Langley and London—YOU Have The Problem
By The Anonymous Physicist
Recently, at a “911truth” forum, someone cited several specious “arguments” against my articles on the nuking of the WTC on 9/11. So I will reply here. Someone, perhaps David Howard, can post this reply there. Thank you.
The absence of the "Wilson Condensation Cloud" effect was cited. But this effect is relevant for nukes exploded on or under water-- including the South Pacific nuclear tests, and the Port Chicago nuclear blast-- it’s not relevant for the WTC buildings on 9/11.
The "Ball of fire", or fireball, and “flash of light”, etc. are specious arguments, obviated by the nukes being well within the buildings when they went off-- including in the sub-basement. (The Finnish military expert says only in the sub-basement and "focused" upwards, and he said he is an expert on shaped charges of all kinds.) My earliest writings made it clear that "underpowered" (as I have explained this) nukes were used, in conjunction with conventional explosives (possibly thermite, or C4) to hide the obvious effects of a nuke. This is, of course, ignored by that poster, even though she claimed to have read my articles herein. Those articles are well known to be mostly archived here.
Now a recent article I wrote did have many firefighter/responders, in the area during tower destruction, citing how intense light did hit their skin. This was in the wavelength of infrared light, or heat, or “thermal rays” from the nukes. These are known to have the greatest range (as my articles have cited), but, of course, are not in the range of visibility to humans. Note the thermal rays were not emitted by any fire, as none was near the firemen, at that time. Some firemen even correctly thought they were in the midst of nukes going off because of the thermal rays (without any fire) hitting them. This recent article citing this and much other shocking, new evidence-- not written about anywhere else before-- is here.
BTW, these thermal rays, all about the WTC during its destruction, also negate the evidence-free DDT (DEW Disinfo Theory) as follows. DEW would be coherent beams of some wavelength of light. Any theoretical, coherent beams with enough destructive power to destroy the towers (ignoring for the moment all the outward explosions from something clearly inside them) could not have that kind of power, and still “leak” significant energy perpendicular to the beam direction (said to be from above by its proponents) to cause all the thermal rays, all about the WTC! Only the known spherical emanations from nukes could do that.
So rather than the nuclear hypothesis for the WTC destruction, it is all the hangouts-- emanating from Langley and London-- that have the problem. This new blog has my, and Spooked’s, articles demolishing the O.C.T. (Official Collapse Theory). The DDT (DEW Disinfo Theory) I have previously demonstrated as a desperate, evidence-free hangout to claim or hide all the nuclear evidence of the WTC destruction, and the China Syndrome Aftermath. And thermite, I have explained, is known to cool down within minutes or hours of use, and could not be the cause of all the heat and molten metal at the WTC, months later, as S. Jones ludicrously claims. Both the DDT and thermite hangouts were sent out after the Finnish militart expert blew the Op, and released to the world how the WTC was nuked on 9/11. My articles on all the evidence of the nuking of the WTC are here. My articles on the China Syndrome Aftermath of high temperatures, molten metal and HEAT GENERATION VIA RADIOACTIVE FRAGMENTS are here.
It is fascinating to see this post shortly after my articles have exposed the official lies of the OCT’ main “engineer, namely Z.P. Bazant, about the smallest dust particle size-- ignored by all the “911truth forums.” Again see Spooked’s new blog proving bogus official 911 “Science” here.
It is sickening to see all the fine work that we have done here ignored by the “911truth forums.” And then to see a specious hit piece posted. But none of this is surprising. Langley and London have spread their agents to create the 911truth forums, as expected. But their desperation at seeing words of truth now resounding from this place is also clear to see.
They have a problem. The nuclear Genie can never go back in the bottle once she has come out!
Speaking of the Nuclear Genie Coming Out, this book [read by this author] The Angry Genie: One Man's Walk Through the Nuclear Age has this in the first summary paragraph at Amazon. The author-- the father of the field of Health Physics “includes a chilling summary of horrifying radiation experiments conducted by the U.S. government, including downwind studies that rained thyroid cancer-inducing radiation upon "expendable" Native Americans…”"
Does this sound familiar? It should, as we have thyroid cancers among the 911 WTC responders. This, of course, is the reason for all the hangouts coming out of Langley and London. To keep the masses from finding out that they are all “expendable Americans” now! The American regime nuked the citizens of New York City on 9/11/01. The nuclear Genie is out! What are you going to do about it?
