Slashdot Mirror

They're going to delete your post. Not because they're in on it but because Slashdead editors only believe the convenient narratives spoonfed to them. By both the MSM throughout their pothead millenial lives as well as the Arabs who own Slashdot. Actually, this isn't a msmash story, so you won't have to worry about the comment deletion. The worst that will happen is the guaranteed downmodding.
 
  On Building 7. Let's pull it!

Not that this has anything whatsoever to do with diabetes, but they're the ones who begged for $1800 to finance a press release informing the Iranian authorities that apartment building fires are actually caused by explosives. Please look elsewhere for rubes to fleece. Thanks!

one floor falls down to the next and cascades

The PANCAKE theory? There are people still pushing that? Wow. Even the government had to abandon that laughable attempt at an explanation. Over a decade ago. Do some reading.

Here's a few thousand architects and engineers who disagree with you: http://www.ae911truth.org/

Easily explained, my fucking ass. WTC7 is a classic controlled demo. Asymmetrical fire damage does not remotely explain the symmetrical collapse observed, nor the period of free fall acceleration. But don't let empirical facts get in the way of your denial.

"When a practicing structural engineer working on tall buildings says the collapse was a result of deliberate engineering, then I'll listen."
You may want to consider giving these individuals some of your precious time...
http://www.ae911truth.org/abou...
http://www.ae911truth.org/news...

"When a practicing structural engineer working on tall buildings says the collapse was a result of deliberate engineering, then I'll listen."
You may want to consider giving these individuals some of your precious time...
http://www.ae911truth.org/abou...
http://www.ae911truth.org/news...

2626 professional architects and engineers want an independent investigation of the events of 9/11. The 9/11 commission was only created after the strong insistence of the 9/11 victims families over a year later after that tragic event. It was initially going to be led by the politically polarizing figure Henry Kissinger and two of the co-chairs claim the commission was setup to fail. A new independent investigation is required to address the deficiencies of the original 9/11 commissions report.

I hope that it's clear that I have no interest in carrying on a 'conversation' with a birther and truther. That way leads to madness.

Since I have made it abundantly clear, more than once, that I am not even remotely a "birther", and those you call "truthers" are on the side of overwhelming evidence and the professional consensus, I am curious to know what your real reason is. After all, I thought you supported expert consensus views.

You also think that Obama faked his birth certificate and that 911 was an inside job. I've learned not to put too much stock in what you think.

Pure libel. I never wrote either of those things. In fact, I straightened you out on BOTH of those issues, right here on Slashdot, just a short time ago. So there is absolutely no excuse for your libel. You knew, or should have known, those statements were false when you made them just now.

For the sake of others, not you, I will repeat what I told you earlier: I have no idea where Barack Obama was born. The document on the White House website IS an altered graphic, which anyone with good graphics skills can download and check for themselves. They hardly need to take my word for it. However, as I also clearly told you before, there could be a number of legitimate reasons for that.

Second, I did not claim 9/11 "was an inside job". That's a blatant lie. My only claim was that we were not told the whole truth about it. and there are more than 2400 professional architects and engineers who agree with me.

Neither I or they did claim or now claim it was "an inside job". That's a deliberate lie. I.e., libel.

Now I have some questions for YOU. Please do be a good boy and try to answer them honestly:

(A) Why did you respond to a perfectly civil comment with insults and deliberate lies?

(B) Why do you quote "Khayman80" so much? No "conspiracy theory" here, just an honest question. I am not claiming you are the same people, but they way you write and the way you behave are remarkably similar, and you even quote each other rather surprisingly consistently and often.

Like it or not, dialogue is a two way street. I have tried, often pretty hard, to have a rational dialogue with you. With you, it's a one way street and you are the only one on the street. You can't, and never have said "hmm, I never thought of it that way" or "I never realized other people perceive things that way", to you it's what the establishment said. You consistently cherry pick fragments of fact to back your pro establishment opinion. You ignore facts that don't back the pro establishment opinion and name call "conspiracy" anything you dislike.

I made the statement above that both sides are being dishonest about the Ukraine, not the first time I have made that statement ,and your response is to name call and attack that statement. You called me an "apologist" and my perspective "biased", then you want to complain about being called a shill and troll?

