It has just come out that the publications by two Harvard doctors about the effect of sugar vs fat/cholesterol on cardiovascular health published in the New England Journal of Medicine was directed by the sugar industry. One of the doctors were put on the US government's board to work out guidelines for nutrition, while being paid by the sugar industry.
Remembering 9/11
- Thread starter Insidious Von
- Start date
Then explain how the sample FEMA tested was heated to 1800F, decreased in thickness and curled up around the edges.
office fires don't get that hot, not without help.
This is where you and I differ - you took it as an insult, I stated an observation.
Not trying to be a dick either, by your own admission there are elements that are still unanswered like the flight recorder you just mentioned. So lets recap - We have money vanish (well documented) - okay it's just "bad accounting". 3 Skycrappers crumble to the ground leaving its mushroom cloud in its wake - "bad architecture" totally innocent shit happens. Bad plane tracking - totally innocent shit happens. I'm rational, shit happens, everyday -- sometimes big shit happens, but at some point, if the pile of shit has the shape of a huge middle finger, it must be allowed to wonder aloud if not maybe, systemic intent does not explain the phenomenon a little better than 'shit happens'.
In the ground with Flight 93
"a group under the Federation of Students at the University of Waterloo"
LOL! You are one gullible SOB. Federation of Students is Waterloo's student organization. Your group is a CLUB. It has absolutely no affiliation whatsoever with the university. It is a student club, full of lunatics no doubt. The university would NEVER associate itself with this garbage. If it had the URL would be @uwaterloo.ca, not @stupidmonkeyclowns or whatever bogus URL you posted.
It's right in your quote too: "We do not in any way represent or speak on behalf of the University of Waterloo."
No shit!
You really got your ass handed to you here.
TERB is a small sampling of a greater argument about 9/11. On almost any subject one can find an expert who will refute another expert with their "facts". This can be attributed to the legal system and confusing a jury with too many facts. There is however irrefutable evidence to the contrary with regards to the conspiritist theories, as it relates to the collapse of the towers and this has been stated here already.
With regards to the metallurgy being discussed with related slides, one has to take into account that what was going on during this catastrophe, the metals shown wouldn't be pure or near pure, but mixed with many other things, wide ranging, so anything shown wouldn't be something that is a ready match to anything else known.
The irrefutable evidence is the fact that both towers were struck by a jet liner fully laden with fuel. This is something that cannot be argued and all the experts in the world who say that the towers should have stood have to assessed as to their stake in such matters. It's easy to see that even these types aren't above wanting their 15 minutes of fame and that there are crackpots in all professions.
To those who refute demolition experts with their theory that thermite was used to take the towers down, like it's not too hard to do, just a couple of bricks of thermite here and there and the job is done. Oh...and the jet will crash into the area that this was placed as that is not a problem. With the amount of thermite needed to do this and the requirement of prep work needed to be done so that this is possible, then why didn't we see this thermite metal cascade from a multitude of other areas, instead of just the one that was shown? Not to mention the fact that the time needed and the work required would have been noticed by someone at some point.
The resultant collapse argument and the debris field is also contentious. It can clearly be seen that the buildings pancaked, originating in the area where the jets struck. From the record, no buildings of this size have ever been demolished and studied. The resultant debris field is nothing that has ever been seen or studied. To have total obliteration is the result of such an act, with some things totally disappearing or only leaving the smallest traces of their existence as elements, both organic and inanimate, being thrown into a big food processor, are what is found when the dust settles.
The tower that collapsed after the twin towers fell is also of note, but once again, where is the irrefutable evidence that it was demolished professionally? With the collapse of the twin towers and the resultant force being absorbed by the ground around them, the results are clearly shown and that number 7 WTC could not withstand the forces put upon it from this. Much like an earthquake, the resulting shock wave must have been sizable enough to weaken the base of the structure. Gravity and the forces that the structure was designed to hold would do the rest.
The "feelings" of people who believe it was an inside job can also be dismissed as "feelings" aren't anything other than an emotional response, which doesn't count for anything here. As pointed out, a secret this big, someone is going to crack, as it's only human and to co-ordinate something of this magnitude, there has to be a lot of people involved in order to pull this off. Unless they are all psychotic in some way, someone would feel the need to let this out, in order to gain some sort of absolution for their deed.
With regards to the metallurgy being discussed with related slides, one has to take into account that what was going on during this catastrophe, the metals shown wouldn't be pure or near pure, but mixed with many other things, wide ranging, so anything shown wouldn't be something that is a ready match to anything else known.
The irrefutable evidence is the fact that both towers were struck by a jet liner fully laden with fuel. This is something that cannot be argued and all the experts in the world who say that the towers should have stood have to assessed as to their stake in such matters. It's easy to see that even these types aren't above wanting their 15 minutes of fame and that there are crackpots in all professions.
To those who refute demolition experts with their theory that thermite was used to take the towers down, like it's not too hard to do, just a couple of bricks of thermite here and there and the job is done. Oh...and the jet will crash into the area that this was placed as that is not a problem. With the amount of thermite needed to do this and the requirement of prep work needed to be done so that this is possible, then why didn't we see this thermite metal cascade from a multitude of other areas, instead of just the one that was shown? Not to mention the fact that the time needed and the work required would have been noticed by someone at some point.