Recently, at a “911truth” forum, someone cited several specious “arguments” against my articles on the nuking of the WTC on 9/11. So I will reply here. Someone, perhaps David Howard, can post this reply there. Thank you.
The absence of the "Wilson Condensation Cloud" effect was cited. But this effect is relevant for nukes exploded on or under water-- including the South Pacific nuclear tests, and the Port Chicago nuclear blast-- it’s not relevant for the WTC buildings on 9/11.
The "Ball of fire", or fireball, and “flash of light”, etc. are specious arguments, obviated by the nukes being well within the buildings when they went off-- including in the sub-basement. (The Finnish military expert says only in the sub-basement and "focused" upwards, and he said he is an expert on shaped charges of all kinds.) My earliest writings made it clear that "underpowered" (as I have explained this) nukes were used, in conjunction with conventional explosives (possibly thermite, or C4) to hide the obvious effects of a nuke. This is, of course, ignored by that poster, even though she claimed to have read my articles herein. Those articles are well known to be mostly archived here.
Now a recent article I wrote did have many firefighter/responders, in the area during tower destruction, citing how intense light did hit their skin. This was in the wavelength of infrared light, or heat, or “thermal rays” from the nukes. These are known to have the greatest range (as my articles have cited), but, of course, are not in the range of visibility to humans. Note the thermal rays were not emitted by any fire, as none was near the firemen, at that time. Some firemen even correctly thought they were in the midst of nukes going off because of the thermal rays (without any fire) hitting them. This recent article citing this and much other shocking, new evidence-- not written about anywhere else before-- is here.
BTW, these thermal rays, all about the WTC during its destruction, also negate the evidence-free DDT (DEW Disinfo Theory) as follows. DEW would be coherent beams of some wavelength of light. Any theoretical, coherent beams with enough destructive power to destroy the towers (ignoring for the moment all the outward explosions from something clearly inside them) could not have that kind of power, and still “leak” significant energy perpendicular to the beam direction (said to be from above by its proponents) to cause all the thermal rays, all about the WTC! Only the known spherical emanations from nukes could do that.
So rather than the nuclear hypothesis for the WTC destruction, it is all the hangouts-- emanating from Langley and London-- that have the problem. This new blog has my, and Spooked’s, articles demolishing the O.C.T. (Official Collapse Theory). The DDT (DEW Disinfo Theory) I have previously demonstrated as a desperate, evidence-free hangout to claim or hide all the nuclear evidence of the WTC destruction, and the China Syndrome Aftermath. And thermite, I have explained, is known to cool down within minutes or hours of use, and could not be the cause of all the heat and molten metal at the WTC, months later, as S. Jones ludicrously claims. Both the DDT and thermite hangouts were sent out after the Finnish militart expert blew the Op, and released to the world how the WTC was nuked on 9/11. My articles on all the evidence of the nuking of the WTC are here. My articles on the China Syndrome Aftermath of high temperatures, molten metal and HEAT GENERATION VIA RADIOACTIVE FRAGMENTS are here.
It is fascinating to see this post shortly after my articles have exposed the official lies of the OCT’ main “engineer, namely Z.P. Bazant, about the smallest dust particle size-- ignored by all the “911truth forums.” Again see Spooked’s new blog proving bogus official 911 “Science” here.
It is sickening to see all the fine work that we have done here ignored by the “911truth forums.” And then to see a specious hit piece posted. But none of this is surprising. Langley and London have spread their agents to create the 911truth forums, as expected. But their desperation at seeing words of truth now resounding from this place is also clear to see.
They have a problem. The nuclear Genie can never go back in the bottle once she has come out!
Speaking of the Nuclear Genie Coming Out, this book [read by this author] The Angry Genie: One Man's Walk Through the Nuclear Age has this in the first summary paragraph at Amazon. The author-- the father of the field of Health Physics “includes a chilling summary of horrifying radiation experiments conducted by the U.S. government, including downwind studies that rained thyroid cancer-inducing radiation upon "expendable" Native Americans…”"
Does this sound familiar? It should, as we have thyroid cancers among the 911 WTC responders. This, of course, is the reason for all the hangouts coming out of Langley and London. To keep the masses from finding out that they are all “expendable Americans” now! The American regime nuked the citizens of New York City on 9/11/01. The nuclear Genie is out! What are you going to do about it?
53 Comments:
http://www.911researchers.com/node/1055
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nukes, thermite, C4....
