OK, please. No monkeying around on this thread!

very cool

"Anti-God"? "Anti-Human"?
Oh, puhleeeeze!
Someone needs DESPERATELY to get a grip-from the way the article reads.

Knowing Corky, I would presume this is supposed to discredit Darwin's research. How? I don't know. This is the character of a scrupulously honest decent man.

Ray presumes too much, based on knowing too little.
Apparently an habitual problem.

Many of Darwin's contemporaries thought that different races actually represented different species of human. Darwin's theory suggested common ancestry, which went against some popular beliefs.

At the time, some would have rather been related to a monkey than a black man.

But it seems from these letters that Darwin wasn't as rigid and close-minded in his perspectives as some of his latter devotees. I'm looking forward to this book.

Darwin became more and more disillusioned with the notion of God as he got older. Probably after seeing how God's followers were so pigheaded in their view of his theory.

Knowing Corky This will somehow prove that Hillary should be queen of the world...

"So pigheaded in their view of his theory.."

He soured on God because people wouldn't pay attention to him? Just strange.

Because people said god soured on his theory, when there was ample proof to the contrary.

"There was ample proof to the contrary God soured on his theory....?"

Clarity of expression. It's possible if you say what you mean we could agree on something one day.

Knowing Jeffn, Darwinism is a conspiracy to keep monkeys in their place.

"It confirms what we had come to suspect, that Darwin was an admirer of the most uncompromising, non-violent Christian leader in the anti-slavery movement. Garrison was, in Darwin's words, 'a man to be for ever revered'. Darwin was overjoyed on hearing that the blistering anti-slavery passage in his Beagle journal had been read to the elderly Garrison, whose son reported to Darwin how it shed 'a new and welcome light on your character as a philanthropist'. To think, Darwin replied, that a man 'whom I honor from the bottom of my soul, should have heard and approved of the few words which I wrote many years ago on Slavery'. This correspondence shows how much is still to be learned about Darwin."

At least Darwin seems not to think that he was somehow superior to those he may have disagreed with, and even showed respect for them.

Unlike these days.

Ray presumes too much, based on knowing too little.
Apparently an habitual problem.

#5 | Posted by Corky

I've seen ample evidence to convince me Corky is a JO.

For someone who claimed to know physics, but had no clue what BBT or QM stand for.... ample evidence may not be enough.

Clarity of expression.

Tends to evaporate with sleep deprivation, and goes completely out the window when the coffee wears off. I WILL make it through the super bowl, though.

It's possible if you say what you mean we could agree on something one day.

Okay, take 2:

Darwin grew disillusioned with Christianity as he got older, and I would say that it was the opposition to his theories that played a part in it. A lot of people viewed him as a heretic, and they swore up and down how their interpretation of the bible just had to be right. Darwin had the facts on his side, and just brushed the religious critics off for a lack of evidence. He would rarely dignify a non-scientific challenge to his theory with a response. All of this did, however, contribute to a bit of skepticism when it came to religion. Constant exposure to the willfully ignorant can give you a unique perspective on religion, and it's not a very good one.

"He would rarely dignify a non-scientific challenge to his theory with a response...."

Then I imagine many grew to consider him an ass, became "disillusioned", if you will.

At least Darwin seems not to think that he was somehow superior to those he may have disagreed with, and even showed respect for them.

Unlike these days.

He had the utmost respect for his scientific critics. After all, in his lifetime, the evidence was not as overwhelmingly persuasive as it is today. He didn't share the same respect for people who denied factual evidence because it didn't fit their ideology.

Constant exposure to the willfully arrogant is much worse.

Then I imagine many grew to consider him an ass, became "disillusioned", if you will.

Of the writings of his that I have read, he was simply too busy addressing the scientific critics to bother engaging people in debates that would never bear any fruit. He did address religious concerns, stating that his theory did not necessarily preclude the existence of a creator, but still there were people who attacked him based on their ignorance and dogmaticism. They were disillusioned from the moment they heard of his theory, and nothing short of a retraction would change their minds. Why would he bother trying to convince people who are not influenced by fact?

For that matter, why do I argue with you?

"Bother to engage people in debates that would never bear any fruit...."

I don't really think my debates with you will bear fruit, but if you're an honest and earnest man you make an effort.

Darwin was a racist.

Inbred Science

Francis Galton was Charles Darwin's cousin. He coined the word eugenics in 1883. He founded the biometric approach to heredity, and to further this theory, Karl Pearson established the influential Biometrika journal in 1901. Well, perhaps the fact that Pearson's papers were getting rejected elsewhere had something to do with it too. Which is why Pearson installed good right-hand men like Weldon, Davenport, and himself as editors. Peer review, you see. Galton's most important legacy was the Eugenics Education Society, later re-named simply the Eugenics Society. It still exists today, though under a different name. By the way, do you like the k in Biometrika? Perhaps it was a habit of Karl Pearson, to substitute k for c everywhere. Biometrika delved deeply into that peculiar field of study popularized by Charles Darwin, which holds for Darwinians an irresistibly gripping fascination. That is, the meticulous qualitative and quantitative comparison of Black people with apes.

By this I do not just mean such things as this eugenic collection, or this passage...

"...anatomically there is a greater difference between the lowest type of monkey and the highest type of ape than there is between the highest type of ape and the lowest savage..." -- Hunter, Civic Biology, pg.195

...but also the more elaborate line of work undertaken by more thorough, more able, and more persistent Darwinians. The kind of work which leaves no stone unturned, where all dimensions of African and Australian 'savages': moral, physical, anatomical, cultural, and behavioral, are compared to those of gorillas and birds.

Constant exposure to the willfully arrogant is much worse.

That's why I stopped going to church. The arrogance of some people- to think that they just know that their book and beliefs are better than another. Unfathomable. Combine that with willful ignorance, and I think I have fairly accurately described the reflection that looks back at you in the mirror, Zed.

Of course I will appear arrogant to you. I refuse to accept your beliefs, and dare to point out that you haven't a single bit of credible evidence to support yourself. To someone who is convinced of their own correctness any matter based on mere faith in an idea, it is supremely arrogant to be skeptical.

"Why do I argue with you...?"

Because you like it. Also because you have a relatively new intellectual toy you aren't tired of gumming.

Jeff defacates on another thread, I see.

"Of course I appear arragant to you. I refuse to accept your beleifs...."

Of course I appear ignorant to you. I refuse to accept you beliefs.

"It is supremely arrogant to be skeptical...."

Skepticism is fine, and unavoidable in people that have trouble coordinating intellectualism with other human functions.

Because you like it.