The two historical post examples you provide are no exception. In both cases read the whole goddamn thread instead of cherry picking a fragment. Read what is written by you and the people you respond to from top to bottom, because that is a conversation. Make sure you take note of the moderation and who is moderated a "troll" in both threads.

In the first example you pointed to a particular response from a person who claims that anyone investigating what Architects and Engineers say about the government report on the 9/11 attacks is "dishonoring the dead". They are entitled to their opinion, but I find the facts laid out in ae911 reports to be relevant and, well, facts. His opinion does not make facts go away, and does not make the Government's reports magically valid. His defense is not explaining how the Architects and Engineers are wrong, but to attack my signature and label the subject "conspiracy theory". That should sound very familiar to you, since you do the same thing often enough.

Most importantly, look at your posts and what you responded to in that whole thread. The first post is an active military person who hopes that things don't escalate in Syria because they are on active duty, to which you respond "Sniff..sniff..?? ... sniff..sniff....... smells like a troll to me.". Someone else, over a year ago, provides their opinion of you as "It's not - cold fjord is our resident boot-licking statist, and you just stepped on his dick with your honest account."

In the second example you provided, again, read the damn thread. I stated that there are many abuses that should have officials in jail. Such as the establishment telling the police to attack journalists. Now look at your answer, which is paraphrased as "You support people killing cops". Look at the moderation on the thread, who is a troll and who is insightful? I did not moderate the thread, I provided a fact based opinion which you attacked. When I showed you that your response was nothing but a stream of fallacies you retort with CNN opinion pieces. This is a trend, not a one time event (see the thread we are currently in).

I don't post pro establishment nonsense, because much of it is nonsense. People can get the pro establishment opinion by turning on any "news" station in the US. I don't believe what I'm told, I question what I'm told. You consistently attack anyone that questions the establishment, often with very elaborate fallacies trying to mask the attack and belittle the people you are responding to. Then again, you frequently attack people openly and don't try to hide it.

You brought the bias on yourself. Contrary to your invalid attempt to diminish the amount of people that perceive you as a shill, look at how your posts are consistently moderated negatively. That is because of _YOUR_ method of attacking people, your lack of ability to hold courteous dialogue, your policy of cherry picking facts you like and negatively labeling facts you don't like. Either change your mode of dialogue, which would change people's perception of you, or expect that you will be ignored and labeled.

sadly, you are an absolute moron and a troll.. i was iniitially going to say one or the other, but whether your posts are intentionally troll-like or not, they are still troll-worthy. i was also hopeful that the delay between the time i posted and your response was due to you doing some intelligent research and maybe even some though.. unfortunately you were instead looking for propaganda to use as 'evidence' to refute my point.

the beauty of the freefall/wtc-7 argument is that it is absolutely OBVIOUS and irrefutable. they messed up there big time (well, would have messed up if not for the fact that people like you will believe whatever is fed to you). The fall is on video in real-time. the physics is easy and doesn't lie.

where exactly in the link you attach does it address the free-fall issue? answer: NOWHERE.

in other words the SINGLE question gave you, you answered with a YES referencing an article that makes NO MENTION of the issue itself... but of course, what it DOES do is expand and attempt to obfuscate with other things that would make the conversation even more unwieldy.

for anyone with half a brain that is reading this, you might want to instead check out what a bloke named David Chandler says. Chandler has a degree in a hybrid physics and engineering program from Harvey Mudd College, and a MS degree in mathematics from Cal Poly University. http://www.ae911truth.org/en/n...

and phantom.. stop.... just... stop...

Then read it. And check out http://www.ae911truth.org/ while you're at it.

NIST has in many instances blocked independent investigations into 9/11, as well as lied about its own findings and devised unscientific explanations for the controlled demolitions of WTC 7 and the Twin Towers.
AE911truth

You know, this is probably the first time in the history of 9/11 whackjob posts on Slashdot that the reply is actually relevant to the story. Because they have nearly identical basis in reality.

NIST has in many instances blocked independent investigations into 9/11, as well as lied about its own findings and devised unscientific explanations for the controlled demolitions of WTC 7 and the Twin Towers.
AE911truth

Building seven called, there is something wrong with the party line. Architects and Engineers have additional questions.

And the vast majority of Architects and Engineers think those guys are idiots.

