Warrior General Games

Originally posted by seths99
no. and that's the difference. there are LOTS of us who have issues with the things that you mention, however, the big difference is that we don't automatically make the leap of 'Inside job!!' or 'Israel did it' or 'It must have been a controlled demolition' and then selectively use information and sites which conform to that belief, to the exclusion of anything else.

I did'nt just make the leap... I've dedicated myself to researching 9/11 for over 10 years now. My opinions and views have changed many times as new information comes to light. I never just "made a leap". And I also didn't selectively find and use information that only confirm my beliefs. I've studied EVERY aspect of 9/11 and heard ALL the different theories, ideas, opinions, both official and unofficial. You have a seriously warped opinion of how I've come to my conclusions.

Originally posted by seths99

the 'peer reviewed' site you mentioned earlier is a prime example. to point to that site as an impartial peer reviewed site is fucking laughable at best, bordering on sad and pathetic.

What is laughable and pathetic is that you simply deny reality because there isnt enough "peer reviewed" research on 9/11?

You come out as a professor at a major university and question the official story, your fucking career is over. Thankfully there are some people willing to make that sacrifice in search of the truth but most will bite their lips and keep their careers.

Baum... Do you care to address how your fellow civil engineer just agreed with one of my positions regarding the NIST failures? Would you like to try to disagree with my (and now his also) stance that if they had used the correct model in their calculations, they would have shown that the building would have not collapsed, and would instead have dropped the upper section only a small distance? Or would you like to prove that you do not have enough education in this to make any assertions regarding the mathematics which clearly point to the fact that a collapse could not have happened?

Originally posted by Gnosis


Something a Zionist would come up with.





You mutter that when the local coffee shop says they're out of your favorite creamer. You and your ilk are pathetic.

I'll be back later--I'm going to sprinkle some airplane parts around the middle of downtown and it might take a few minutes.

Originally posted by Gnosis
What is laughable and pathetic is that you simply deny reality because there isnt enough "peer reviewed" research on 9/11?

You come out as a professor at a major university and question the official story, your fucking career is over. Thankfully there are some people willing to make that sacrifice in search of the truth but most will bite their lips and keep their careers.



tell yourself whatever you need to, but it's a fucking joke to think that a dude with a PhD in 'Buddhist Studies' and another dude with only a B.S. in chem are going to run a legit, impartial, peer reviewed website.
for fuck sake, the only reason the site was created was for '911 truthers'.
looks like the caught a few sheep

Originally posted by Gnosis
What is laughable and pathetic is that you simply deny reality because there isnt enough "peer reviewed" research on 9/11?

You come out as a professor at a major university and question the official story, your fucking career is over. Thankfully there are some people willing to make that sacrifice in search of the truth but most will bite their lips and keep their careers.



Richard Gage lost his career. I believe he was also divorced withing 2 years. He had the courage to fight through that to research and report the truth!

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

You mutter that when the local coffee shop says they're out of your favorite creamer. You and your ilk are pathetic.

I'll be back later--I'm going to sprinkle some airplane parts around the middle of downtown and it might take a few minutes.

Are you an Israeli student by any chance? Doing a little PR work for Israel to pay for your tuition?

Originally posted by wormser1971
Richard Gage lost his career. I believe he was also divorced withing 2 years. He had the courage to fight through that to research and report the truth!


Yup...

Richard Gage and his work with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have done the truth movement a great service.

Originally posted by seths99
tell yourself whatever you need to, but it's a fucking joke to think that a dude with a PhD in 'Buddhist Studies' and another dude with only a B.S. in chem are going to run a legit, impartial, peer reviewed website.
for fuck sake, the only reason the site was created was for '911 truthers'.
looks like the caught a few sheep

Argue facts for a minute. Homage already changed his stance. You will, too! All it takes is research. Even if that research is reading the NIST report, which very few ever will. I have, and it is complete B.S.

Originally posted by Gnosis
How hard would it be to place some parts in the 767 cargo planes that hit the towers?