Indeed I do, but it grows dull after awhile. It's like having sex in the same position over and over and over- sex is great and it beats not having sex, but after awhile, you really want to spice things up.

Also because you have a relatively new intellectual toy you aren't tired of gumming.

True as well. Among my peers, there are none who possess the unique set of beliefs that you and Mac tend to share.

I don't really think my debates with you will bear fruit, but if you're an honest and earnest man you make an effort.

Because when we get down to it, no one is going to be persuaded, right? It's an argument for argument's sake. Each of us represents something that the other believes to be false, and it's bound to remain mutual flagellation. We rehearse new arguments and regurgitate old ones.

"Of course I appear arragant to you. I refuse to accept your beleifs...."
-zh

Of course I appear ignorant to you. I refuse to accept you beliefs.
-zed

Yep. Sounds about right.

Skepticism is fine, and unavoidable in people that have trouble coordinating intellectualism with other human functions.

What are the other functions you're referring to?

"It's an argument for arguments sake..."

Not from my point of view. I guess the thing you've glossed over is that you do play with my discarded toys. Have fun with them, because fun is all they're good for.

My point of view is I'm planting seeds. In you. One day, sooner than you think if you're less than twenty-two, you'll need them.

My point of view is I'm planting seeds. In you. One day, sooner than you think if you're less than twenty-two, you'll need them.

Posted by Zed

Zed the great wise one is a seed planter, too.

But are they seeds of truth?

Of course to him (& perhaps so in St. Paul's third heaven, too!:>)

For someone who claimed to know physics, but had no clue what BBT or QM stand for.... ample evidence may not be enough.

#15 | Posted by Corky

That's one of the dumbest arguments I've seen yet.

Jeffn appears not to have read the article, otherwise he would know that 'Darwin's Sacred Cause" was abolishion of slavery, and his use of terms of his day was inherent in being understood back then.

-mere faith

Mere Christianity is a CS Lewis book that I can recommend to you, Z. Or anything by Reinhold Neihbor.

Reading Neihbor has removed the scientific sense of superiority from many a soul.

My point of view is I'm planting seeds. In you. One day, sooner than you think if you're less than twenty-two, you'll need them.

I weeded the garden awhile ago, and now that I'm getting older, I don't feel any compulsion to return to one set of beliefs. I understand your motivation, but what makes you think that your seeds will be best suited for the soil, when so many others have fallen in it as well?

-That's one of the dumbest arguments I've seen yet.

You should read more of your own posts then.

I read Mere Christianity back in HS, and I think CS Lewis is a good writer, but I disagree with him. You linked to Neihbor on a thread awhile back, I think. If it's the post that I'm thinking of, it was cool to read but just an excerpt.

"Mere Christianity is a CS Lewis book that I can recommend to you, Z."

or watch 'em movies Nabia, the Chronicals...

not as boring as the book

Whoops ~ Narna...The Only begootten Lion:>)

You should read more of your own posts then.
#36 | Posted by Corky

I see. You're too feeble to attack the message, so you attack the messenger.

NARNIA

"I don't feel the compulsion to return to one set of beliefs...."

I can only imagine what you're taling about.

lol I've seen the Narnia flicks.

How sad. We have revelatory letters from Darwin that emphasise his concern for the brotherhood of man and the abolition of slavery, and all we get is the same old "usual suspects" making the same old ignorant arguments about the superiority of science and ridiculous idea of God.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

The theory of evolution is racist.
The theory is that we evolved from apes. (absolutely no proof)
In Darwin's own writings he says that blacks are closer to the ape than the white man. racist.

I can only imagine what you're taling about.

Posted by Zed

I'm reminded of that bit Saint Paul wrote in Corinthians, which Todd Rundgren paraphrased in his lyric for "Real Man."

"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I thought as a child, I reasoned as a child. When I became a man, I put away childish things."

"...ridiculous idea of God"

at least an only begotten lion version anyway:>)

Bani,
Do you ever make sense? Or what the hell am I missing?
When I read your retort, I feel like I'm living on another planet. But I guess the same could be said about me.

The theory is that we evolved from apes. (absolutely no proof)

Wrong on a couple of accounts here, jeffy: The theory is that we share a common ancestor as contemporary apes. That common ancestor may have been an ape at the most recent points in the species' divergence, I'll give you that.

Lack of proof? Hardly. The fossil record grows stronger with time and the new science of DNA sequencing is confirming almost all of what we have deduced from the fossil record.

The theory of evolution is racist.

Evolutionary biology has dealt the fatal blow to racism. You would recognize this if you actually understood what you're talking about.

The theory is that we evolved from apes. (absolutely no proof)

An ape-like common ancestor that we share with chimpanzees, yes. All the proof you could ever want is found in your DNA and in fossils. Once again you have no idea what you are talking about and again reveal yourself to be nothing more than a blathering idiot.

In Darwin's own writings he says that blacks are closer to the ape than the white man. racist.

That was the widely accepted belief at the time. Based on the evidence available to him, which was crude measurements of the skull shape, this was a reasonable hypothesis. Analysis of the genome put this notion to rest. If you bothered to read this article, you would learn that Darwin was quite progressive in his conceptualization of human races. Once again, you continue to babble nonsensically, paying no heed to any facts that are presented.

In one post, Jeff, you prove yourself to be a fool many times over. That's a feat few could hope to match, yet you constantly strive to break your own record every time you post a new comment. Congrats.

That's bullshit as usual...
Post some links to back up your bullshit or don't waste my time.

If there is a conspiracy out there, Jeff, I am going to make it a point to get in on it. Morons such as yourself will be the first I choose to sterilize. Your genetic material is clearly defective. You and your spawn will burden the gene pool no longer...

As the Danish Messiah, is it not your fate to be crucified amid the ridicule of all around you? As a false prophet, is it not your fate to languish in obscurity?

Goatman,
Are you saying that you agree that the white man is more evolved up the human tree than the black man?

ZombieHunter,
OK, I'll give you some attention little feller.
Pat on the head....Smile.

Happy now?

Post some links to back up your bullshit or don't waste my time.

I don't know why you make that request, li'l jeffy, since in the past you have openly admitted you won't read opposingm views, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have opened your mind. Besides, it's a simple request to fulfill.

Maybe you guys came from apes, I choose to think otherwise.

More bullshit from goatman.
I never said that.
And that is the reason I don't take you serious.
You're a liar, and a slanderer.
Since you have chose to take that path on this thread to, I'm thru with you.
You're dismissed.

jeffy: I was going to post some more links, but it is easier for you to google 'evolution dna' if you want more to read. There's a lot of stuff about it on the web.

