1. Time Travel Institute has been upgraded, courtesy of Mop's wallet and Cosmo's lack of social life! Feel free to explore the new features, one of us will post an announcement thread with a few highlights later tonight.

Message To You All

Discussion in 'Time Travel Claims' started by Qronos16, May 28, 2006.

Page 17 of 23

  1. RainmanTime Administrator

    Peepo,

    And yet you continue, but still you can provide no scientific facts and evidence to support your conspiracy theories. The more you reply to me without addressing the facts of column buckling that I pointed you to, the more foolish you will end up looking. I guarantee it. But if you insist on continuing, who am I to tell you what to do?
    Oh really? So then a fifh grader is familiar with how temperature affects the Young's Modulus (modulus of rigidity) of steel? I didn't know they were teaching such things in the 5th grade these days. You see I teach aerospace engineering and we don't usually get into Young Modulus until the sophomore year structures curriculum. A question I would like you to answer: Are YOU familiar with Youngs Modulus and how it changes over temperature? And are you also familiar with how the lowering of Young's Modulus has an impact to the Euler column buckling equation I pointed you to?
    I'd like you to explain what scientific knowledge this statement is based upon, and substantiate this by citing the thermodynamic property of jet fuel that is most relevant to this conclusion. Can you do that? Because based on my knowledge of jet fuel I do not think your statement is correct.
    No, I certainly will not. So again I would ask you to stop putting words in my mouth, and instead address the issues that both I and Darby are putting to you... if you can.
    And if everyone can not, as yet, see how limited you are in your actual knowledge of science and physics, they will see it without a doubt as our discussion continues. We already see you do not wish to talk about the facts of column buckling (nor did Mr. Pegelow, for that matter!)
    Let me try your strawman tactic: So by saying this are you then saying that the physics of column buckling are not relevant to why the WTC towers collapsed? If that is what you are saying, you clearly do not know physics or structural engineering. I think Darby (and others) would agree that the science of column buckling is the single most relevant issue in explaining why the towers came down.
    Now this is truly hilarious, because what you accuse me of doing is EXACTLY and PRECISELY what you are doing in referring to the radio appearance by Mr. Pegelow! You clearly have no scientific knowledge of the physics of column buckling, and all you do is "take what someone says" (Mr. Pegelow) "and spin it in a way so it matches what you want it to match (or believe)." That pretty much describes exactly what you are doing. The difference is, I know the science and the physics behind why the towers fell, and you fail to see how something like column buckling explains why they fell. And so you avoid discussing these facts.
    Really, I am not asking for much... I am just asking for you to provide ACTUAL scientific analysis of column buckling that supports your claims and your conspiracy theories. That is not too much to ask, is it, for you to provide SOLID evidence and facts, rather than just someone else's opinion?
    Well, that could be, but I think a more likely answer is that you do not have any other names of credentialed structural engineers who support Mr. Pegelow's views. And yet, I can point you to the statements of MANY structural engineers who have actually said these conspiracy theories are UNSUBSTANTIATED AND UNFOUNDED. Would you like me to give you some quotes from such people to counter your Mr. Pegelow?

    The statments by Mr. Pegelow on that radio show were just as ridiculous as the statements made by Donn de-Grand Pre on Alex Jones' radio program. They are in the same vein. Mr. Pegelow gave ABSOLUTELY NO analytical evidence for his views. None. Moreover, he did not even attempt to give any form of explanation for how column buckling is THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FAILURE MODE that building design engineers consider in their designs. Other statements he made about concrete and rebar are simply incorrect and do not reflect the facts of the WTC design.

    Now I would like to call your attention to EVIDENCE in a WTC tower photograph that directly supports the science of column buckling as being the critical failure mode that caused the towers to come down. Take a good look at this photo:
    [IMG]
    The numbers just below the fire in this photo represent how much deflection (in inches) the structural columns are exerpiencing. As much as 55 inches in one spot! This buckling is caused by two things: (1) The force of the weight of the floors above it and (2) the weaking of the structural rigidity of the columns (Young's Modulus) due to the heat of the fire.