By the way, I've got a question for you. I don't think that the collapse of the World Trade Center from the 9/11 attacks in New York, crushing thousands of people to death, resulted in the "Tree of Liberty" growing any stronger from the blood shed. Do you? Do you think they were just not "patriotic enough" to make a difference?

Building seven called, there is something wrong with the party line. Architects and Engineers have additional questions. Of course you may not want facts to get in the way of your absurd level of delusion. Either that or your masters will be mad if you look at facts (I'm not so sure after reading many of your posts)

Is there any point where you think too much American blood can be shed in slaughter instead of battle? Or is every American killed at work or shopping by terrorists another tick mark toward "liberty" to you - the more Americans murdered the "freer" you feel?

Last time I checked, more people die from accidental slip and falls in the bathtub than die by terrorism. You repeat an appeal to emotion argument handed down to sheep, goodie for you. Many people understand what was meant when we were told "Those that give up Liberty for a bit of temporary security deserve and get neither." In fact there are a tremendous amount of similar anecdotes from Jews in Germany prior to a tyrannical take over by Hitler, many more from Russia before Lenin, many more in China before Mao, etc... Perhaps you have somehow convinced yourself that human nature does not exist in the USA or that some magic shield protects you from tyranny. Either way, you are delusional.

Are you really trying to claim that you must trust that the Government is "good" and "innocent" when proof is absent? Do you know how many people were called "crazy conspiracy theorists" that were warning people about the Government trying to entrap MLK? Then we read about COINTELPRO and Operation Mocking Bird later, and find out they were correct. Do you know how many people said that the Government was poisoning people in St. Louis and were called "Crazy Conspiracy Nuts" just to find out later the US Government was dumping radioactive isotopes on them? NOTE: I'm not bothering to provide links to COINTELPRO, it's too easy to find.

Those are two very easy examples out of thousands! If you read what architects and engineers ask about 9/11 you will find many very high quality questions.

I agree that counting Google hits is not a way to measure the truth, but if you actually read some of the content you should be questioning what people tell you.

The Daily Mail is a tabloid, and the government was not researching health effects, it was testing for the dispersion of the material which was selected because it was easily detectable. Maybe radium was involved, maybe not, but bear in mind this is from the time we had factory workers putting radium on as lipstick.
Notice none of the people involved in the project are wearing masks in the pictures... The intent of the research was entirely mundane, period.

Sorry, s.petry but your "go look it up" Limbaugh/late night conspiracy show style is a little too obvious, you are a conspiracy nut.

Are you really trying to claim that you must trust that the Government is "good" and "innocent" when proof is absent? Do you know how many people were called "crazy conspiracy theorists" that were warning people about the Government trying to entrap MLK? Then we read about COINTELPRO and Operation Mocking Bird later, and find out they were correct. Do you know how many people said that the Government was poisoning people in St. Louis and were called "Crazy Conspiracy Nuts" just to find out later the US Government was dumping radioactive isotopes on them? NOTE: I'm not bothering to provide links to COINTELPRO, it's too easy to find.

Those are two very easy examples out of thousands! If you read what architects and engineers ask about 9/11 you will find many very high quality questions.

I agree that counting Google hits is not a way to measure the truth, but if you actually read some of the content you should be questioning what people tell you.

Created, managed, controlled, dictated, and fostered by the CIA

All terrorist acts are inside jobs my friends, as was 9/11.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

As for the "serious concerns about terrorism" , you should be asking your congress people who the real terrorists are.

1,700 professional architects and engineers who do design high rise steel framed buildings like the three that supposedly "collapsed" on their own disagree with you . If you would merely take an hour of your time and watch the actual overwhelming amount of evidence that indicates explosives were used instead of being a government zombie and believing everything the government tells however implausible, it would change your entire worldview.

then all you had to do was quote Julian about his comment that 9/11 is not a conspiracy and then point people to http://rememberbuilding7.org/ and http://www.ae911truth.org/

And there is plenty more information available that when all the puzzle pieces are put together, or enough of them..... you have to question Julian's intent, buit not his intelligence which he has shown is not lacking.

To be clear, I support transparency of government as they are suppose to be representative of the people, but worldwide its proving they are not.

http://ae911truth.org/

I've worked on/in a lot of big steel frame buildings over the last 20 years, and frankly the official explanation never made much sense to me either, but then again I'm not a metallurgical expert like some of the poeple on that site are.

