how the BBC transmits back-up footage?

After a year of research, can you explain where the BBC keeps its back-up footage?




ONE ENTIRE YEAR of so-called "research", and you can't even tackle basic questions.  But you want to act like your at some advanced CT level?  ::)  I really don't get the whole "one year" thing because the only "research" you seem to have done is bouncing from one CT to another.