    I would like you to address these facts. They are not spin, as you would like to call it, they are scientific facts, and they are related to the Euler column buckling equation I pointed you to earlier in this thread. By not addressing these facts, and how these facts not only support the official reason for why the towers fell but also debunk your controlled imploision theory, you will simply look even more foolish.

    You are in pretty deep right now, Peepo. It is now time for you to put-up or shut-up.
    RMT
    RainmanTime, Sep 9, 2006
    #321

  2. RainmanTime Administrator

    And so do you plan to address the scientific points Darby has made that refute your opinion? Or will you ignore them as well?
    Darby is being nice. You gave up your opportunity for me to nice to you when you entered this thread denigrating me, and then further attacked me without addressing the scientific issues.

    Every time you replay & call me a spin master and at the same time ignore the scientific points I am making that refute your conspiracy theories, I will continue to turn up the heat on you. You can quit now or keep going. The choice is yours, but I assure you that you are out of your league and you cannot support your conspiracy theory claims.

    RMT
    RainmanTime, Sep 9, 2006
    #322

  3. RainmanTime Administrator

    This is always the convenient conspiracy theorist "brush off" when they cannot support their claims. Since many conspiracy theorists are not that familiar with science and physics, they do not have the abilities to answer technical questions or points that disagree with their views. So when someone paints them into a corner asking detailed technical questions, rather than telling the truth that they cannot answer the questions, they simply invoke the handy "the answers to your questions are out there...research it yourself!"

    Always a classic... [IMG]
    RMT
    RainmanTime, Sep 9, 2006
    #323

  4. Peepo New Member

    Here we go again with the spin and rubbish, now he said before that I was weak minded when he thought I was posting website's about Alex Jones. In other words anyone posting info from someone else other than themselves is weak minded. And yet he post this waste of time info or rubbish that he got from someone else. Now from what you say about other people spin master this makes you very weak minded and small. Also with all that trash you have posted you have failed to mention why building 7 which was not hit by any jet or anything for that matter, and simply fell down. Or why before 9-11 and since 9-11 no building in history has ever fell from a fire. Also just within the last year a building burned for over 24hr and never fell but yet the twin towers burn for what, 50 some minutes or so and fell straight down? I could post the answers up on this board and yet all you would do is spin it and say it is all false or call me Qronos 16 or say I'm a phoney or weak minded. Spin is what you do best my friend and believe me a lot of people are seeing you for what you are my little tea cup, a Spin Master!!

    Now back on topic, since you are so smart spin master why do you build a time machine and show us just how smart you are.
    Peepo, Sep 9, 2006
    #324

  5. RainmanTime Administrator

    You Don\'t Know When To Quit, Do You?

    Back for more, eh Peepo? OK, if you insist! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
    Yes, it does seem that this is all that is left to your argument, seeing as how you refuse to discuss the relevant science involved with column buckling.
    Another strawman. You do know what a strawman argument is, right?
    I had no idea that the science of column buckling is "trash". That is quite surprising that you would brand this as such. Let's ask Darby since you seem to like and respect him, OK?

    Darby: Do you think the physics of columns under compression and the dynamics of their buckling is "trash"?

    I was wondering when you would use the "change the subject" tactic. It is clear that you will not (and can not) hold a scientific discussion about the physics of column buckling to explain why WTC1 and WTC2 fell (without needing planted bombs to bring them down). As such, what choice do you have but to try and change the topic, thereby not having to answer the tough technical questions about column buckling and WTC1 and 2? I can see your dilemma, but it will only get worse if you continue.

    You see, I fully expected you to move on to WTC7 when you could not support your claims about WTC1 and 2. If you agree that you cannot possibly support your claims about WTC1 and WTC2, then we can move on to WTC7. Are you aware that your statements above about WTC7 not being hit by anything are in direct opposition to the testimony of firefighters who saw this building before it collapsed? Will you at least answer this one question I put to you?