Jesus H. Surprised Dubya didn't literally throw a kitchen sink at the towers as well.
I'm curious. Perhaps your buddy, the anonymous physicist, could explain how the fallout from the nukes only sought out WTC responders.
Or whether or not nuclear fallout is the ONLY cause of thyroid cancer?
Use your fucking brain dude.
that was almost a good point chad!
since responders were the ones climbing around in the midst of it all, they would most likely be the the most obvious ones to exhibit the obvious tell-tale signs of nuclear poisoning, wouldn't they?
of course since the mainsream media has not reported any regular joes exhibiting similar symptoms we should assume that there are none, ya?
hey, the MSM has not reported any of the responders testimony either, has it.
get out of town chad.
Yes. The responders were climbing around in the midst of it all. So according to you, THEY ALL should have thyroid cancer.
But the media's covering that up too, huh?
according to me they all should have thyroid cancer?
no chad, enough instances of thyroid and other that before 9/11 were considered RARE instances of cancer are enough.
again, get out of town.
http://bush41thug.blogspot.com/
So how did some responders (who were in the midst of the WTC) get thyroid cancer, and other responders (who were also in the midst of the WTC) NOT get thyroid cancer?
I've never known nuclear fallout to be so selective.
And is Ground Zero still hot, radioactively speaking? What's the half-life on these watered down nukes? Should we be expecting the whole of Lower Manhattan to be dying of cancer in the next 5 years?
IMO chad is deserving of a promotion and substantial increase in salary based on his timely response time to this post!
go shills go!
chad, how would i know?
certainly my lack of knowledge on these matters of deflection that you throw up do not change even a single iota of what the Anonymous Physicist has posited.
hey chad since your tactic seems to be that of deflection, i will take this opportunity to initiate a deflection of my own:
why did the section of the pentagon that was supposedly hit by a 757 remain standing for a good 20 minutes after said alleged hit before just sort of slumping over into a loose pile of rubble?
My questions aren't meant to deflect. They are on-topic, logical extensions of what AP posits.
If nukes were indeed used, then the radioactivity at Ground Zero is a legit question.
Why some responders were diagnosed with thyroid cancer and not others is a legit question, especially if the cancer is being used as proof of nukes.
Why a section of the Pentagon collapsed, while a legit question, is hugely off-topic and tells of your inability to think critically for yourself.
cancer is not the only proof of nukes - as you well know.
critical thinking!
if even a single aspect of the official 9/11 fairytale can be discounted then the entire fairytale should be re-examined.
your side is laboring from a distinct disadvantage.
could you even pretend to answer the question?
Well we get a new "genius"/shill here. Why post when you know nothing about any of this, "Chad"? When you have either not read my nuke articles or didn't comprehend any of it?
RE nukes and cancer, including thyroid cancer:
My articles have cited the statistics from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many in Hiroshima, during the "A-Bomb" died from radiation soon thereafter, many did not. Among those who did not die shortly therafter, include groups who got many forms of cancer--sometimes decades later (get it, jerk?), thyroid being just one of them, others got other rare diseases of the immune system or of other systems, and still others survive to this day without any linked illness.
So shill, thyroid cancer is just one small piece of the puzzle. It is the statistics of thyroid cancer that are relevant. It is extremely rare, except in radiation exposed people as Dr. Karl Morgan, Health Physics founder, stated. But as Hiroshima survivors show, radiation causes many other cancers as well, and other diseases, and some will survive without any illness. And obviously the people who were exposed the longest, and the closest will be most likely to suffer the consequences--but it is a statistical thing. And asbestos causes lung cancer and other lung disease, not thyroid cancer, nor blood or lymph cancers.
One can only look at the statistics decades later to learn what the results of the 9/11 WTC radiation exposure from the nuking, and the subsequent China Syndrome, will be.
But why did the gestapo regime send you here, "Chad"?
Your bio is here:
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Astrological Sign: Capricorn
Zodiac Year: Snake
Location: Harrisburg : PA : United States
About Me
Just your average Eagles lovin', Yankees cheerin', beer drinkin', shower singin', Su-Doku doin', volleyball playin', Bush votin' gay guy tring to find any nitch in a little place I like to call... Harrisburg.
You can punch a hole in an apple using a straw. How do you think that makes your milkshake feel?
I never completed my frozen dairy beverages sensitivity class, so quite frankly, I could care less about the shake."
