Actually that was my impression of you lot. Which is pretty spot on. Stop thinking you can be taken seriously by speculating ******edly, using highly selective pieces of "evidence".

There's no excuse for your idiocy.

Can you provide me with a coherent theory, which is backed up by significant evidence, which you present from a wide range of reputable sources? If you can't present me with that, why are you even arguing for your theory at all?

Also, no selective cherry picking please. Why was Jiggs presenting an Miami Herald news story from a few days after 9/11 as a source on the radar stuff? You really can't get a better place for information like that? Nothing more recent? Nothing better than a quote from a single random news story? Or were you simply avoiding any evidence that might contradict your theory, while presenting cherry picked excerpts to support it?

Why were you linking an interview from some truther website? Again, nothing more substantial than one man's supposed opinion, posted on some random website nobody has heard of before?

Why even bother with links like that? You're just throwing ******** out there in the hope that it sticks, claiming victory unless someone can prove it incorrect. Basically, **** off and stop trying to make other people do your work for you.

mehh only the mindless masses still believe the official story...

in before sheep berates truther.

Superimpose two numbers? Say it ain't so.....

And it is not >42.8 it's MINIMUM is 42.8 MJ/kg

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/EvelynGofman.shtml

1800deg F is not the maximum temperature, as we saw in the Nat Geo experiment, the thermometer reached 2,000 deg. F in >4 minutes.

ETA: Fixed typo

[makes tinfoil plane and throws it] weeeeee

It's because what I do say, is easily verifiable.

Huh? I contacted the SFD because I believed one of their members was conducting himself in such a way that it would be againt department code of conduct.


Huh?

Oh, please do.

As an aside, you will never know my true identity, but you and 22205 can have fun with that. Good luck!

The ones that stick out most for me are endless lawsuits, dividing the country(most of this country is pretty dumb and couldn't really see the reality of it), and most importantly to me I guess is america would then constantly have to hear 'haha we made you kill your own people hahahhahha' ad nauseum.

No Mr. Fraud you typed this... MJ/kg = megajoules per kilogram

MgJ/kg = something a fake would type regarding something he knows nothng about.

I can understand you screwing up the numbers, to be clear your original answer, 48.2 MgJ/kg was wrong. 42.8 MgJ/kg is also wrong. Someone with your supposed background should have typed MJ/kg more times than they they could count. Hard to mess that up, my brother is at the highest levels of science... if he was drunk and asleep, he would never fu** that up. A megajoule you fake.


You are now using Nat Geo TV channel to verify the maximum burining temperature. I have heard several "maximums" is the "expert" saying there is no maximum, are you saying 2000F is the maximum, or are you saying you haven't found that answer on google yet?

I could care less. You mean less than average imo, fakes, replicas and reproductions don't hold their value that well.

That's probably better than using YouTube videos though.

Edit: I guess onward with MMR's ad hominem attacks?

No, what I am saying is that there are too many variables. Are we burning in oxygen-rich air, a closed system, a poorly ventilated system? What?

Oh, and mj/kg is not my normal measurement. BTUs is what I normally use.

But hey, whatever, keep going. Did you find the steel weakening temperature?

I guess MIT, Stanford, every major news network, the President, senators and congressmen etc are all crackpots for utilizing youtube. Astute logic sir.

Or maybe News Corp is superior to all who post on Google's youtube. Google is roughly 5 times the company News Corp is btw.

One day, you will say something good. I'm almost sure of it.

utilizing youtube is a bit different than establishing at least half of your argument from what is said on youtube videos. Astute logic sir.

One day, you won't say something absolutely stupid in your posts. Actually, I'm certain you won't.

And seriously, using size (or whatever roughly 5 times the company News Corp means) as the metric is lol. Though I'm curious why you're calling out a news outlet, when a lot of the evidence put forth has been NIST, peer reviewed material and other similar such vetted material rather than what a talking head has said on the TV news or youtube. (Note, a show on TV with scientific experts != Newscorp)

Nicely done. I did not give you any stipulations. The maximum. Forget it buddy.

No excuse, you have no clue. Fraud. I have no training in this area, but I am educated and know upon first glace that MJ/kg is relevant to jet fuel's energy and MgJ/kg is not (that would not make any sense).


Stopped looking, I'll find it for you soon enough. Sit and wait.