""""interpreted"""" as evidence for Darwinian evolution

The key word there is "interpreted".

If they would have used a wording like "proven conclusively", I might have taken the article more seriously.

The theory of evolution is racist.
The theory is that we evolved from apes. (absolutely no proof)
In Darwin's own writings he says that blacks are closer to the ape than the white man. racist.

#45 | Posted by JeffnDenmark

you tend to live in a world that is seemly black & white, but a highly pseudo moral one, though...like abortion is evil, NWO & so forth

And then you pronounced your judgements about the rest of the sheeple here in DR that don't get your drift of righteousness

Above is a perfect example. Darwin is now a racist.

Thus his obvious brilliant deductions of evolution are now discredited because he is a now a certified racist.

No accounting of the times or his treatment of various types of people he encountered in his wide ranging life...just a blankly, blank judgement call because your (& most literal Bible fundies) latent Christian beliefs are challenged by the questions he raised in pursuit of biological evolutional truth.

Do I think he found the missing link?

No, but he clearly show evolution was a process to unfoldment.

I would differ with Darwin in that we go life after life as Soul unfolding (via music of sphere's/word directions:>) thru species after species until at last we arrive as man & woman for those numerous cycles of evolutionary time.

This wheel of transmigration is a bad example somewhat of my drift here, but it will do for now... & Darwin's contributions are noted at least by me in those type of evolutionary directions as well.

And I could waste my time finding just as many google links that appose the theory with science.
But I'm not wasting my time....

I gotta get up in about 7 hours so good night.

It is black and white.
You have to choose sides. Good or evil.

Post some links to back up your bullshit or don't waste my time.

I'm not sure I can find a high school freshman biology textbook posted on the internet. You wouldn't read them anyway. They're far too reputable for your tastes. Unless it was posted on youtube by angsty, paranoid adolescents or drug-addled ex-hippies, you'll have nothing to do with it.

But, here goes...

Poor jeffy peters out right before the ton of bricks gets dropped on his tin-foil capped head? How lame.

It is black and white.
You have to choose sides. Good or evil.

#63 | Posted by JeffnDenmark

if it is based on Biblical Revelations as Texe Marrs, C.S. Lewis & others like them espoused that proclaim JC as the only begotten word~smith of the ages of lore...I'll take my chances with the worst of the Drudge Retorters here any day for all Souls eventually come home to roost in some future life ~ not just the only begotten's chosen few in this particular lifetime only chance to get home:>)

ps St.Paul's die daily quote means going home anytime for a break & returning via music of the spheres/word or even while posting here...lol

I'll be back tomorrow, Zombie.
You didn't chase me away.
But if it makes you feel better to think so, you have my permission to do so.
I've never read anything interesting or adding to the discussion from you. Only insult, childish humor and school yard bullying type of retort.
Why is that?

Emotionally, and socially retarded from to much weed, and alcohol is my guess.

Bani,
I'm not a fundamentalist Christian. I do consider myself a Christian, but I'm not as far right as Texe Marrs, and Alex Jones. However If I had to choose sides I would side with them, because they don't want to kill of the world population, like these elitist eugenicist freaks.
From the research that I have done Social Darwinism is elitist quack science. Just like Al Gore's global warming.

I've never read anything interesting or adding to the discussion from you. Only insult, childish humor and school yard bullying type of retort.
Why is that?

Selective reading, the same filter you apply when denying the obvious in favor of your predilection to fantasy and conspiracy.

I'll be back tomorrow, Zombie.

I look forward to it, but I will be busy for most of the day, EST.

I've never read anything interesting or adding to the discussion from you. Only insult, childish humor and school yard bullying type of retort.

What I have to say is not interesting to you because it contradicts what you believe. You don't think it adds to discussion because you either do not wish to accept it, or you do not understand it. You claim to have evidence of conspiracies, but you don't even have a rudimentary enough understanding of the concepts to realize how flimsy that "evidence" is.

Emotionally, and socially retarded from to much weed, and alcohol is my guess.

Feel free to think so if it makes you feel better about yourself. I indulge in my vices sparingly, and I jest prolifically... just how it should be.

gametime

OK, TV football.... Now I understand.

"I'll take my chances with the worst of the Drudge Retorters here any day..."

except johnson:>)

Is a bill in congress proof enough?

Are you saying that you agree that the white man is more evolved up the human tree than the black man?

???

I don't recall having said that, jeffy.

"Skepticism is fine, and unavoidable in people that have trouble coordinating intellectualism with other human functions." - Zed

Skepticism is supposed to be the underlying principle in science. Is this supposed to be an indictment of science? Or merely an aside while emphasizing the latter part of the sentence? Just curious.

If they would have used a wording like "proven conclusively",

Nothing can be proven conclusively, jeffy -- especially your conspiracies.

But I'm not wasting my time

LOL Exactly as I said. You ask for a link, but you refuse to read it.

I read your link Goatman.
It isn't proof. It's theory.

Ok, I'm really going to bed now. I hate Mondays! I can never fall asleep Sunday night.

I'll check back tomorrow. I'm curios if anyone cares to address this one?
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D) has submitted bill no. HR 2977 IH , which proposes a ban on the weaponization of space. One of the weapons systems listed in the bill is "chemtrails". The use of this term is significant because until now, all reported governmental inquiries into this issue have been dismissed or denied. Agencies such as the Air Force have routinely called reports of chemtrails "a hoax". CONGRESSMAN ACKNOWLEDGES CHEMTRAILS

CONGRESSMAN ACKNOWLEDGES CHEMTRAILS

#81 | Posted by JeffnDenmark

duh...now if only the zombies of the world...

It isn't proof. It's theory.

Nothing can be proven, jeffy. But it strongly supports the fossil record which lends a lot of credence to the theory.

That's what science is all about.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D) has submitted bill no. HR 2977 IH , which proposes a ban on the weaponization of space. One of the weapons systems listed in the bill is "chemtrails". The use of this term is significant because until now, all reported governmental inquiries into this issue have been dismissed or denied. Agencies such as the Air Force have routinely called reports of chemtrails "a hoax". CONGRESSMAN ACKNOWLEDGES CHEMTRAILS

HR 2977 IH 107th CONGRESS

(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--
(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;
(ii) chemtrails;
(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;
(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;
(v) laser weapons systems;
(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and
(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.

Ok, so at least one Congressman believes it enough to put it in a bill. I'm still at a loss as how that proves or acknowledges anything. Have you seen some of the bills these yahoos introduce?

Oh, and why did I bold psychotronic?

psychotronic: adjective. - denoting or relating to a genre of movies, typically with a science fiction, horror, or fantasy theme, that were made on a low budget or poorly received by critics.

