Patrick.net

Who dunnit? Who benefits? How did those towers come down?

By coriacci1   Follow   Mon, 3 Sep 2012, 8:23am   61,273 views   1362 comments
In San Francisco CA 94110   Watch (3)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (6)   Dislike (3)  

Congress rolled over for the White House(again), and did not preform it's Constitutional Duty. 11 years ago we were hoodwinked by the NeoCons and the Controlled Media. You can't cover up the fact that Explosives were used on all 3 buildings that collapsed on September 11. Many people still do not Realize Building 7 dropped in a free fall demolition at 5 thirty in the Afternoon in a classic Controlled Fashion. It is way past time to reconcile the Lies. The Tide will turn our way now as the Financial and Political Systems implode like building 7. This is what

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 1323-1362 of 1362     Last »     See most liked comments

1. Bigsby Follow Befriend 2,826 comments Monterey, CA

   1323   6:25pm Sun 14 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   The Professor says That is the entire point. Even with secret data inputs NIST could not replicate the actual collapse in their computer model. They go through a convoluted chain reaction where "Column 79 was found to buckle" followed by a cascade of thousands of failed structural steel connections culminating in a smoldering building imploded into its own footprint. NIST: "Progressive collapse is defined as the spread of local damage from a single initiating event, from structural element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it." In other words, "A beam slipped and caused all of the other important connections in the building to fail". Watch again, In the NIST simulation every column or beam you see falling means a weld or a bolt has failed. That's not the entire point. You posted up a video that is devoid of context and is clearly meant to misrepresent what they did. NIST aren't like you. They didn't have a predetermined conclusion and then made the evidence fit with that. How easy do you think it would have been to manipulate a model to fit exactly with those videos? That isn't how they work. They took the information that they believed to be accurate and created 2 mathematical models based on two very distinct sets of data (where was that explained in your video). One of those models clearly produced a result very similar to what happened. Not identical, but very similar and that demonstrates their model is a pretty good indication of what took place. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Why do you have to dismiss the entire thing despite them clearly stating why it isn't identical? That's a clear indication there wasn't a conspiracy, but no, you take that and twist it completely. You jump straight to a video that entirely misrepresents the two simulations and deliberately places them out of context. It's very clear to me who is being deliberately misleading, and it isn't NIST.

2. Bigsby Follow Befriend 2,826 comments Monterey, CA

   1324   6:31pm Sun 14 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   The Professor says I think another wrong has happened in this world and I want to know the truth. I am convinced that there is a cover up of what really happened on 9/11/2001. I am not sure we can convince each other of what the "truth" of 9/11 is but I appreciate a civil debate on such an important topic. If you want to know the truth, then you should stop claiming a conspiracy at every turn and realize that the truthers are clearly manipulating and distorting the facts so as to mislead the uninformed.

3. The Professor Follow Befriend (5) 24 threads 1,305 comments Premium

   1325   8:30pm Sun 14 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   "Consensus 9/11 seeks "best evidence" proof to dispel official story falsehoods. It's founded on: (1) The opinions of respected authorities, based on professional experience, descriptive studies, and reports of expert committees. (2) Physical data in the form of photographs, videotapes, court testimony, witness reports, and FOIA releases. (3) Direct rather than circumstantial evidence. Determining "best evidence" depends on "integrating individual professional expertise with the best available documentary and scientific evidence."" http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/consensus-911-panel-seeking-truth.html

4. Homeboy Follow Befriend 13 threads 1,484 comments

   1326   8:34pm Sun 14 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   The Professor says Now imagine taking a blowtorch and destroying all of the connections that might have been damaged by debris from the twin towers. Now take the blowtorch to column 79 until all of its connections were melted and destroyed. Would this cause the rest of the building to be dragged down? And how again are you qualified to make this engineering determination and to second-guess NIST's determination?