The resultant collapse argument and the debris field is also contentious. It can clearly be seen that the buildings pancaked, originating in the area where the jets struck. From the record, no buildings of this size have ever been demolished and studied. The resultant debris field is nothing that has ever been seen or studied. To have total obliteration is the result of such an act, with some things totally disappearing or only leaving the smallest traces of their existence as elements, both organic and inanimate, being thrown into a big food processor, are what is found when the dust settles.
The tower that collapsed after the twin towers fell is also of note, but once again, where is the irrefutable evidence that it was demolished professionally? With the collapse of the twin towers and the resultant force being absorbed by the ground around them, the results are clearly shown and that number 7 WTC could not withstand the forces put upon it from this. Much like an earthquake, the resulting shock wave must have been sizable enough to weaken the base of the structure. Gravity and the forces that the structure was designed to hold would do the rest.
The "feelings" of people who believe it was an inside job can also be dismissed as "feelings" aren't anything other than an emotional response, which doesn't count for anything here. As pointed out, a secret this big, someone is going to crack, as it's only human and to co-ordinate something of this magnitude, there has to be a lot of people involved in order to pull this off. Unless they are all psychotic in some way, someone would feel the need to let this out, in order to gain some sort of absolution for their deed.
You have no idea how stupid you are making yourself look, this is a group of UW students/alumni and professors.
I've gone to the school and I'm part of the group.
You have no clue what the real issues are or why your "official conspiracy theory" is scientifically impossible.
You should go back into that dark hole you call your life.
You lied when you attributed the statement to the university. Now you are proving to us all how thoroughly unreasonable you are.
A bunch of cranks.
You bunk has been debunked repeatedly on this thread and you keep spamming us with more of it. The Waterloo federation of students does not endorse your crank clubs views, stop trying to glom off credibility you don't have.
I never attributed the site to UW, I said it's made up of UW students, alumni & professors.
I went to the school and I understand the issues at hand, unlike you, basketcase, promo and others.
I notice you don't want to touch the Szuladzinski paper, your the same as Bazant (who hasn't been heard from since this paper was published).
Yes you did. You introduced the link with the phrase
"but the University of Waterloo is an institution I trust.
https://uwaterloo911.wordpress.com/a...papers-on-911/"
Then it turned out that the University has nothing whatsoever to do with that crank bullshit. You tried to continue the claim by quoting something calling it affiliated with the Federation of Students--which just means it's a club, the FoS certainly does not endorse that bullshit.
In the end it's a kook club pushing bullshit with no credibility whatsoever.
"but the University of Waterloo is an institution I trust.
https://uwaterloo911.wordpress.com/a...papers-on-911/"
Then it turned out that the University has nothing whatsoever to do with that crank bullshit. You tried to continue the claim by quoting something calling it affiliated with the Federation of Students--which just means it's a club, the FoS certainly does not endorse that bullshit.
In the end it's a kook club pushing bullshit with no credibility whatsoever.
It is an institution I trust, because I went there, and the group is made up of other students, alumni & PROFESSORS.
You can't even refute the evidence presented and stick your head in the sand like everyone else.
Why are you running?
I trust Waterloo too. But the institution isn't even vaguely associated with your 911 crank club, and it was dishonest of you to try and falsely glom off Waterloo's credibility.
Waterloo has lots of professors 99.999% of which know fuck all that would make them experts on 9/11.
So students, alumni and professors at UW are not part of UW.
What world are living on?
The University is not associated with and does not endorse every piece of bullshit nonsense one of its students, alumni, or even its professors post on a WordPress blog.
You tried to attribute your 9/11 crank bullshit to the university itself. You were lying.
Keep on believing whatever you want to believe, UW stands behind all students, alumni & professors regardless of beliefs.
Why can't you refute the Szuladzinski paper, or does it conflict with your idealized version of reality and you don't want to go there?
As an aside, just read that bill so far for the war on terror has hit $5 trillion.
https://theintercept.com/2016/09/14/latest-estimate-pegs-cost-of-wars-at-nearly-5-trillion/
$5 trillion.
https://theintercept.com/2016/09/14/latest-estimate-pegs-cost-of-wars-at-nearly-5-trillion/
$5 trillion.
I'm waiting fugi, why can't you refute the Szuladzinski paper, or does it conflict with your idealized version of reality and you don't want to go there?
Remember, you haven't offered one shred of evidence to debunk the paper, yet you claim to have have debunked everything I've posted.
Go back to your hiding place with the rest of the 'Bazant Truthers"
UW does not stand behind this, liar.
And your paper from a fake journal doesn't even say what you claim it does.
What's your M.O. here, keep spamming bullshit and demand that each and every piece of bullshit be refuted? You were proven wrong thoroughly above. Spamming another piece of shit and demanding it too be refuted is just not honest. Particularly when it is from a fake journal that only ever had two issues, created specifically to publish conspiracy theory.
From the paper
Your the chief ignoramus around here fugi. You clearly have no clue when it comes to physics and mathematics.
You don't even understand simple concepts such as deflection in structural buildings or the temperatures required to create eutectic mixtures of iron oxide and iron sulfide.
All the evidence is staring you in the face, yet you cling to your conspiracy theory because you think the majority believe in it.
And if UW does not stand behind their students, alumni & professors, why would they allow lectures and presentations on campus?
The real Feds site is http://www.feds.ca/
The Feds are the body representing undergrad students at UW. Professors, grad students, and alumni have different associations. Had you attended there, you may know these things already.
