user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : Yes
Probably cause you refer to give their opinion any merit whatsoever.
Nah, I have no problem with opinions. But opinions are not facts, unless of course you wear a tinfoil hat, which suddenly and magicaly makes all opinions the undisputable truth.
True, opinions are not facts, but belittling their not-necessarily-factual opinions doesn't help anything either.
Mr. Jinn: Who would trouble themselves to rebut these reports. Perhaps they are true. No one can know. I think the MIT report is credible. So, what's the issue here?
Once again, Mr. Jinn, I must ask you if you have been into the nose candy too often, or worse?
Voted : Yes
Gee Margaret, are you having a bad day? Your last ten comment posts on other people's ballots were pure scathing rage! Some in upper case too. tsk, tsk. Such passion.
Anyway, if you calm down somewhat, and reread the ballot you will see that I'm on the side of the MIT engineers and their reports, not against them.
Do you want me to give you the tinfoil-hat website that criticises the MIT report? Say please. 
Oh, please do, Mr. Jinn, pretty please! Oh, I can't wait! I'm so excited I'm trembling, and dare I admit it, perspiring. Please, Mr. Jinn...
Enjoy, I know I did.
(http:) (//guardian.)(150m.) (com/wtc/nova.)(htm)
Voted : no
No it wont bother them.
Just watch Ken and Lovely scramble to tell us how this report is bullsh*t or how the guy who runs MIT is George Bush's twin or something.
Evidence doesn't bother conspiracy theorists - it never has.
And once again politics defeats science.
Did someone mention nose candy?
Voted : no
All of these controlled demolition/global hawk/hologram/missle, etc. theories are just a smokescreen to distract the sheeple from the real account of what happened.
May 11, 2001
New York – Locally based Silverstein Properties, in a partnership with Los Angeles-based Westfield America, recently gained control of New York’s World Trade Center by signing a 99-year lease worth $3.2 billion.
The deal gives Silverstein Properties control of a 10.6 million sq.-ft. office complex and two nine-story office buildings. The complex also includes a more than 400,000 sq.-ft. concourse mall previously called the Mall at the World Trade Center. The retail portion will now be called Westfield Shoppingtown World Trade Center. In addition, Westfield has proposed adding between 150,000 and 250,000 sq. ft. of retail space to the mall.
nice report. Pity that they don't mention that it was all welded as well as bolted - like any other hi-rise steel frame building.
{Evidence doesn't bother conspiracy theorists - it never has.
by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Aug 24, 06 11:32pm}
you're obviously talking about yourself.
Evidence is ALWAYS ignored by the "Arabs did it" conspiracy theorists
"Arabs did it" conspiracy theorists try to claim that cellphones can make calls from planes flying six miles up and over 450mph. Such a thing is IMPOSSIBLE without an onboard cellular basestation (technology which did't exist prior to 2004).
The other lie these "Arabs did it" conspiracy theorists like to spread is the one about steel-framed buildings being able to collapse at freefall into their own footprint without a controlled demolition. In actual fact, before and after 9/11 it's NEVER HAPPENED.
It's impossible to prove that the WTC buildings were taken down WITHOUT controlled demolitions because
1) nobody has been able to do so with the empirical data and according to NIST's own models, it was impossible (they couldn't do it with even the worse case scenario)
2) EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when steel & concrete buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition. Can you cite a single exception to this? With link to photos and/or video to back your BS
3) It's IMPOSSIBLE for a steel-framed hi-rise to collapse straightdown through it's own structure without a controlled demolition at such speed because it goes against the 3rd law of thermodynamics, which is why it's never happened before or since Sept 11 2001.
Particularly as the witnesses claims about explosions and the controlled demolition is supported by video evidence showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions.
"It's impossible to prove that the WTC buildings were taken down WITHOUT controlled demolitions..." by lovelynice.
The terrorists proved it in front of our eyes. Large numbers of the world's best engineers have explained why and how. Do you want to call all these engineers liars and call all the world who witnessed 9/11 with their own eyes idiots?
Next.
So how come none of these engineers has claimed the $1 million reward Jimmy Walter has on offer but has still yet to receive any response to his challenge in exchange for proof that the trade towers' steel structure was broken apart WITHOUT explosives.
Well Jinn?