Again you ignore Operations Northwood's where THEY discuss planting plane debris and other evidence.




Pretty difficult to do without anyone noticing. Once again I will ask you to use some logic in your thinking. What scenario do you think would be more difficult?

1) The CIA uses remote controlled military planes with no windows and flies them into the WTC. Then when the buildings collapse they filter out the parts from the military aircraft and place the parts from the AA Boeing aircraft in their place.

2) The CIA builds a few remote controlled Boeing aircraft that look exactly like the American and United Airlines aircraft that they will be hijacking. Then they fly those into the WTC buildings and don't have to place any parts on the crime scene.

Of course #2 is the easier scenario so why wouldn't the US government go for the obvious easy one to pull off. See the problem is that in your drive to create a conspiracy theory you, or whoever you are copying the story from, have created one that is a logical fallacy.

Originally posted by seths99
tell yourself whatever you need to, but it's a fucking joke to think that a dude with a PhD in 'Buddhist Studies' and another dude with only a B.S. in chem are going to run a legit, impartial, peer reviewed website.
for fuck sake, the only reason the site was created was for '911 truthers'.
looks like the caught a few sheep

The truth has no agenda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKFiGfW6aGY Richard gage is truly going to eat up anyone who tries to debate him. He actually responds to e-mail, so if anyone wants to debate him, feel free!

Originally posted by baumusc
Pretty difficult to do without anyone noticing. Once again I will ask you to use some logic in your thinking. What scenario do you think would be more difficult?

1) The CIA uses remote controlled military planes with no windows and flies them into the WTC. Then when the buildings collapse they filter out the parts from the military aircraft and place the parts from the AA Boeing aircraft in their place.

2) The CIA builds a few remote controlled Boeing aircraft that look exactly like the American and United Airlines aircraft that they will be hijacking. Then they fly those into the WTC buildings and don't have to place any parts on the crime scene.

Of course #2 is the easier scenario so why wouldn't the US government go for the obvious easy one to pull off. See the problem is that in your drive to create a conspiracy theory you, or whoever you are copying the story from, have created one that is a logical fallacy.

Let's get back to the collapse scenario... you feel silly now, I'm sure. The collapse explanation by NIST doesn't work.

Originally posted by wormser1971
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKFiGfW6aGY Richard gage is truly going to eat up anyone who tries to debate him. He actually responds to e-mail, so if anyone wants to debate him, feel free!

That video is a debate on the street against the jrep forum debunking director

Originally posted by wormser1971
Argue facts for a minute. Homage already changed his stance. You will, too! All it takes is research. Even if that research is reading the NIST report, which very few ever will. I have, and it is complete B.S.

I, personally, do not know enough about engineering, architecture, etc, to 'argue facts', as you put it.
So, as in so many areas, I have to rely on the expertise of, well, experts. So what does that entail? looking at, yes, peer-reviewed literature from respectable journals who have a reputation to maintain. here is where people like you and Gnosis will scream 'that reputation is why they would never publish anything controversial', and to that, i say Bullshit. Any respectable journal would LOVE to be the one that finally had hard evidence of what you describe. the difference, and where they have to maintain their reputation, is in the validity of their peer-review process.
I have yet to see anything published that would truly refute the official story, or back up any sort of thermite usage, etc, which has been published in a journal with a peer-review process that I trust. The only stuff that I have seen are sources like the one that Gnosis posted earlier, which claim to be peer -reviewed, but which have an extremely suspect peer review procedure (can't even find that procedure on their website, who reviews their lit? the staff? do the editors decide? what is that process? etc)

Does this mean that I don't have questions? Does this mean that I buy the whole story as given to us? No, it does not. What it does mean, is that I have never seen any hard evidence, from sources I trust, that the story is false. Quite the contrary, for every alternate story I've heard (thermite, etc), I have seen debunking of that from peer-reviewed sources I trust.

Originally posted by Gnosis
Are you an Israeli student by any chance? Doing a little PR work for Israel to pay for your tuition?



No, I'm straight Mossad.