So a "Bush votin' gay guy" takes on the nuke issue without comprehending any of it. Though "gayness" is not for me, I will not bash a "gay guy." Indeed I can see why you vote for Bush.
Sherman Skolnick outed "W" Bush and his lover Victor Ashe years ago. Then we had Bush's other lover, that gay excort, pseudo-reporter Gannon/Gosch or whatever, so I can see why you love Bush so much.
Why don't you complain about all the gay bashing the other shills here frequently do, like Swart, Conspiracy Smasher etc. Stick to the issues you are expert on, gay issues, and leave the nuke-related matter to serious, intelligent people.
Best of luck to you.
By the way, wasn't Harrisburg, PA the Three Mile Island town? How long have you been there, Chad?
Checked your thyroid function lately?
As if...
Anonymous Physicist
hey chad, how about questioning some aluminum vs. steel!?
which one would defeat the other?
if a real aluminum 767 (with a plastic nosecone) were to really strike a massive steel and concrete WTC with a force equivalent to X, then wouldn't the massive steel/concrete WTC be striking the aluminum/plastic 767 with the same force equivalent to X?
Is this "David Howard" guy Spooky? Or perhaps it is actually the Anonymous "So-called" Physicist?
I'm smelling a rat here - but bolstering your own arguments by creating a mythical online figure to shill for yourself is hardly anything new.
"...and leave the nuke-related matter to serious, intelligent people."
And who might they be? Tell them to hurry up and get here because I'm tired of reading your clap-trap.
"This recent article citing this and much other shocking, new evidence-- not written about anywhere else before-- is here."
There's a *reason* it hasn't been written about before - because its bullshit.
Interesting modus operandi you have there, Anony Asshole - make up shit and write about it and claim because YOU are the first, everyone else is covering it up!
Hilarious.
http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger2/2357/1113357475496390/1600/z/502327/gse_multipart43859.jpg
If a nuke was detonated in the basement, why is the building collapsing from the top down?
I "love" when "people" who post anonymously "put" "quotes" around the names "of" people who are "actually" not hiding behind a screen.
"You" then proceed to post my entire "blogger" profile, putting "quotes" around various "phrases" to insinuate I'm "lying".
But to "answer" your "question", "AP", yes. Harrisburg "is" where Three "Mile" Island is "located". I was "one" year old when it "happened". And my "thyroid" is "fine" thank "you" very "much".
"...questioning some aluminum vs. steel!? which one would defeat the other? "
Put enough mass and speed behind it, make the steel target nothing but a comparatively thin facade and aluminum would win *every single freaking time*.
I don't expect you to believe it, though, since you have drank of the Sphincter kool-aid. hell...you've jumped in.
Hey Anony Asshole!
Publish anything lately???
If the steel was actually "a comparatively thin facade" then the aluminum would win. The trouble with the official fairytale is, the WTC steel was massive and the aluminum of a real 767 is the comparatively thin facade.
But Sword of Chad knows that already, doesn't he.
I think the key word you are choosing to ignore, 9:00am, is "comparatively".
Steel is steel is steel, however when acted upon by a larger, more dense material, the steel will fail. Witness what happens when snow builds up on the flat roof of buildings such as a mall or a box-type store. There are roof failures all the time, everywhere, where teh steel supporting structures fail because of the weight of snow - frozen flakes of water.
I expect you to take the side of the steel and argue that water, frozen or not, could NEVER overcome the tensile strength of the massive support beams of a mall roof that failed. Blame it on Bush.
Again, the key word - "comparatively" is important here. Compared to the aircraft mass and speed and weight, the steel it hit *was* nothing more than a thin facade.
Whether you like it or not and regardless your personal hated of the Bush administration and in direct support of your ignorance of all things physics and aeronautical related, that aircraft had mass, speed and weight behind it (125 tons at 750 feet per second) hitting steel spandrels linked together by overlapping flanges held together by rivets.
Tell me again which one will win, Mr Wizard.
Tell me again which one will win, Mr Wizard.
It depends what part of the plane you are talking about. I think the fuselage would have penetrated, but crumpled upon entry. The outer wings and tail should have shorn off, and there should have been explosions where the wings hit. Significant amounts of debris should have been deflected backwards if the plane broke up as it entered (as the official story holds).
It's not that there would be no penetration if a large jet hit a very very strong tower (the 80th floor of the WTC was equivalent to the ground floor of a 30 story skyscraper)-- it's that what was seen was so obviously wrong.