Do you think Klaus Traube had no halfway-useful education?

Naw, I just think he's an idiot. There's a handful in every field. Observe:

http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

'nuff said.

There are literally thousands of professional engineers and scientists clamoring for revised NIST reports, a new investigation, and an official explanation of the obviously ludicrous 9/11 commission report.

As of course are all the families of the deceased.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Claiming that the "official" story has any validity at this point really bespeaks of gross ignorance regarding the entire subject. I don't know a single rational person with even a smidgen of physics understanding that would even begin to suggest that a plane and a little jet fuel could somehow weaken the central columns of all three buildings.

All the "debunking" has been thoroughly debunked at this point. The giant media corporations are still rolling with the obviously false official story, and I can only scratch my head and wonder that ANYBODY still buys that nonsense.

The structural steel at the core of all 3 WTC buildings is incredibly strong. If you've ever worked with the stuff, you KNOW there is no way an aluminum can and some jet fuel could have ANY meaningful effect on it.

Not to mention this picture:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87970.jpg

This simply DOES NOT HAPPEN due to stress fractures, random chance, airplane fuel, or any other reasonable explanation short of Thermite/Thermate or precision torching, neither of which have been discussed AT ALL in the "official" report.

Frankly, your ignorance needs to be eliminated. Read that AE911 site. It's CHOCK FULL of science, facts, math, and irrefutable evidence concerning that day and it's events.

My parents, who you’d probably call “half-baked religious nuts”, did a perfectly fine job, and I submit my engineering degree as evidence of that.

Pft. These idiots all have engineering degrees, too. I'm happy that you got your little "I'm a trainable monkey" certificate, but that doesn't really tell us anything about you.

In the U.S. we call thought crime "HR 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007."

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

What this bill does is set up a commission to decide what speech is terrorism and what isn't. During hearings for this bill they showed examples of this supposed homegrown terrorism. In between different Al-Qaeda websites, they showed Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. Even if you don't agree with them, I doubt anyone would believe that asking questions makes you a homegrown terrorist. This bill was passed through the house 404-6 and has yet to be debated in the Senate.

http://www.ae911truth.org/ -- answer to all your questions.

WOW This NIST report is a real slap in the face of science, WOW I'm in shock that This garbage gets put out. Check out the independent research that 400+ Architects and Engineers have put out and the Rebuttal against this Abomination of science and decency, http://www.ae911truth.org/audio/AE911truth%20News%20Conf%20080821_web.mp3 Here we discuss the report and deconstruct it. http://www.truthnews.com.au/radio/export/TNRA_20080822.mp3 see the science here http://www.ae911truth.org/

WOW This NIST report is a real slap in the face of science, WOW I'm in shock that This garbage gets put out. Check out the independent research that 400+ Architects and Engineers have put out and the Rebuttal against this Abomination of science and decency, http://www.ae911truth.org/audio/AE911truth%20News%20Conf%20080821_web.mp3 Here we discuss the report and deconstruct it. http://www.truthnews.com.au/radio/export/TNRA_20080822.mp3 see the science here http://www.ae911truth.org/

link...
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Not witch doctors for 9/11 truth. Not Pentecostal Ministers for 9/11 tongues.

ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS for 9/11 Truth.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is an organization of architectural and engineering professionals

Here's a link to their website

http://www.ae911truth.org/

All you are going to find there is real science.

Here's a very interesting webcast of a discussion between structural and chemical specialists about the official NIST report on WTC7:
http://www.ae911truth.org/audio/AE911truth%20News%20Conf%20080821_web.mp3

Salient points from the webcast:
- the unexplained presence of thermite residue in and extreme temperature of the wreckage of WTC7 (cf. the inability of the diesel fuel to burn hot and long in an oxygen starved environment);
- the failure of NIST to adequately test for thermite in their samples (which were collected haphazardly);
- the inadequate explanation by NIST of the collapse of collapse of WTC7 pillars 79-81;
- the inaccuracy of NIST's theory on how a simultaneous catastrophic pillar failure could result in a freefall collapse.