5. Bigsby Follow Befriend 2,826 comments Monterey, CA

   1327   8:54pm Sun 14 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   The Professor says That is exactly what they did! They predetermined that fires weakened the structure of WTC 7, causing it to implode. They never even checked for explosives!!! Don't be stupid. They took the available data and created the simulation using that data. That simulation shows the building falling down in a very similar manner to that witnessed (and surprise, surprise without the aid of explosives). And what the hell your lego post has to do with anything is anyone's guess. You use no data, post up entirely inaccurate and misleading videos, and then shout conspiracy every time proper research shows you to be wrong. You are simply questioning the wrong things. You are utterly dismissive of all mainstream research and entirely accepting of all the truther videos - intellectual dishonesty at its most obvious.

6. Bigsby Follow Befriend 2,826 comments Monterey, CA

   1328   8:59pm Sun 14 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   The Professor says If you want to know the truth, then you should stop claiming a conspiracy at every turn and realize that the official story is clearly manipulating and distorting the facts so as to mislead the uninformed. A lazy and childish response, one regularly used by Darrell in Phoenix/War/Realtors are Liars. The official report was a painstaking analysis carried out independently. You rely on videos posted by kids and conspiracy nuts that deliberately set out to mislead the gullible by being utterly selective and deceptive in what they portray. And as a purported academic you choose to go with the latter rather than the former. Very strange. Very strange indeed.

7. Bigsby Follow Befriend 2,826 comments Monterey, CA

   1329   9:04pm Sun 14 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   The Professor says "Consensus 9/11 seeks "best evidence" proof to dispel official story falsehoods. It's founded on: (1) The opinions of respected authorities, based on professional experience, descriptive studies, and reports of expert committees. (2) Physical data in the form of photographs, videotapes, court testimony, witness reports, and FOIA releases. (3) Direct rather than circumstantial evidence. Determining "best evidence" depends on "integrating individual professional expertise with the best available documentary and scientific evidence."" http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/consensus-911-panel-seeking-truth.html They have already decided what is right and wrong before even doing the research. They create their 'theory' and fit the 'evidence' to that. It's utterly arse backwards and you would be aware of that if you actually were a scientist.

8. The Professor Follow Befriend (5) 24 threads 1,305 comments Premium

   1330   9:24pm Sun 14 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   "The data provide strong evidence that chemical reactions which were both violent and highly-exothermic contributed to the destruction of the WTC buildings. NIST neglected the high-temperature and fragmentation evidence presented here: it appears nowhere in their final report". http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

9. Bigsby Follow Befriend 2,826 comments Monterey, CA

   1331   9:53pm Sun 14 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   The Professor says @bigsby I just cut, pasted, and modified your post and reposted it. You then call it a lazy and childish response. I agree, your responses are lazy and childish. Mirroring back somebody else's post is a childish and lazy method of response. Get it now? And you claim to be a professor and yet here you are saying you are an evangelist for a 9/11 conspiracy theory. Very academic. More befitting of someone in their teens I'd say. The Professor says "The data provide strong evidence that chemical reactions which were both violent and highly-exothermic contributed to the destruction of the WTC buildings. NIST neglected the high-temperature and fragmentation evidence presented here: it appears nowhere in their final report". http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf Ah, surprise, surprise. Another copy and paste effort. Why is all this sort of stuff the 'truth' to you and yet the far, far, far more detailed work done by NIST is merely taken by you to be some sort of elaborate disinformation effort and dismissed out of hand?

10. Homeboy Follow Befriend 13 threads 1,484 comments

    1332   10:17pm Sun 14 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   The Professor says We don't live on the earth Speak for yourself.

11. Bigsby Follow Befriend 2,826 comments Monterey, CA

    1333   12:21pm Mon 15 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   The thread for non-censored discussion of truther conspiracy theories.

12. bob2356 Follow Befriend 2 threads 2,497 comments

    1334   7:23pm Mon 15 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Homeboy says bob2356 says Homeboy says There's an incredible amount of crap out there about aliens. Doesn't mean it's true. It's not true? Of course it's true. You can't find an official group of scientists who say that alien abductions aren't happening, so therefore it's true. There's not an official group of scientists who say that the WTC wasn't brought down by mutant steel eating earthworms either, so it must have been mutant steel eating earthworms that destroyed the WTC. The truth is finally out at last.