Much like the rest of the 9/11 events, in fact.
Compared to the aircraft mass and speed and weight, the steel it hit *was* nothing more than a thin facade.
Oh the genius that is 11:22!
I'm sure that your science teacher would be very proud of you.
I wonder, just how strong was the steel WTC? Lets find out!
Building The World Trade Center
In fact a real lightweight aluminum 767 with a plastic nosecone weighs 150 tons, not 125 tons.
Excellent snow on the roof analogy though! Hey if we extend your logic's neck out a little further we could assume that a 150 ton rubber ball would also punch right through the massive steels that made up the WTC, right?
So how did some responders (who were in the midst of the WTC) get thyroid cancer, and other responders (who were also in the midst of the WTC) NOT get thyroid cancer?
Oh but you missed the missed part, Chad. This magic radiation skipped the canine first responders completely!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040915112139.htm
"Overall, the lack of clear adverse medical or behavioral effects among the 9/11 dogs is heartening, both for the animals and the human rescue workers," said lead researcher Cynthia M. Otto, associate professor of critical care in Penn's School of Veterinary Medicine. "Since dogs age more rapidly than humans, they can serve as sentinels for human disease. We are encouraged that we do not see significant increases in cancer and respiratory diseases... At the current time, neither the death rate nor the cancer rate is different from that of the control group."
There are important caveats to the dog study. First, we haven't seen a follow-up since that first report, and the statistics may have changed with longer time. Second, participation in the study wasn't 100% of dogs. Third, that the dogs didn't even show more lung problems than the humans-- who clearly developed these problems-- suggests the dogs aren't good predictors of disease with this case.
As always, the third rate, well paid intel agents here have nothing.
We have this quote from one or more of the gestapo agents above:
"Put enough mass and speed behind it, make the steel target nothing but a comparatively thin facade and aluminum would win *every single freaking time*."
I have addressed this here before--months ago, at comments. The physics of this is the following.
The researchers have written that a real plane (not the CGI planes that "hit" NOT the towers) is composed of plastic and light metal, and mostly, space-wise, is, of course air. Now, by Newton's ?Third Law, when said nose cone would impact the steel facade of a tower, it would start to disintegrate, and would not enter the tower. The idiot's quote above then cites that the harder, stronger, more dense plane material is behind the cone. This, in fact, would then further disintegrate the nosecone, when smashing into it, which for those milliseconds is already disintegrating--and not entering.
Don't you love when the regime has nothing but Laws of Physics violating drivel, they then just scream louder and louder.
Then the agent above tries to re-hash the dogs issue. This has already been dealt a death blow. That vet, like Bazant, is a well-controlled shill.
She deliberately does not cite which cancers the WTC dogs got. Why? it is not the cancer rate that is the issue. Standard scientific and medical research methodology is to name the cancers and note how rare they ordinarilly are!
They can't be all lumped together. Like my, and Spooked's, expose of Bazant's lies, the bogus nature of this Vet and the dog pseudo-study will come out, as soon as someone will reveal which cancers the WTC dogs got.
Anonymous Physcist
And since "Chad", "Swart", & Conspiracy Smasher" have now claimed (above) to be physicists, or at least to know physics, we await their critique of the articles I wrote about Bazant's bogus science. I have cited the incorrect equations, parameters, assumptions, and experimental findings in my articles. Now we wait for you to cite any inaccuracies in my articles.
We also particulary will wait until Hell freezes over for you to explain how Bazant should not be charged with fraud, after I proved his lying on the smallest dust particle size found!
This is crucial to the mechanism for tower destruction, and shows that "Gravitational Collapse" is bogus.
See Spooked's new blog,
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/spooked911
and post your equation by equation, parameter by parameter, assumption by assumption, analysis now.
Anonymous Physicist
in fact sword of "truth" has threatened to give us a "much needed lesson in physics" - a lesson that we have been waiting for over a year now.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Please point out where I claimed to be a physicist.
I'm curious though AP. If you're so dead-on accurate with your "calculations", then exactly how many other physicists are in agreement with you? I know it's easy to just chalk someone up to being a "shill" when they dispute/disprove you, but seriously.
Can you assign the shill label to the rest of the scientific community?
Also, AP. Where did you study?