At least as critical as preventing the possibility of chemtrails I suppose. Yes, I'm leaving the "extraterrestrial weapons" weapons out of this. . .

Humans scare me.

Yes, I'm leaving the "extraterrestrial weapons" weapons out of this. . .

Humans scare me.

lol! Me too!

"From the research that I have done Social Darwinism is elitist quack science"

And from yor research please provide your proof of god.....

you claim no proof of evolution despite countless links to the contrary which you don't address only dance around, so please what is a jeffdemark's proof of god?

LM

"Is a bill in congress proof enough?"

No. And for someone who always believes the official story is bullshit I'd expect it to be kryptonite to you.

Interesting article.

Unfortunately, we're still "debating" evolution, so it will fall on deaf or uninterested ears.

Wow!
The epitome of sheeple stupidity.

To bad you are to far gone to see how this eugenics program has a direct link to social Darwinism.

The Soviet Russians under Lennon and Stalin, and the communist Chinese under Mao were big promoters of social Darwinism. They killed hundreds of millions human beings in the name of social Darwinism, collectivism.
You see if you except that we are only animals, and the same laws of the jungle survival of the fitist apply to humanity, its just part of this natural process of killing off all the useless eaters.
It's coming to America now. What makes you think you are better than Russia and China? Oh yeah... Your government told you so.

I forgot to mention that Hitler, and Pol Pot were also big fans of social Darwinism.

What makes you think you are better than Russia and China? Oh yeah... Your government told you so.

My government has never told me that. Never got a phone call from them, no letters in the mail, no radio broadcasts, etc. You don't live here, so I'm not sure where you got that idea.

I know my country is better because I've read about China and Russia. My father does a lot of business in China, so I hear about that place first hand.

From these stories and what I've read, I know teh USA is better than those places. I don't need (nor have) the government telling me this.

Have you been this way all your life, jeffy, or is it something that has happened to you recently?

I wonder if Hitler and Mao stood before their people and said, oh by the way I plan on killing off millions of you, my beloved sheeple.

Have you been this way all your life, jeffy, or is it something that has happened to you recently?

Actually something did happen to me. 911...I started educating myself on what is going on in the world after 911.
Building 7 was what woke me up.

Oh, and as far as the US being the best. Maybe that was true 40 years ago.But now with your corrupt globalist politicians you're rapidly on your way to becoming a third world country.
And the fact that so many of you are in denial about what is happening leaves me questioning if America will wake up in time to save itself.

And the fact that so many of you are in denial about what is happening ...

Just curious, is your definition of 'in denial' someone who won't buy into baseless conspiracies?

I forgot to mention that Hitler, and Pol Pot were also big fans of social Darwinism.

Posted by JeffnDenmark at 2009-02-02 03:15 AM | Reply

Authoritarians of any stripe often are.

baseless my ass.
Denial is the inability to look at the evidence.

"Authoritarians of any stripe often are."

And isn't it a bit odd that social Darwinism is being pushed into the American psyche by the media at this time when Obama has this wave behind him of cult like following?

Denial is the inability to look at the evidence.

Like your self-admitted inability to look at the evidence in NIST report? That's what denial is?

And isn't it a bit odd that social Darwinism is being pushed into the American psyche by the media at this time when Obama has this wave behind him of cult like following?

#97 | Posted by JeffnDenmark at 2009-02-02 03:56 AM | Reply | Flag

It is always is being pushed. What do you think the far rights platform under bush was? "bootstraps" is a codeword for "let them eat cake" and "class warfare" is a codeword for "don't let the public find out how we tax the shit out of the middle class and give it to the wealthy".

Social darwinism is hardly new, nor is it even new in our own MSM. They are almost exclusively on the side of power, and the elites don't care who dies as long as they didn't know them.

Since you are strangely quiet on my question, li'l jeffy, I'll answer. By your own definition, you are in denial. You say that Denial is the inability to look at the evidence. You openly admitted that you refused to look at the evidence in the NIST report.

Therefore, It is you who is in denial.

Thank you for admitting this.

Is denial also believing a crackpot like Alex Jones when he tells you something as outrageous as, "The NIST invented the concept of thermal expansion to explain how WTC7 fell".

Since the knowledge of thermal expansion has been around for hundreds of hears and you still choose to believe Alex Jones, could thid be considered a form of denial too?

Just curious.

Alex Jones has his heart in the right place, but not his head. Power corrupts, and the powerful require journalists and rabble rousers to point out their bullshit.

But not by making up facts, as Jones often does.

Goatman,
Since you keep repeating the same old lie about me I will try again to put it to rest.
The NIST report is bullshit. I don't have to read it to know that. I saw the video of those buildings coming down. I know construction. And I know that buildings don't come straight down like that without explosives.
It's a lie, and many engineers have already proven it to be so.
You seem to be intellegent enough to know this to but you either don't want to see the truth, or you purposefully keep perpetuating the lie.
It's bullshit. 911 was an inside job, and as much as you want to stop people from believing this the numbers are growing.
I don't care what you think, and you have told so many lies on Drudge that you don't have any credibility.
You can continue with your agenda and I will continue with mine. My agenda is to wake people up to the truth. Your agenda is to perpetuate the big lie.

Could you please post some type of proof about Alex Jones being wrong in his assertions.
A lot of people on here make accusations about him but never back them up with anything other than their own opinions.

Well, I already did, but here we go again. A couple of months ago you cited an Alex Jones story on prisonplanet.com that said that the NIST invented the concept of thermal expansion to explain things about WTC7 that couldn't otherwise be described.

At that time I sent you numerous links explaining that that concept had been known for ages and that it in fact is the basic principle behind liquid and bi-metallic strip thermometers.

The NIST report is bullshit. I don't have to read it to know that.

???

Then how do you know it is bullshit?

And I know that buildings don't come straight down like that without explosives.

How do you "know" this? I know otherwise. Gravity is the only force acting on those buildings. In order for them to go any other direction but straight down, another force would have to have been acting on them. What was that force? I keep asking you that and you keep refusing to answer.

I think upthread you called that 'denial' LOL

a lie, and many engineers have already proven it to be so.

"many"? How many? More than 50%? Or more like 1%?

When half of them agree with you, let us know. It will be worth looking at then. But the paltry list of 200 or whatever you print is about 1 or 2% of architectural engineers. IF they were all architectural engineers. on that list were lawyers, mds, etc.

So yes, you'll have something when you can get half the licensed architectural enginners to agree the report is phony. 1% just doesn't to it. LOL

How do you "know" this? I know otherwise. Gravity is the only force acting on those buildings. In order for them to go any other direction but straight down, another force would have to have been acting on them. What was that force? I keep asking you that and you keep refusing to answer.