"The terrorists proved it in front of our eyes.
by Jinn_the_Kafir on Fri Aug 25, 06 11:46am"
The US govt terrorists who organised and carried out 9-11, planting the demolitions and detonating them to take down those buildings only proved that the USA govt is run by crooks and mass murderers.
the trusses were welded. Not just bolted.
Btw, the silly theory that WEAK trusses pulled in the STRONG structural supports is inherently stupid.
Jinn, you shouldnt mock the afflicted. The "Tin foil hat" people deserve pity not contempt. The last thing they want to listen to is evidence or facts from qualified professionals. They live in a dark scary world where Robert Ludlum is a journalist instead of a novelist. Where David Icke is a visionary in the mould of John the Baptist or Morpeheus instead of being a deeply disturbed individual who will one day crash and burn. They live in a world where everything is a conspiracy based on an agenda and the men with the butterfly nets really are out to get them. I dont want to think to much about how depressed angry and scared I would be if I lived in their world.
{LovelyNice. Hi you dont seem to be....
by Searchlight on Mon Aug 21, 06 2:50am (on the ballot "JINN THE KAFIR - SHOULD HE BE CHARGED WITH INCITEMENT TO HATRED?")}
How curiously similar to this
{LovelyNice, as your attitude, ....
by MegiddoDawn on Fri Aug 18, 06 5:51am (on the wiped old ballot "Which 9/11 witnesses were more credible?"}
and both engage in filling entire paragraphs with personal attacks and insults instead of citing facts backed by sources, links, and quotes.
{Large numbers of the world's best engineers have explained why and how.
by Jinn_the_Kafir on Fri Aug 25, 06 11:46am}
Maybe you shouldn't pretend that everyone at MIT agrees with you.
MIT Engineer Breaks Down WTC Controlled Demolition
Jeff King goes into detail why the WTC Towers and WTC 7 were brought down by explosives.
video . google . com / videoplay ? docid = 18227 6495 95990 63248 & q = wtc
"So how come none of these engineers has claimed the $1 million reward Jimmy Walter has on offer but has still yet to receive any response to his challenge in exchange for proof that the trade towers' steel structure was broken apart WITHOUT explosives. Well Jinn?" by Ken_from_Dublin on Sat Aug 26, 06 8:46am
Why don't you ask them yourself Ken. I simply presented this news report. I'm not exchanging pleasantries with the MIT engineers.
However, using common sense and rational thinking, (you should try it sometime) its obvious as the nose on your face, that the MIT students and their engineer professors proved what caused the towers to fall. Their job was not to "disprove" anyone. Besides, these students will go on to earn far more that a measly taxable 1 million dollars (split between them)in their own future careers.
"Maybe you shouldn't pretend that everyone at MIT agrees with you.
MIT Engineer Breaks Down WTC Controlled Demolition
Jeff King goes into detail why the WTC Towers and WTC 7 were brought down by explosives.
video . google . com / videoplay ? docid = 18227 6495 95990 63248 & q = wtc" by Lovelynice on Sun Aug 27, 06 9:50am
Well lovelynice, its all a matter of putting things in their true perspective for the purpose of credibility. So let us examine the facts.
True, your tinfoil hat man Jeff King graduated from MIT in 1974 (32 years ago), But guess what? It was with a degree in Chemical Engeering and combined major in Physical Biology. Does this qualify him as an expert on building construction or demolitions? And on top of that, as it turns out, these particular educational qualifcations of his didn't develop into much of a career for him, because for whatever reason Mr. King only worked about 7 or 8 years during the 70s and early 80s in the field of electronics and electro-mechainical engineering before packing it in. He soon returned to college in persuit of new interests, and has now been an ordinary practicing physician for the last 25 years in an some small town in california.
Now lets consider the studies and research done by these modern MIT students and graduates and their professors in their knowledge of Structural Engineering. You know, the ones that produced the report you don't like. These are well learned experts in the science of structures, metals, minerals, building materials, and their stresses, weights, strengths and enduance, etc.. In fact, you will note that Dr.Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, presented the MIT study and findings to the journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society. They did not deliver them to the Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers, did they? That would have neen silly.
Now let us summarize. So is your Jeff King an expert in building design, building structure and construction? No. Does he work in this field? No. Is he a demolitions expert? No. Is he employed in that line of work? No. Is he a family physician? Yes.
|
|