Useful cheat sheet of the facts about the collapse of WTC7,1&2 (on the right of the page): http://www.ae911truth.org/

Here's a very interesting webcast of a discussion between structural and chemical specialists about the official NIST report on WTC7:
http://www.ae911truth.org/audio/AE911truth%20News%20Conf%20080821_web.mp3

Salient points from the webcast:
- the unexplained presence of thermite residue in and extreme temperature of the wreckage of WTC7 (cf. the inability of the diesel fuel to burn hot and long in an oxygen starved environment);
- the failure of NIST to adequately test for thermite in their samples (which were collected haphazardly);
- the inadequate explanation by NIST of the collapse of collapse of WTC7 pillars 79-81;
- the inaccuracy of NIST's theory on how a simultaneous catastrophic pillar failure could result in a freefall collapse.

Useful cheat sheet of the facts about the collapse of WTC7,1&2 (on the right of the page): http://www.ae911truth.org/

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth had a press conference to discuss the new NIST WTC7 report.

http://www.ae911truth.org/audio/AE911truth%20News%20Conf%20080821_web.mp3 [ae911truth.org]

They didn't do a very good job programming the sims that ran on those Beowulf clusters. The AE911truth press conference addresses the so-called sims too.

Garbage in, Garbage Out.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth had a press conference to discuss the new NIST WTC7 report.

http://www.ae911truth.org/audio/AE911truth%20News%20Conf%20080821_web.mp3

I'm afraid you have gotten all this quite in reverse. The science is not backing us the "official" conspiracy theory. The science is clearly on the side of those who wish to expose the truth about 9/11.

Never voted Bush is right on his facts.

Do you wish to actually see the evidence. I've got the links. Are you going to have the courage to look at concrete evidence? ...or...

Are you going to refuse to look at real concrete evidence based on nothing but your faith that "thinks like that can't happen in America?"

Do you have the courage to open your eyes and look at that evidence?

http://www.ae911truth.org/
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

On the left hand side of the page, you'll see a column that says media and technical resources. the 3rd panel down is a video of a presentation called...

How the Towers Fell

(9/11: Blueprint for Truth:
The Architecture of Destruction)

Richard Gage, AIA

They're probably getting ready to take down/smear architects and engineers for 9-11 truth.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Actually, 43% of Americans believe there was a cover-up involving 9/11*. And even your link about Apollo states that only 6% believe that the moon landing was faked. The overlap could be 3-4%, not enough to be a significant part of the 9/11 Truth movement. Your strategy of linking people who believe that we don't know the whole truth about 9/11 to a insignificant minority of people who believe something entirely different is a nice distraction though. Also, calling them "a couple kids" then linking to lolloosechange and a YouTube rant for your rebuttal is pretty pathetic.

* Also see this poll which shows that only 16% believe Bush is telling the truth about 9/11.

You could also check out this presentation by Dr. Steven Jones, Physicist at UT Austin, where he first revealed evidence of the presence of thermite on debris samples recovered from an apartment building near Ground Zero. The peer-reviewed paper is forthcoming, and will prove once and for all that all 3 buildings that collapsed in NYC on 9/11 were demolished by explosives.

Finally, you can look to Pilots for 9/11 Truth for evidence that the flight data recorder data that they received from a FOIA request matches neither the animations they received, nor the downed light poles, nor the eyewitness testimony from Pentagon security officers of the flight path. One or more of those pieces of evidence were fabricated by somebody working for our government. Why would they do that if they were not covering something up? The flight recorder data ends at 180 feet altitude. The Pentagon is only 40 feet tall, and is 40 feet above sea level. How does a plane crash at about 100 feet above its target? The direction and pitch also do not match the other evidence. Watch it for yourself. Pilots for 9/11 Truth is just getting started. More videos and documents will be available soon.

The small groups of "Screw Loose Change" and other debunkers will be very busy over the next few months trying to debunk all these groups of professionals* with hard evidence. Good luck to them at getting more than their current fraction of web traffic that the 9/11 Truth sites get. They are helpful to people like you when you want to brush off the actual evidence though, no? So I guess they serve their purpose of distraction.

* Also see Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth for analysis of the actual blueprints which were recently leaked, and the variation between the blueprints and the data produced in the NIST and FEMA reports. And Journal of 9/11 Studies for peer-reviewed scientific papers and journals.