Well? Are you going to answer, or are you going to stay in denial?

You see, li'l jeffy, this is what happens. When you get asked the technical questions to explain how laws of physics could be broken, y'all clam up. This is denial.

Goatman,
just because I don't reply directly to you a lot of the time is far from being proof of denail.
Sometimes I reply to you and sometimes I don't have the time or feel like wasting time with you. You're not that important to me.

Dr. Wyndham's Reply to NIST About Their WTC 7 Final Report

WTC Technical Information Repository
Attn: Stephen Cauffman,
NIST, 100 Bureau Dr., Stop 8611,
Gaithersburg, Md. 20899-8610.

Dear Sirs:

I have examined the documents you provided on your theory of the collapse of WTC 7 due to fires by way of thermal expansion. It is apparent that you have spent a great deal of time, effort, money and thought on this project.

However, like Ptolemy's Theory of Epicycles, you begin with a faulty and unproven assumption. It is also the least likely assumption based on the evidence. Therefore, although your computer modeling may be intricate, your results are completely speculative and have no connection with the reality of what happened to that building. You are simply "adding epicycles" to a theory based on a false premise.

Your theory essentially rests on two physical observations:

1. There were office fires in WTC 7 that burned for some hours.
2. The building completely collapsed.

Observation 1 is not in dispute, except as to the location, extent, and effect of the fires. You never observed these fires from inside the building, and you have no actual measurements of the thermal expansion and deformation of the structural steel beams whatever. You never examined any of the steel.

Observation 2 runs contrary to 100 years of experience with the behavior of steel-framed buildings that have caught on fire. Every one of them was subjected to thermal expansion, but never before has there been such a collapse. To now postulate that a collapse did occur due to office fires is the height of scientific recklessness.

Your consideration of hypothetical blast scenarios (Appendix D) is disingenuous, to say the least. You rule out a possible blast on the basis that it would have been audible, but was not reported. You consider only RDX and C4, which is RDX-based and known to be noisy. RDX has been in use since WWII and C4 reportedly has been used by terrorists. It is simply not believable that foreign terrorists could have gained unobserved access to WTC 7 before 9/11 (scenario 1) or during the 6 hour interval prior to its collapse (scenario 2). Why did you not consider the use of thermite, thermate, nano-thermites, and other state of the art materials? As shown by Kevin Ryan, NIST has extensive knowledge of and experience with the latter materials.

In contrast to the non-existent observational basis for your theory, there exists a large and growing body of evidence, physical, eye-witness, anecdotal, and circumstantial, that points to controlled demolition as the reason for the building's collapse.

Millions of people worldwide are in ready possession of this evidence. Allow me to briefly review this evidence for you.

Physical Evidence for the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7

1. The rapid onset of collapse indicates controlled demolition. Natural collapses begin slowly as the steel deforms (but this has never before led to collapse from office fires).
2. The symmetrical, straight-down nature of the collapse. In a natural collapse, the building would tend to topple or show asymmetries.
3. The time taken by the collapse, approximately 6.5 seconds. This is almost free-fall speed and indicates little resistance, which is incomprehensible if natural. Your theory of a slower collapse within the outer frame of the building is outrageous speculation.
4. The neat, tidy debris pile, a few stories high, with adjoining buildings essentially untouched. Such a pile is the main objective and hallmark of controlled demolition.
5. The molten metal and high temperatures observed for weeks afterwards in the debris pile. Only incendiary and explosive materials, such as thermite, thermate, and nano-thermites could produce these temperatures. Particles in the dust indicate these materials.
6. The evidence of corroded steel with sulfur found by FEMA. Again, sulfur is a product of a thermate reaction.

Eye-witness Evidence for the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7

1. The testimony of Barry Jennings. Mr. Jennings timeline is crucial and unassailable. The essentials of his story were told to Eye-Witness Channel 7 News shortly after 1 pm on 9/11/01, and later elaborated on in taped interviews. BEFORE either tower fell, he was blown back, by an explosion, from the sixth floor to the eighth floor in a stairwell in WTC 7. The sixth floor landing was destroyed. Help came twice and ran away when each tower collapsed. He was in the dark for several hours. He heard explosions from that time (before 9:58 am) until he was found and led to safety around 1 pm. At that time the lobby of WTC 7 was completely destroyed. None of this could have happened because of the tower collapses. All his eye-witness evidence points to pre-demolition blasts in WTC 7.
2. The video-taped statements of various firemen and policemen before 5:20 pm on 9/11/01 to the effect that WTC 7 was "coming down" or "about to blow up." This pre-knowledge indicates controlled demolition.
3. The video-taped statement of a witness who overheard a "count-down" for WTC 7 on a worker's radio.
4. The many videos showing the actual collapse of WTC 7, with various evidences of controlled demolition such as a kink in the roof, exploding charges at upper stories, and so on.
5. Audible explosions heard by eye-witnesses just before and during the collapse of WTC 7.

Anecdotal Evidence for the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7

1. Larry Silverstein's remarks about the decision to "pull" are clear enough. The arguments about the meaning of "pull" are beside the point. There is a causal relationship between "and they made that decision to pull" and "then we watched the building collapse." The latter follows the former. The decision to "pull" resulted in the fall of WTC 7. This could only take place with controlled demolition.
2. When Barry Jennings and Hess arrived at the OEM, Floor 23, in WTC 7 around 9 am, they found it empty. Why? $13 million dollars was expended to create this impregnable floor, and the towers had not yet fallen! The food and coffee showed the occupants had left in a hurry. Then Jennings made a phone call and was told he must "get out of there." Why? The only plausible answer is that the pre-demolition blasts were about to begin.
3. The BBC and CNN early announcements of the complete collapse of WTC 7 have never been satisfactorily explained. Obviously, the pre-knowledge of the demolition was handled badly by these news outlets.

Circumstantial Evidence for the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7

Observation 2 runs contrary to 100 years of experience with the behavior of steel-framed buildings that have caught on fire.

???

I wasn't aware there had ever been any other buildings in the last 100 years that had caught fire after a fulled laden plane crashed into them at 400 MPH and burned with the BTU (heat) of thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

When were these other incidents? I thought there had only been two in history. (and strangely enough, these two behaved the same! LOL)

And you are STILL skirting my very, very simple question.

What force was present that should have caused the buildings to fall in any direction but straight down?

"What force was present that should have caused the buildings to fall in any direction but straight down?"

Explosives....

Oh! I wasn't aware that an airplane crashed into building 7!
Thanks for clearing that up for me!

free fall speed only possible with explosives. Nuff said.