    Are you also aware that WTC7 was indeed heavily damaged in one corner, for as many as 20 stories from the ground? Do you agree that WTC7 WAS damaged and caught fire? This is a matter of fact, so I hope you don't disagree with these statements.
    No buildings of this design and this size have ever experienced the causal chain of events that these buildings experienced. Can you show me ONE other event from history where a "tube within tube" structural design (like WTC1 and 2) was hit by a massive jet airplane flying at high speed? No, I didn't think you could.
    And what are the design specifics of the building you are referring to? Start by citing the story for me of this building that burned for more than 24 hours, and then show me how that building had the same design architecture as the WTC (which I would bet it did not). If you are going to make comparisions like this, you are going to have to do a better job of providing evidence and analysis!
    I really doubt this. I do not think you have the relevant background in science to actually answer all the technical points that I have made, or that Darby has made. Why not just try answering one or two of my points about column buckling? If you did, you just MIGHT convince me that you are not as weak-minded as I think.

    I've offered to give you names and quotes of certified civil engineers who disagree with this conspiracy theory angle, and it is odd you have not demanded to see them. Instead most of your replies are spent trying to make the "spin master" label stick on me. The more you make this "about me" and not "about the science and facts" the less compelling your claims that bombs brought down WTC1 and 2. It really is that simple.

    RMT
    RainmanTime, Sep 9, 2006
    #325

  6. Peepo New Member

    Re: You Don\'t Know When To Quit, Do You?

    Here we go again! More spin spin spin spinster!!! More rubbish more puke from the spin master. I have said from the get go spinster that there is no point in posting anything up on this board to try to rebut anything you say. Why? All you do is say, why were is the proof that Charles N. Pegelow was what he said he was or he does not have enough knowledge to know this or that.
    Even if I posted the info about Professor Steven Jones who brings to bear his 20 years of experience and peer-reviewed research in the field of physics, you would find some way to call his findings phoney. So I say again what would it benefit anyone to post anything that does not go along with what you think on this board? All your going to do is to continue to prove that all you can do is post a whole lot of rubbish and puke and say what you say is holy and no one else can come close to you. Oh and by the way building 7 was not damaged from any part of any jet, and the 2 small fires that was burning in the building was not enough to bring the building straight down on itself. The footage clearly shows that. Oh that's right its all phoney too, and Qronos 16 is the one who posted the footage. No maybe Mr. Pegelow is Qronos and Professor Steven Jones is John T.

    /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
    Peepo, Sep 9, 2006
    #326

  7. Darby Well-Known Member

    peepo,

    I didn't fail to glean the smart a** context of the 5th grader response. I referenced it because we oft times refer to "common sense" in a physics situation when the reality is contrary to what one might normally attribute to common sense.

    You're correct in as much as I can do the research myself on Mr. Pegelow. But you have to appreciate the context in which I asked you the questions. This is a discussion forum.

    It isn't very helpful if Member A asks Member B questions about a reference made by Member B only to be answered "look it up yourself." There's not much discussion in that situation.

    I asked you the questions without stating an opinion because the questions directly relate to your position on the issue.

    You seem to have made some conclusions about the situation based on your knowledge of the events as well as your trust in the professional opinion of Pegelow. I think that its only fair, given the forum in which I asked, that you should at least attempt to answer them. If you don't know the answers to the physics based questions just state that you don't know. Its not a crime or a shame if you don't know the answers.

    As to Pegelow I believe that the questions about his CV are spot on even if the correct answers are unknown or ultimately support his position. The fact is that his CV seems to indicate a lack of current professional experience in the area of high rise construction engineering and that what experience he does have was as a junior (apprentice) engineer. There's a huge difference in the physics and engineering behind the construction of an oil platform and the physics and engineering behind building the largest buildings in the world. In physics and engineering scale is always an issue.

    Pegelow may well have the proper professional education, training and experience to profer a valid opinion.

    Now, you've been bashing Ray with the "spin, spin, spin" rhetoric. In that regard I'd ask you this:

    Prior to ever hearing about Pegelow had you already formed an opinion on the cause behind theTwin Tower collapse? If you had and if that opinion was on the side of the contrarians is it possible that when you read what he had to say that you accepted it without much in the way of questioning his conclusions? Is it possible that you heard what you wanted to hear, i.e. did the spin of his opinion match your preconceptions of the event?

    Does his CV give you any pause to reflect on his qualifications?

    Does the fact that he only holds a 34 year old B.S. degree in civil engineering have any weight in how you rate his qualifications?

