I'm guessing you never attended one because you don't seem to know that schools are also for teaching and research, among many other things.
And most are used for real problems, not idiotic fantasies. any school would laugh you out. Are you claiming that not one school will look at your fantasy. Geeeee...There must be a reason for that.
Now there's something I can agree with you on. I thought I already said that: Institute of Northern Engineering College of Engineering and Mines University of Alaska Fairbanks PO Box 755910 Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-5910 http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/ (they're working on a real problem in case you don't have a chance to click on the link or too lazy to read the contents.)
LOLOL I went to the U of Alaska, Auke Bay. So they financed a project, and they didn't like the answer. What a waste.
Well then, show us what they found out. They had a project, financed by troofers, and found out It happened just like the government said.
Here is something that will never be taken before a jury--the official story you defend. That's why there was never a jury trial associated with the events of the day. That's why all surviving family members with claims were made to sign the papers for the settlement. No trial, just a settlement, enforced by a federal judge with Israeli citizenship, Hellerstein.
What steel are you talking about exactly? Core columns? Perimeter columns? The whole whole steel structure? What does the static mass the steel had to support above, prior to collapse, have to do with the load that was created when the upper section descended and impacted the first structural components? What numbers did you use to come up with your paper loop and washer model? Are you kidding me? Material is what determines the strength. Are you telling me that the paper loops you used and the load created by the descending washers is adequate to shoe the weight and strength of what occured in the towers structurally? Explain please. You admit it's not adequate yet the video is still accessible? Tell you what. Why don't you put the part that your model is not adequate into your description. So your model is both inadequate and unaccessible? Is that what I'm getting from you? How did you come up with these numbers? So again, you're model is garbage for comparison right?
Then talk about the flashes. What is the pro-official story people's explanation for the flashes? You're tap dancing around the issue instead of addressing it. Let's hear your analysis of the pod issue. Rhetoric with no substance would get you laughed out of the debating hall. This is a tactic that sophists use.
I don't know if there is a pro official story for the flashes ... who gives a rat's ass? ... nothing I see in your crappy vids show the flashes happening prior to impact so I'm going with metal on metal ... you obviously think it was a missile ... did you see any exhaust notes from your non-existent pods? ... what were they firing a missile at when they have a plane loaded with fuel making a direct hit? ... debating hall again Scott? ... debating halls are useless as the listeners are not allowed to call out bullshit being spewed ... it's a personality driven exercise in wordplay ... on the subject of pods ... shadows are not pods Scott ... the 1st revision of Loose Change already dropped the subject in case your robotic mind hadn't picked that up ... paid sophists? ... I only take cash as to not leave a money trail ... you on the other hand have a PayPal account for your clicks ... the big question ... when are you going to answer questions from non troofers? ...
He's not "debating" or even discussing, he throws excrement against the wall on a regular basis and hopes it will stick. When he's challenged, he fails to respond in any adult intelligent manner, often using "troofer" as his all purpose defense mechanism, this has been his MO since I've been reading his posts. Among the hundreds of anomalies and convenient coincidences surrounding 9/11, the videos show there were unexplained bright flashes immediately prior to impact into the twin towers and some kind of fairings or pods underneath the plane that shouldn't be there, also unexplained. Dismissing or trivializing these anomalies will not make them go away, neither does labeling those who point them out "troofer". They absolutely require a thorough investigation.
for one, you haven't proved that the flashes occurred prior to impact nor any expert confirming the alleged pods ... I will address your other troofer nonsense when you sack up and answer my questions ... my use of the term troofer is hardly a defense mechanism ... it's how I actually feel about delusional people clinging to little "anomalies" in the hope that someone or anyone will put it altogether and expose this treacherous plot planned and executed by thousands upon thousands of nefarious individuals ... when will 9/11 truth find the agates to bring in the professionals that can expose your "truth" ... it's been over 17 years and still nothing ... the best that has been done is the Saudi connection ... a big "duh" there huh Bob? ...
Start watching this at the 10:04 time mark. Was the 9/11 Attack the 2001 Version of "Operation Northwoods"?
I watched the whole thing Scott ... yet more troofer nonsense ... show me the math on those flashes and what could possibly be the cause ... why would this alleged event even be remotely consistent with controlled demolition? ... did some high school students plan this elaborate troofer event??? ...
The videos stand as proof unless they were doctored. If your eyes aren't working, get a pair of glasses, no expert is required to confirm what anyone can see from the videos. You can call it "troofer" all you want, anytime you think it helps you somehow, it doesn't the facts, you are irrelevant with respect to 9/11 and all the facts surrounding 9/11. What relevant question(s) have I failed to answer that I can answer? It seems to me YOU posted a claim (that I lie and spread lies) and when I challenged you at least twice to show how you believe that's true, you failed to answer. I posted a long list of facts about the official 9/11 "investigators" and "investigations" and their conclusions that they peddled as fact and you couldn't show how any of these are lies, never mind most or all of them. You described these as "adequate" when clearly they reveal a serious pattern of fraud. Describe it as you wish, for me it's an obvious defense mechanism, a very childish one at that. Those hundreds of "little anomalies" as you trivialize them ALL require a thorough investigation no matter how much you want to dismiss them. It's been posted here for quite some time and nothing below has anything to do with any Saudi connection. It's not "my" truth, truth stands on its own merit. Below is the work of many professionals who have done meticulous research for the last 17 years. It's far from "nothing" except in your denying delusion. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mission-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.495859/ http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/ http://www.consensus911.org/ http://911speakout.org/ http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/ http://www.journalof911studies.com/ etc.
"debunking every single 9/11 conspiracy theory one at a time" The video did not try to "debunk" the most well known 9/11 conspiracy theory of them all, the OCT, so there's nothing honest about it, among other things. But besides the author's obvious dishonesty, he/she claims the flashes occurred at the moment of impact. While it's much more difficult to see from the Naudet video, all the videos of WCT2 clearly show the flash occurred a fraction of a second prior to impact. Furthermore, the author compares friction sparks to the flashes in other portions of the video (i.e. apples and oranges). If it weren't for the fact that the author of the video exposes his/her actual objective from start to finish, I would accept it as just another point of view (and I still do to some degree), but all credibility is immediately lost with his/her objective. EDIT: I should also add that questioning these anomalies is NOT a “conspiracy theory”. In any 9/11 investigation it would be called due diligence.
surely one of our resident troofers has a still frame showing that flash a nano second before impact ... and what about those pods? ... any heat signature or missile exhaust in that brief amount of time? ... after 17 years, the troofers are regressing to Loose Change silliness ... bring on the holograms, mini nukes and energy beams ...
Shiner? Already addressed. But your ducking my questions that asked you to support your FOS claims is typical. Troofer, troofer, troofer, that’s the extent of what you know.
what questions now Bob? ... just ask a ****ing question in a straight forward manner ... stop being a dodging troofer for once ... ask me a question ... go ahead ...
let me ask you a question ... are your eyes that quick that you can see where the nose of the plane is a 1/2 second (your words) before impact??? ... show me that still frame ...
Playing dumb as usual. I asked you several times, see post #391 in this thread when I first challenged you. Unless you really haven't a clue how to read in English, it's a straightforward as it gets. Actually my vision has improved since cataract surgery and I can't actually verify the exact fraction of a second but the video does stop just before impact. Post #423 in this thread. If you never bothered to watch it you have no business even discussing this issue.