BTW,
What ever happened to all of the periodicals, articles, and websites you were going to post to back up the NIST report?
Don't bother with Popular Mechanics.

What force was present that should have caused the buildings to fall in any direction but straight down?"

Explosives....

You didn't answer he question, jeffy. Let's see if I can make it simpler for you.

Drop a book, a pencil, an apple anything. It goes straight down.

Why should a building be any different?

Oh! I wasn't aware that an airplane crashed into building 7!
Thanks for clearing that up for me!

Well, since you cite as 'proof' buildings that have burned in the las 100 years, I assumed you didn't.

Changes things, dosn't it?

You're welcome.

Nuff said

Translation:

My story doesn't hold up under scrutiny. QUIT ASKING ME RELEVANT QUESTIONS!

What ever happened to all of the periodicals, articles, and websites you were going to post to back up the NIST report?

What's the point? You want me to jump through hoops for something you won't even read? How very buffalobobish of you.

I know you like to say we are puppets who dance to your tune, but I'm not going to spend hours of research so that you can scoff at me and say you wont' read it.

Sorry

Heheeh....
Yuoooo sooo fuuuunnneeeee!

What's the point?

Translation,

I can't produce any....

Wow! And here I never knew that Darwin had anything to do with 911.

Silly me.

"The Soviet Russians under Lennon and Stalin, and the communist Chinese under Mao were big promoters of social Darwinism. They killed hundreds of millions human beings in the name of social Darwinism, collectivism"

That is a sad and pathetic lie.....please offer some shred of proof to this....

If I get some of the links that attribute public policy that led to starvation of millions as your rebuttal, then you need to look no further then any country on the planet. Starvation claims millions of lives annually but it's only the communist regimes that get theirs attributed as a statistical killing?? Why is that?

LM

"you claim no proof of evolution despite countless links to the contrary which you don't address only dance around, so please what is a jeffdemark's proof of god?"

Still waiting for your evidence, especially after your post to others on their inability to comprehend/observe it.

LM

I produce tons of substantial evidence, but people like you don't even look at it, because you have already made up your mind that is til foil hat crap.

Jeff, I read what you have to post, but it's not persuasive at all. Any "evidence" is primarily conjecture and rumor that has been propagated to the extent that people assume it to be true. Experiments, if performed at all, are so poorly designed that their results are of little use.

HR 2977 IH 107th CONGRESS

(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--
(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;
(ii) chemtrails;
(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;
(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;
(v) laser weapons systems;
(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and
(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.

I propose the following for the skunk works to get busy on:

(i) orbital mind control beams capable of penetrating any amount of tin foil
(ii) biological weapons that create zombies whose bites do not create other zombies
(iii) cloaking devices
(iv) an ion cannon like the one from the original Command and Conquer game
(v) a cheap and efficient way of summoning the devil that does not require the sacrifice of a virgin
(vi) a "gay bomb" that selectively targets females
(vii) computer viruses that will work on alien computers, just in case something like Independence Day happens and we need to hack the alien mainframe...
(viii) prosthetic bodies
(ix) robotic ninjas
(x) robotic pirates

"The Soviet Russians under Lennon and Stalin, and the communist Chinese under Mao were big promoters of social Darwinism."

This is like saying that since al quaeda likes to blow shit up, Alfred Nobel is responsible for all the deaths caused by terrorism because he invented dynamite.

Show me where DARWIN supported these ideas and you may have a point. Until then, you're grasping at straws.

I read some of this in the houston paper yesterday and it had a later picture of him. And I have to say that if we all looked as much like a hairy ape as he did with his full beard and forehear, then maybe he was right afterall.

pretty interesting stuff none the less.

(sighs to himself)...

Debates like these are always cyclical and
unending in that people always try to
reinvent, reinterpret, or dismiss what was
written in the past--until the point where
it becomes pure revisionist bunk...

Darwin was a scientist who observed the natural world, and had the audacity to write down what he saw, even when it conflicted with prevailing theologies and theories at the time. For that, first and foremost I applaud him. That others later, with much more questionable desires would seek to twist or undermine his original findings, to this side, or to that, to accomplish this purpose, or that, should be of little surprise to anyone...

people continue to be what they always have been,
most interested in their own opinions...

JeffinLaLaLand,

and Mohamad Atta was on the PNAC's payroll? and the four jets, with their passengers and crew were just a cover story? and a jet fuel laden airplane with oxygen tanks couldn't possibly be the source of alleged mysterious explosions? neither could equipment in the floor that was hit?

the sudden collapse was consistent with a midlevel column failure due to fire after the crash blew insulation off the steel. one floor melts and the floors above knock out everything else under that floor. no building has ever been designed to take this type of dynamic load.

"social Darwinism"
as evolution gained strength and produced medical advances that saved lifes, there were those that took "survival of the fittest" and tried to apply it to human social behavior. Though called "Social Darwinism" this had nothing to do with Darwin or the theory of evolution but is often use by bible thumpers to call evolution evil, people using this argument are just showing their ignorance. As they only associate with like minded dummies they unaware of being laughed at. (like the kid that went to college and found his parents were idiots)

"I didn't come from no monkey" is a favorite refrain of a bible thumping retard that thinks Flintstones is a true story!

tx nutcase.

Denmark may claim he is in the industry, but he is certainly no structural engineer. I on the other hand am one.

everytime these threads get back to conspiracy and 9/11 I go nuts over what I read. At a certain temperature (dependent upon among other things, carbon content) say 900 degrees, steel turns to butter.

We fireproof steel only to provide enough time for the occupants of the building to get out. Ratings are based upon thickness and measured in the amount of time their coverage applies to the assembly. After a fire has burned hot enough and long enough the fireproofing is rendered worthless and the steel deforms RAPIDLY-IMMEDIATELY. When the dynamic (ie. moving) load above the fire floor comes down on the lower floors you can indeed have a linear collapse mode.

The situation on 9/11 is unique in our history, because the fires in question burned unabated. Normally with a highrise steel structure we have a fire department locally able to respond to the scale of the event and a total collapse is prevented.

JeffDenmark displays his ignorance on both the evolution and the terrorist attacks.

Id call him stupid but he may accuse me of being a eugenicist.

Boojiboy

Nothing in the WTC fire burned hot enough to weaken steel. Not the kerosene from the jets, or the office furniture burned hot enough to weaken steel. Which burns hotter---the gas from your stove, or a burning couch? Neither burns hot enough to weaken steel. The fire was smoke filled, which means it was oxygen starved and cool. In addition, the whole structure would have have to weaken at the same time or else the building top would have been thrown off center. You are no engineer, or if you are---you suck. Here are some REAL engineers who know what they are talking about---660 of them.