AP. If you're so dead-on accurate with your "calculations", then exactly how many other physicists are in agreement with you?
hey chad, bazant has proffered calculations purportedly explaining how/why the wtc "collapsed".
A.P. and Spooked have both proffered reasoned explanations as to exactly why bazant is wrong.
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/spooked911
don't forget that bazant's latest "analyses" nonsense has been rejected by the Journal Of Engineering Mechanics.
now chad, you either accept Spooked' and A.P.'s reasoning or you do not.
if you do not, then in order to even garner some degree of credibility you must at least try to rebut what they have said, otherwise consideration of your opinion will never rise above the status of the likes of conspiracy smasher, whose sole claim to intelligence seems to be that he knows how to spell the word fucktard properly.
^ha
I'm curious though AP. If you're so dead-on accurate with your "calculations"...
Neither Spooked nor AP have performed any calculations.
They have no valid scientific cause to be making thier claims and they have consistently refused to provide calculations when asked.
I do not claim to be able to perform the necessary calculations to figure out who is right and who is wrong. I didn't go to school for that. That's why I tend to take experts who have studied in the appropriate fields at their word.
I would suggest that if Spooked and AP would like to be taken seriously by people other than their devoted readers, they disclose their credentials so that their expertise can be confirmed.
I'm sure that if an "anonymous physicist" posted reasoning that backed the official events, truthers would be screaming bloody-shill-murder. Odd how they don't hold people on their side to the same standards.
That reasoning smacks more of faith and religion than of logic and science.
I'm sure that if an "anonymous physicist" posted reasoning that backed the official events, truthers would be screaming bloody-shill-murder. Odd how they don't hold people on their side to the same standards.
you are wrong chad.
none of us give a damn where bazant or jenkins or especially "prof" david b. benson went to school or might be employed.
credentials mean nothing.
only information means anything.
case in point: myself.
i am just a simple rodeo clown and yet i firmly state that:
if a real aluminum 767 with a plastic nosecone were to really strike a massive steel and concrete wtc with a force equivalent to X then the massive steel/concrete wtc would also be striking the aluminum/plastic 767 with the same force equivalent to X.
you either agree with this or you dispute it.
if you dispute it then you should be prepared to state why.
the same goes for what A.P. and Spooked have said.
you are tiresome chad - if you know anything at all about science then now is the time for you to put up or shut up.
^ha.
The irony in that comment. Jesus H. Christ....
you are tiresome chad - if you know anything at all about science then now is the time for you to put up or shut up.
When a second earlier you say:
credentials mean nothing.
So which is it? I already stated I do not have a scientific background. But you start off your comment saying that that doesn't matter. Doesn't matter where you went to school. Doesn't matter what you've made a career out of.
only information means anything.
Ok, then let me ask you something. Your car won't start. You gonna' take it to a mechanic or to a rodeo clown? Both have information on how to fix it. Better yet, you have a brain tumor. You going to a brain surgeon or psychiatrist? Both are damn smart.
Credentials DO mean something. It means someone has spent time learning shit in a specific field. It amazes me that you people feel you are intellectually on par with people who have spent years and years studying the stuff you claim to know. Humility is not the truth movement's strong point. Fascinating how desperate you all are to feel self-important and the lengths you will go to attain that feeling.
i am just a rodeo clown yet i still repair my own car and the cars of those around me but this isn't about cars nor is it about you or i.
this is about bazant who says one thing and A.P. who disputes that.
you are still tiresome chad but i am tireless, and when you can actually dispute those that have disputed the official fairytale then i will be the first one to take notice.
so far you have failed.
This isn't about you, as you stated. I could give two shits if you take notice one way or the other.
It does not change the fact that your nukes and no-plane theories will ever get the attention of anyone outside of internet blogs, forums, and chat rooms.
If people like you, Spooked, and AP were so convinced of your own beliefs, you would've taken it somewhere where they could actually affect change. You've had more than ample time (over 6 years), and still, your movement is relegated to this medium. And it will stay here. Primarily because it's your collective comfort zone - a place where you can all gather and feel special, no matter how retarded. But also because you all lack the desire and balls to take it any further.
your nukes and no-plane theories will ever get the attention of anyone outside of internet blogs, forums, and chat rooms.