13. bob2356 Follow Befriend 2 threads 2,497 comments

    1335   7:27pm Mon 15 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   The Professor says I expect Bob to pop in with alien talk anytime now. No I am forming 911mutantsteeleatingearthwormstruth.org. Aliens clearly didn't do it, mutant steel eating earthworms are the true culprits.. How are the contributions going to ae911truth.org by the way? Any extra money coming in from all your shilling on this post?

14. Homeboy Follow Befriend 13 threads 1,484 comments

    1336   12:08am Tue 16 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   bob2356 says There's not an official group of scientists who say that the WTC wasn't brought down by mutant steel eating earthworms either, so it must have been mutant steel eating earthworms that destroyed the WTC. The truth is finally out at last. Those puffs of smoke you see coming out of the windows are actually earthworm farts. It makes so much more sense than the "official" story.

15. Homeboy Follow Befriend 13 threads 1,484 comments

    1337   9:24pm Fri 19 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Hey Professor, why did you start another thread, and why do you delete anyone's post who proves you wrong? We all know you contradicted yourself. First, you argued that a steel skyscraper has never before in history collapsed due to fire. Then you argued that just because something never happened before doesn't mean it can't happen. You are contradicting your own arguments, and you started a new thread because you don't want to own up to your mistakes.

16. The Professor Follow Befriend (5) 24 threads 1,305 comments Premium

    1338   12:22am Sat 20 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   @homeboy All your "arguments" are here for all to see. Thanks for your contribution and have a good night.

17. Homeboy Follow Befriend 13 threads 1,484 comments

    1339   1:12am Sat 20 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   The Professor says All your "arguments" are here for all to see. Thanks for your contribution and have a good night. You deleted my arguments in your other thread. Why do you refuse to comment on your contradiction where you refuted your own point? Is it because you are embarrassed? Too bad for you that you can't delete posts in this thread.

18. Bigsby Follow Befriend 2,826 comments Monterey, CA

    1340   2:34am Sat 20 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   The Professor says @homeboy All your "arguments" are here for all to see. Thanks for your contribution and have a good night. And so are all yours, so why do you feel the need to post them all again in another thread? Oh, I forgot it's because you can censor posts that disprove your points in that thread.

19. The Professor Follow Befriend (5) 24 threads 1,305 comments Premium

    1341   7:23am Sat 20 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   Bigsby says And I see you've even started deleting some of your more embarrassing posts. Censoring yourself now? Just keeping it clean. You can write whatever you want on this thread. My new thread is for sincere argument and actual evidence. I did not delete the half of your post that was not personal. There is a lot of real arguments and evidence for the official story out there. Convince me that they are correct!

20. The Professor Follow Befriend (5) 24 threads 1,305 comments Premium

    1342   7:27am Sat 20 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   Homeboy says The Professor says I don't expect to convince the deniers. The truthers are so far up in conspiracy that they believe things like "mutant steel eating earthworms". Do you really not understand sarcasm or the concept of "reductio ad absurdum" or are you being deliberately obtuse? Do you understand the concept of "feed the trolls"? If you ever come up with some sincere and valid arguments I will entertain them. I already have. Thank you for your continuing contributions.

21. The Professor Follow Befriend (5) 24 threads 1,305 comments Premium

    1343   7:32am Sat 20 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   Bigsby says Come on now 'Professor.' Would you care to explain why my last 2 posts were deleted? Do you not want anything pointed out to you? And I see you've even started deleting some of your more embarrassing posts. Censoring yourself now? Yes I have deleted some of my own comments. I am trying to keep my thread clean.