Nothing in the WTC fire burned hot enough to weaken steel.

Are you still trying to convince yourself of that, bOoB? LOL

660 Engineers Say Boojiboy is Wrong

660 out of how many millions of engineers are there? When half of them say boojiboy is wrong, get back with us bOoB.

Hey DUmmy---Let's hear what got hot enough in there to weaken steel. Make a stand. Make a statement of fact.

Yeah right.

LOL

Hey DUmmy---Let's hear what got hot enough in there to weaken steel. Make a stand. Make a statement of fact.

Been there. Done that. Many times, in fact -- complete with engineering links describing various properties of steel. Sorry your memory sucks so badly. You should've been taking notes like I suggested.

You linked to nothing. You've never linked to anything. You never take a stand or make a statement on your own. You just watch others.

You linked to nothing. You've never linked to anything. You never take a stand or make a statement on your own.

Of course you say that. You don't remember it! LOL

I've linked to the same thing time and again---that you can't do the same, proves my point. You never did---never will, take a stand on anything. You are a coward.

I've linked to the same thing time and again---

We all know that. *sigh* youtube.com

that you can't do the same, proves my point.

I can do the same. But I chose to go to different links, hoping to find one your pea brain could understand, because you told me that some of the links were too technical (I know, I know, you don't remember. That doesn't mean it didn't happen)

You never did---never will, take a stand on anything.

???

You are a coward.

Yes I am. I'm scared to death that if I go to the trouble to post the links again you will either tell me they are too technical, like you have done, or you will not take notes like I suggest and it will be groundhog's day for the 8th time in the very near future. I get frustrated dealing with people with a short memory span.

I'm through with you. Go find someone else to play with. You and li'l jeffy seem like a match made in heaven. Go find him.

Later, (memory) loser.

hey jackass I went through your list of "engineers' most are architects,a few are software engineers?!?

those with a structural degree are by and large out of the country (political gain?) it is a holdge podge.
It is rather like global warming in my book, cast a wide enough net and you will find oh, say 600 hundred folks who will take a stand for whatever is on their personal agenda.

I stand by what I said, and btw that warnt no keronse, that wars jet fuel, they burn a little different smart guy

"You linked to nothing. You've never linked to anything. You never take a stand or make a statement on your own. You just watch others."

Do you have some sort of reset button that automatically trips upon falling asleep? You rehash the same arguments over and over and over and over and never integrate any new information that is presented to you. Must be nice to live in a nice, neat little intellectual bubble that prevents anything from challenging your preconceived notions.

The funny thing is with all of this discussion, it seems to imply that all of these 'experts' out there are claiming that even with a floor full of burning fuel, you cant reach a temperature that would cause steel to deform (ie. melt).

If that were the case, how could any fire reach those sort of temperatures. And therefore, why fireproof steel at all?!?!

Its all crap put together by propaganda freaks who have been wearing aluminum foil caps to keep the NSA and the aliens from reading their minds.

what a bunch of maroons!!!

While I'm still not sure I buy the premise that the temperature could not be reached in this instance, here is another take on the mode of failure that refutes all the paranoid propoganda:

And check out this site.

Anyway,
wasn't this discussion thread about a story linking Darwins early abhorrence of slavery and subjection of one human over another to his later descent of man publication? How differences in humanity make us a brotherhood? Celebrate the differences?

And then some dickhead said he was a racist because of that?

Yeaaaaa thats riiiight!

I stand by what I said, and btw that warnt no keronse, that wars jet fuel, they burn a little different smart guy

#144 | Posted by boojiboy at 2009-02-03 09:20 AM | Reply | Flag

Jet fuel is kerosene moron. Some researcher. They add additives for different situations, but it is kerosene. It burns at 550 degrees farenheit. Far from the weakening point of steel.

Jet fuel is a mixture of a large number of different hydrocarbons, possibly as many as a thousand or more. The range of their sizes (molecular weights or carbon numbers) is restricted by the requirements for the product, for example, freezing point or smoke point. Kerosene-type jet fuel (including Jet A and Jet A-1) has a carbon number distribution between about 8 and 16 carbon numbers; wide-cut or naphtha-type jet fuel (including Jet B), between about 5 and 15 carbon numbers.[2]

Do you have some sort of reset button that automatically trips upon falling asleep? You rehash the same arguments over and over and over and over and never integrate any new information that is presented to you. Must be nice to live in a nice, neat little intellectual bubble that prevents anything from challenging your preconceived notions.

#145 | Posted by jpw at 2009-02-03 10:17 AM | Reply | Flag

I doubt your've read anything I've written. I always incorporate the rebuttal in my response. Always.

If you have a point---a time when that wasn't so---cite it and prove me mistaken.

Simple isn't it.

SOOooo---point out something that proves your point. Your silence will indicate you are currently enjoying a case of nice, cold, STFU.

good posts ~ BB

but 911 has nothing to do with Darwin ~ folks...maybe idiotic goats, though...

Here you go buffaloe butt buddy:

Air France flight 358 didn't hit a steel building at 500 miles an hour. It didn't even burn the fuel in the wings, yet its aluminum skin melted to the ground. It simply went off the runway and caught fire. What melted the airliner was its contents, like seats, clothing and other combustibles including chemical oxygen generators. It's not unreasonable to conclude the airliner and contents didn't even need the contents of the building to melt. Yet the NIST replicated the fires by burning office furniture in a controlled experiment and found the ceiling temperature to reach 1,100 degrees C. (They say "Yeah but that's the ceiling" to which I say "Now imagine what the actual flame is.. Do you think it's cooler?") More than enough to melt aircraft aluminum as well. Unfortunately, they weren't charged with putting conspiracy theorists fears to rest so they didn't include a piece of aircraft aluminum in the test.

More evidence that normal fires without jet fuel added can reach over 1000 degrees C is an experiment conducted by One Stop Shop in Structural Fire Engineering, Professor Colin Bailey, University of Manchester.

Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials."

If the approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calculations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3. THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel and that the temperature of the steel members at the time of the photo is less than 1650 F.

And for WTC 7:

From Structure Magazine. Ya don't trust me, read from a magazine written by and for Structural Engineers:

There are many folks on the thread who seem to run counter to evolutionary theory of advancement just based on the ridiculous crap they believe in.

Perhaps eugenics would be a good idea in this case . . .

suddenly silence . . .

So anyway, I thought this was an incredibly thought provoking article as to how the core of Darwin's thesis begins with his abhorrence over man's inhumanity to his fellow man via slavery and servitude.