Keep up the ad hominem approach MMR! Good job showing you've run out of 'legit' arguments.

(legit is in quotes because they aren't correct arguments, rather they are arguments that don't have logical faults in them, at least ones that aren't immediately apparent and jump out at one before the first sentence is complete.)

Maybe you have me confused with another poster, half of my argument based on yt videos? Please go on.

I had a parrot once. I don't now... for a reason. Very creative shane.

So you would trust a nickel and dime news source no less than Fox News or Sky News? Or is size important for a news service.

We know shane, the NIST reports were not properly peer reviewed.

What have I not discussed here? Pick a 9/11 issue, we can revisit it if you so choose (but honestly enough time has been wasted on repetition). I know where tri stands, he has made it clear. We are done.

Sorry for not carefully noting exactly who made what arguments in a 2000+ post thread. Wow, you sure got me there.

Figured I had to say stuff you'd understand

This is why I did the above--so you'd understand. Clearly you missed the point here. I'm not surprised though.

I never claimed that. But again, I'm not surprised you misunderstood. Is parody the only thing you get?

LMAO

Another misunderstanding by you. Point was ad hominem attacks are either the first resort of the idiot or the last resort of the intelligent. I was assuming you weren't an idiot. But, if you want to argue differently...

Conspiracy theorists love Youtube because it's the perfect medium with which to throw **** and hope it sticks.

Just fling out a few Youtube videos and try and force everybody else to disprove your assertion that they're evidence for 9/11. There's not even any work for you to do, no typing.

It's also very easy to throw out "facts" and "information" in a Youtube vid that are completely wrong, misconstrued, or cherry picked. Since it's in video format, often without sources, it leaves everybody running around trying to find out ACTUAL sources for what is discussed in the video.

Btw, care to summarize the in depth coherent theory you've surely posted in this thread, backed up with a range of reliable sources? I haven't read through the thread so I've missed it. But since you're so certain your theory is correct, you should have no problem fulfilling such a request, right? I mean, you probably have it all typed out in a Word or PDF document, ready to present to the world. Right? ... Right?? Oh.

No doubt you'll respond by flinging out a few quotes from a decade old news story, linking to some random website designed by a 12 year old, and then finish your post off with an exquisite Alex Jones Youtoob video. I almost guarantee I will not get any sort of coherent, well sourced theory from you. If I'm wrong, then I will be pleasantly surprised.

There really is no way to know exctly the maximum that any fuel will make without knowing the variables.

I wait with baited breath.....

Really? They are most likely the most peer-reviewed reports in recent history. Engineers are very inquisitive. When a MAJOR department like NIST produces a 10,000 page report on one of the most well know engineering disasters in recent history, we can be assured that MANY MANY MANY architects, engineers, and other interested people with relevant qualifications are going to look at it.

I can give you a list of a bunch more peer-reviewed papers that support the NIST's conclusions. Would you like to discuss those?

Just let me know.

Ready to put your money where your mouth is?

Jiggs et al check this out

Itunes > Itunes store > search 'peace revolution' under 'podcasts' > scroll to podcast #42 'project constellation"

~2 hour self-interview on the who/how/why of the machinations behind 911 by Richard Grove circa 2006

Just like every "debunking" video.

So you have written three or four papers on the subject or have contributed greatly to one "side" or the other? So no argument proposed has anything to do with youtube per se, but more or less an argument against video as a form of acceptable media intended to relay information. I disagree.
True.

So based on your laziness or lack of desire to read the thread, I should just sum it up for you.

What is my theory that I am so certain of? I am one of the only people here without a theory.

• AlQ attack funded with nickels and dimes... possible.
• The US gov't somehow was merely incompetent on that day... possible.
• Some people inside the US gov't encouraged or allowed it to happen... possible.
• Some people within the US gov't and maybe some outsiders set up and virtually carried out the attacks... possible.

Yeah, I know that is crazy. Possibilities.

No doubt? Maybe you're wrong... possible.

Just say it with me Tri, the NIST report was not properly peer reviewed... and coincidentally that is your only argument against the research to the contrary.

We have discussed, you couldn't provide most of them. If you don't remember (apparently you don't). I have read the ones that are readily available.

Oh yeah, sit and wait. I haven't even started searching again.