22. Bigsby Follow Befriend 2,826 comments Monterey, CA

    1344   7:37am Sat 20 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   The Professor says Just keeping it clean. You can write whatever you want on this thread. My new thread is for sincere argument and actual evidence. I did not delete the half of your post that was not personal. There is a lot of real arguments and evidence for the official story out there. Convince me that they are correct! You deleted multiple posts from a number of people, including at least one of your own. Perhaps you'd like to explain why you deleted your sophistry post and my response. Your new thread is about nothing more than censoring responses to the lies you are peddling. And give the 'convince me' line a rest. You've already made up your mind. All the points have been covered in this thread. There is absolutely no need to repeat your exact same claims in a different thread. It is just utterly ridiculous and intellectually bankrupt.

23. The Professor Follow Befriend (5) 24 threads 1,305 comments Premium

    1345   7:37am Sat 20 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   Bigsby says The Professor says Is there any other reason you don't want an investigation? Because one was already done? You just don't like it as it doesn't mesh well with your conspiracy theory. Look, it's very simple, investigations aren't redone because a bunch of conspiracists post up Youtube videos with arrows pointing at puffs of forced air being expelled after the building starts to collapse, or because people post up videos 'showing' controlled demolitions that strangely enough only fellow conspiracists can actually see (but obviously not hear), or because... ... there is evidence of thermite at the crime scene.

24. Bigsby Follow Befriend 2,826 comments Monterey, CA

    1346   7:40am Sat 20 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   The Professor says ... there is evidence of thermite at the crime scene. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

25. The Professor Follow Befriend (5) 24 threads 1,305 comments Premium

    1347   8:16am Sat 20 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   Bigsby says The Professor says Bigsby says You have already posted that. You are a troll and a liar, 'professor.' I have not posted it here. Do you have an argument on why this is not a valid illustration of the official story of the building collapse? Don't be such a child. It's a ridiculous little drawing. You know damn well that it bears absolutely no resemblance to what actually happened. And if you don't, then you have no business posting on the topic. It's an insult to people's intellect. And far more importantly, it is an insult to the near 3000 people who died. Personal attack, belittle the evidence, and then appeal to the memory of the victims. A trollish trifecta! Brilliant bigsby!

26. Bigsby Follow Befriend 2,826 comments Monterey, CA

    1348   8:19am Sat 20 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   The Professor says Personal attack, belittle the evidence, and then appeal to the memory of the victims. A trollish trifecta! Brilliant bigsby! It's not trolling, it's a fact. You keep posting that bloody image. It's childish and insulting. You claim you want to discuss the evidence, yet you post up that image multiple times and claim it to be evidence. Says all that needs to be said about what you are up to. Pathetic.

27. Homeboy Follow Befriend 13 threads 1,484 comments

    1349   12:08am Sun 21 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   The Professor says Homeboy says The Professor says I don't expect to convince the deniers. The truthers are so far up in conspiracy that they believe things like "mutant steel eating earthworms". Do you really not understand sarcasm or the concept of "reductio ad absurdum" or are you being deliberately obtuse? Do you understand the concept of "feed the trolls"? Yes. Do you really not understand sarcasm or the concept of "reductio ad absurdum" or are you being deliberately obtuse?

28. The Professor Follow Befriend (5) 24 threads 1,305 comments Premium

    1350   1:09am Sun 21 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   The Professor says Bigsby says The Professor says An illustration of the official story of how the Tower collapsed. And how, pray tell, does that represent the official version of what happened? Come on, explain it. It's the logical conclusion of this image from Bazant: http://web.archive.org/web/20011031095744/http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/

29. Bigsby Follow Befriend 2,826 comments Monterey, CA

    1351   1:44am Sun 21 Oct 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   And as I said in the other thread, no, it isn't.

30. coriacci1 Follow Befriend (1) 65 threads 268 comments

    1352   8:51am Sat 10 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   new contribution to the debate. http://grtv.ca/2012/11/air-defense-911-anomalies-and-questions

31. The Professor Follow Befriend (5) 24 threads 1,305 comments Premium

    1353   9:09am Sun 11 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   Long video compiling different documentaries

32. The Professor Follow Befriend (5) 24 threads 1,305 comments Premium

    1354   3:46pm Sun 11 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   Protected   It is so obvious that this is not a controlled demolition. A controlled demolition would not have killed so many people. Let us not forget on Veterans Day that this was the reason for the last decade of war.