Lincoln and Darwin born on the same day and motivated by much the same thing

#155, 154
received FF

maybe because the author included FEMA & Nist as legitimate sources?

The Plane That Crashed Into the Empire State Building

Lincoln and Darwin born on the same day and motivated by much the same thing

#159 | Posted by boojiboy

Bob Dole was shot the same day Lincoln was & looked what happened there!

Perhaps eugenics would be a good idea in this case . . .

#157 | Posted by boojiboy

self retorts are't funi unless johnson involved:>(

Bob Dole was shot the same day Lincoln was ...

Bob Dole's been shot?

Bani you dork. The B-25 was 10% of the mass of the rigs which struck the WTC's!

Boojiboy

Your attempted insults don't bolster your case. What would help is some logic. So far you have nothing. Here is the story on Air France flight 358.

Bob Dole's been shot?

#163 | Posted by goatman

YOU DORK!

Yes, Bob Dole has been shot. He was shot in WWII by machine gun fire. It left him with a crippled arm.

Suddenly silence.....

Yes, Bob Dole has been shot. He was shot in WWII by machine gun fire. It left him with a crippled arm.

I didn't know that. Thanks, bob.

YOU DORK!

Because I don't know the medical history of ex congressmen?

Whatever, banshee

read the rest of post 158 fellows

You will notice that the plane is made of aluminum---not steel. Aluminum is molten at 1220F

Your point that just because an aluminum airplane melted does not transfer to the same temperature necessary to melt steel.

neither does the kerosene jet fuel which burns at open air temps of 550F.

#165 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-02-03 04:13 PM | Reply | Flag: The dumbest densest fucker alive

On airplanes with aluminum skin the fire burns at a temperature to melt... ALUMINUM!!

Crash it into a building and it burns at 550F

This shit can't get any better.

Right bani?

rwd

ps.
Great article on Darwin huh?

silence

hey jackass I went through your list of "engineers' most are architects,a few are software engineers?!?

#144 | Posted by boojiboy at 2009-02-03 09:20 AM | Reply | Flag

I must have missed your list. So far, my 660 stands tall.

Boojboy

Your graph is meaningless unless you can tie it to conditions at the WTC. Something you can't do. Your graph shows nothing that applies to the WTC fire.

The WTC fire was localized, and not very hot at all. It was a smoke filled oxygen starved fire which burned no where near the weakening point of steel.

The floors below the impact point were undamaged, and the top portion should have fallen in the street, not straight down--especially since it can be shown that the collapse didn't start straight down, but off kilter enough so that the top should have clearly fallen into the street. I doubt you can construct a building so that if you take out a few of the floors near the top, that the whole thing falls straight down. Even making a building our of cards and having concrete blocks on top--those blocks wouldn't fall straight down.

So far, my 660 stands tall.

LOL. If all the architectural and structural engineers represented 100 feet tall, your list is about 1/4 of an inch tall. LOL

When half of the architectural and structural engineers agree with you, you'll have something to talk about.

floors below the impact point were undamaged, and the top portion should have fallen in the street, not straight down

bad guy #1: Let's bring a couple of buildings down in NYC as an act of terrorism

bad guy #2: Good idea! We'll fly some planes into them, and they'll topple sideways and cause even more damage.

bad guy #1: No. Let's take the time and money to wire the building for explosives.

bad guy #2: But that will greatly increase the chances of being caught since there will be so more many people involved who might blab and employees of the building who might start asking questions.

bad guy #1: I know. But we have to take that risk. We want the buildings to fall straight down so they don't cause too much damage.

bad guy #2: Oh.

LOL, bOoB

Goat, pointing out the flaws in a conspiracy theorist's argument is futile. To them, the flaws are virtues, evidence of a "truth" that has been conveniently suppressed.

When half of the architectural and structural engineers agree with you, you'll have something to talk about.

#177 | Posted by goatman at 2009-02-04 02:56 AM | Reply | Flag

When half of the architectural and structural engineers agree with you, you'll have something to talk about.

LINK? So far I am 660 ahead.

LINK? So far I am 660 ahead.

There is a difference between quality and quantity...

When half of the architectural and structural engineers agree with you, you'll have something to talk about.

Wrong, bOoB. You are making the claim. Therefore you have the burden of proof.

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, either positive or negative, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven

I have no burden of proof, and you are making as much claim as I am. I have 660 engineers and architects. You? Nada.

When you find 660 engineers and architects that agree that steel weakens in a smoke filled, oxygen starved fire of couches and carpet, get back to me.

There is a difference between quality and quantity...

#181 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-02-04 03:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

There certainly is. I have some of the top engineers and architects in the country and in the world weighing in. They don't think steel weakens in a smoke filled, oxygen starved fire of couches and carpet.

Why not post some of your quality engineers and their thoughts, and let's see the quality on which you are so reliant.

Here's one of my guys.

Eric Douglas Registered Architect in New York and California.
Essay 12/06: "The NIST investigation of the WTC building failures was extensive, but NIST did not substantiate its conclusions experimentally. On the contrary, many of NIST's tests contradicted its conclusions. Furthermore, there are several examples in which NIST chose to manipulate input data, and then certify its findings based upon the inevitable conclusions that derive from the manipulated input. One finds little acknowledgement on the part of NIST that uncertainties in its simulations translate into uncertainties in its findings.

NIST's physical tests were inadequate. Their ASTM E119 tests and their workstation burn tests were improperly modeled. Further, the former produced results that contradicted NIST's conclusions and the latter fell far short of testing the performance of realistic steel members in the actual fire conditions. The workstation burn tests showed that the temperatures were generally too low, especially in the ventilation-controlled WTC environments. The ASTM E119 tests showed that the WTC floor trusses should have easily withstood the fires they experienced on 9/11.

Where's yours?

bad guy #1: Let's bring a couple of buildings down in NYC as an act of terrorism

bad guy #2: Good idea! We'll fly some planes into them, and they'll topple sideways and cause even more damage.

The planes wouldn't have made them fall at all dUmMy. After the initial impact, the fire wasn't hot enough to do any more structural damage. The only way for anything to fall is through explosives, which were heard and reported, and ignored by people who didn't want to hear them. But the explosions are still there for all to hear that have ears. Your poor thought processes are showing, as usual.

Goat, pointing out the flaws in a conspiracy theorist's argument is futile. To them, the flaws are virtues, evidence of a "truth" that has been conveniently suppressed.

#179 | Posted by ZombieHunter

FF

Especially when it is so obvious that Darwin Awards are needed for the obtuse:>)

right RightwingDon?

911 - WTC Strange Planes