You've had more than ample time (over 6 years), and still, your movement is relegated to this medium. And it will stay here.
maybe so chad, but bazant's nonsense has also not made it through the MSM barrier either.
truth is truth whether 1 person sees it or 1 million.
again, if you dispute what Spooked and A.P. have said regarding what bazant has said regarding the destruction of the WTC, and if you dispute what i have said regarding aluminum/plastic 767 vs. steel/concrete WTC then you should say exactly why.
until then your opinion means nothing.
in fact bazant's latest nonsense was rejected by the Journal Of Engineering Mechanics.
tiresome!
Bazant's "nonsense" doesn't have to break through the MSM. Bazant isn't trying to overthrow a mysterious, shadow government. You guys are. Tell me. Are you pleased that after 6 years, you guys are still discussing the same shit on internet forums? Is that something you consider to be progress?
As to your second point asking that I dispute what AP has disputed from what Bazant has disputed.... I know your mentality. Nothing I say will change your mind. You're willing to take the word of an "anonymous physicist" over someone who is up-front and clear with their credentials. There is a disconnect in your brain. Trying to convince you otherwise of something you believe only because you want/need to is futile.
Again. I'm here just to point and laugh at the retard parade and marvel in your ridiculousness.
Chad said...Are you pleased that after 6 years, you guys are still discussing the same shit on internet forums?
Aren't you here "discussing" it too? Are YOU pleased?
;-)
Chad said...
Again. I'm here just to point and laugh at the retard parade and marvel in your ridiculousness.
I think the reason you showed up here is something different altogether from your childish declaration.
Isn't that right "Chad"? :-)
I'm pleased, sure. I think it's downright hilarious that you guys are perpetually stuck with random blogs and viral hack films on YouTube. But, as I said earlier... I'm not here trying to overturn the NWO. Your lack of progress is no sweat off my back.
And you're right, Rob. I'm here to laugh at the retards and get paid to do it too!
And we have a WINNER in the SHILL Olympic SPAM dash!!!
A Less than 10 MINUTE response time to a random comment.
Verrry good "chad"!
What's interesting to me is how you never stray very far away from this blog you claim not to like.
And what's tragically comic is how you fail to realize it immediately gives you away...
:-)
no chad i am not pleased that it has been 6 years since 9/11 and still nobody cares, but such is life.
I know your mentality. Nothing I say will change your mind. You're willing to take the word of an "anonymous physicist" over someone who is up-front and clear with their credentials (bazant).
no chad i think what you really mean is you couldn't defend bazant's "analyses" any more than you could refute A.P's, and that is why you still havent.
actually i would be pleased to discover that A.P. is wrong - the thought that the u.s. would nuke its own people is terrible - but i am not going to bend over backwards to grasp at straws just for the sake of my comfort level.
If they would nuke their own people then they wont hesitate to nuke other peoples.
no chad i am not pleased that it has been 6 years since 9/11 and still nobody cares, but such is life.
So what are you doing to change that? This is the lives of all Americans, nay, the WORLD at stake here. Why are you commenting on a blog?
no chad i think what you really mean is you couldn't defend bazant's "analyses" any more than you could refute A.P's, and that is why you still havent.
Are you honestly that fucking dense? I already said I didn't go to school for this on numerous occasions. I will not lie and pretend I can comprehend Bazant's calculations. And from what I hear, AP has yet to offer any calculations.
actually i would be pleased to discover that A.P. is wrong.
No you wouldn't. Becuase you've never been shown anything to indicate AP is RIGHT. You're just too stupid to realize that. You're a fucking rodeo clown who has no better grasp on the physics of what happened at the WTC than some anonymous fucktard on the internet posing as a scientist. Yet you believe the anonymous fucktard because you want/have/need to. You believe in the nuke thing because it's outrageous and makes you different and special and unique. You believe it because you've already long felt the US government is evil and this fits quite nicely with that reasoning.
If they would nuke their own people then they wont hesitate to nuke other peoples.
Exactly. So what the fuck are they waiting for??
are you high, chad?
it seems like it.
you are the one who accepts without proof - even when shown otherwise.
Pay no attention to Chad-- he admitted he's a paid shill:
"And you're right, Rob. I'm here to laugh at the retards and get paid to do it too!"
And you believe me, Rob. Which is hilarious. Further proof that you guys will believe anything you want regardless of the lack of evidence.
Osama bin Laden admitted his involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Why don't you believe him?
This blog is like a never-ending parade of hypocritical 'tards.
Osama Bin Laden said he didn't do it.
Fatty Bin Laden, on the other hand, claimed full responsibility.
Post a Comment
<< Home