33. The Professor Follow Befriend (5) 24 threads 1,305 comments Premium

    1355   1:38pm Tue 13 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   Homeboy says Do you really not understand sarcasm or the concept of "reductio ad absurdum" Not as well as you. The whole situation is absurd. The whole episode from not stopping the hijacking to a decade of war on "terror" is absurd. I was only made aware of the controversy over the official conspiracy story of how a handful of jihadists flew hijacked planes into the WTC 2 months ago today. My research has brought up more questions than it has answered. I have found that there is definitely incompetence and probably criminal behavior among some factions of our government regarding 9/11 and its aftermath. Whether the buildings were intentionally demolished is not near as important as the fact that the whole thing was an excuse to pay off contractors, distract the public, spend trillions of dollars, murder many thousands of innocent civilians, kill thousands of our soldiers, and further limit our civil rights. The Internet is a new paradigm of information transfer and learning. Hopefully we can use this medium to stop the perpetuation of the warmongering, slaveholding, overclass that controls this world.

34. Bigsby Follow Befriend 2,826 comments Monterey, CA

    1356   6:54pm Tue 13 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   The Professor says Whether the buildings were intentionally demolished is not near as important as the fact that the whole thing was an excuse to pay off contractors, distract the public, spend trillions of dollars, murder many thousands of innocent civilians, kill thousands of our soldiers, and further limit our civil rights. Ah, so you are finally back-peddling from all your ridiculous copy and pasted CD arguments.

35. robertoaribas Follow Befriend (23) 55 threads 3,795 comments Scottsdale, AZ robertoaribas's website

    1357   8:04pm Tue 13 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)   Aliens from the dark planet nerubi did it in preparation training for the December 2012 apocalypse....

36. The Professor Follow Befriend (5) 24 threads 1,305 comments Premium

    1358   9:00pm Tue 13 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   robertoaribas says December 2012 apocalypse.... I forgot all about that. Better stock up. Thanks for reminding me.

37. The Professor Follow Befriend (5) 24 threads 1,305 comments Premium

    1359   9:02pm Tue 13 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   Protected   Bigsby says Ah, so you are finally back-peddling from all your ridiculous copy and pasted CD arguments. Just for you Bigs

38. coriacci1 Follow Befriend (1) 65 threads 268 comments

    1360   7:40am Thu 15 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   what’s goin on in kuala lumpur? September 11, 2001: The Crimes of War Committed “in the Name of 9/11″ Initiating a Legal Procedure against the Perpetrators of 9/11 Michel Chossudovsky * * * International Conference on “9/11 Revisited – Seeking the Truth” Perdana Global Peace Foundation (PGPF) Kuala Lumpur, November 2012 Introduction http://www.globalresearch.ca/september-11-2001-the-crimes-of-war-committed-in-the-name-of-9

39. The Professor Follow Befriend (5) 24 threads 1,305 comments Premium

    1361   9:19am Fri 16 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   "In assessing the crimes associated with 9/11 in the context of a legal procedure, we must distinguish between those associated with the actual event, namely the loss of life and the destruction of property on 9/11, from the crimes committed in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 “in the name of 9/11″. The latter build upon the former. We are dealing with two related dimensions of criminality. The crimes committed “in the name of 9/11″ involving acts of war are far-reaching, resulting in the deaths of millions of people as well as the destruction of entire countries. The 9/11 event in itself– which becomes symbolic– is used to justify the onslaught of the post 9/11 US-NATO military agenda, under the banner of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), not to mention the ushering in of the Homeland police state and the repeal of civil liberties."

40. coriacci1 Follow Befriend (1) 65 threads 268 comments

    1362   9:13am Thu 29 Nov 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   bring the prosecutions on! http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUPLAYER_globalresearchtv&feature=player_embedded&v=8Z0Lsyox2zg

« First     « Previous comments