    And does the fact that the only references to him on the Internet or UseNet relate to this one event (meaning that there are no references to aricles written by him in professional journals or other engineering related media where he has experssed his professional opinion to his peers during the course of his 34 year engineering career)?

    I assure you that I'm not being a smart a**. We see "opinions" everywhere on the Internet. That's what the Internet is all about, frankly. But when a professional offers a professional opinion in writing its helpful if that person has some sort of a track record against which we can make judgments about his/her reputation in "the community" (engineering in this case) and make better informed conclusions about his qualifications to profesionally opine on the instant event.

    Don't get me wrong on this. Of course he has every right to state an opinion. But the opinion of an engineer who opines on an engineering problem tends to carry more weight with non-engineers and non-physicists than does a general lay opinion. We have every right to question and consider his qualifications to professionally opine about an area of engineering that appears on its face to be beyond his professional experience over the past 1/3 of a century.

    Also please note that I haven't (yet) even questioned his objectivity. Qualified or not, there's still the possibility that he has some axe to grind or that his political positions have clouded his objectivity. I don't know the answer to that one and I haven't looked. For now, at least, it's irrelevent to our discussion.

    I hope that you'll consider the above and attempt to answer.

    Thanks

    BTW:

    Relative to the Jet-A being almost entirely consumed in the initial explosion I can give you a bit of assistance.

    If even 10% the ~20,000 gallons of jet fuel had "instantly" burned off in the initial explosion we wouldn't have had to worry about the fire weakening the structure.

    In our conventional weapons arsenal we have FAE's - fuel/air explosives (bombs) - also known as "Poor Man's Nukes". They atomize kerosene and oxygen into a large oxygen rich cloud and then a secondary explosive source ignites the vapor. BMFKB!

    The BLU-96 FAE II is a 2,000 lb fuel/air bomb (that's the 10% I refered to above). When a FAE explodes the effects are very similar to a low yield atomic bomb explosion sans ionizing radiation. The temperature near the detonation is above 4,000 C degrees and the overpressure of the blast is on the order of 500 lbs/sq. inch. A BLU-96 FAE II could destroy the tower by blast effects alone.

    If it were physically possible to "instantly" create a 20,000 gallon fuel cloud and ignite it the result would have been a bit more than a "low yield" nuke. It would have flattened several city blocks of lower Manhattan. Fortunately its not really possible to create such a cloud by crashing an aircraft. There's not sufficient time to expand the cloud while simultaneously suspending the vapor in the air before it becomes super saturated locally and insufficient oxygen to support instant ignition. The FAE's work because they carry pure oxygen and through very elegant technology mix the fuel and air and allow the cloud to expand before igniting it (BLEVE - boiling liquid, expanding volume explosion).

    When a large aircraft crashes the fire frequently does involve a BLEVE-like fuel explosion. But the fuel consumed in that explosion is minute compared to the total fuel carried (unkless the tanks are mostly empty). It took a considerable amount of time for the fuel to burn off.
    Darby, Sep 10, 2006
    #327

  8. Peepo New Member

    Oh I see now what your doing Darby, and yes one can appreciate the context in which you asked the questions. But as stated before for the spin master, I am not here to answer questions about 9-11. And yes Darby I have researched this for a long time now. And as stated before if I post anything up here it would be the conclusion I came to and therefore my "opinion". Now lets take a looksie at the argument me and Spin master have gotten into. A I say spin master is always spinning anything anyone says.B Spin Master says he knows everything and no matter what anyone says he will always be right. Even if they are talking about being in the armed services like Ren was, Spin Master said he knew more then Ren did about it. Or C someone ask a question about time travel and spin master jumps all over that person and makes her feel really really bad /ttiforum/images/graemlins/frown.gif . Now If posted info here that I found out about 9-11 like I have seen people do,I will be called weak minded because I went along with what someone else said. I have received many private messages from people thanking me for taking this "Spin Master" on and calling him for what he is, a Spin Master. Ok lets break this down for you. The argument about 9-11 is not as important as is what it proves about Rainman, it proves this: he's a spin master. Now as for:
    Relative to the Jet-A being almost entirely consumed in the initial explosion I can give you a bit of assistance.

    If even 10% the ~20,000 gallons of jet fuel had "instantly" burned off in the initial explosion we wouldn't have had to worry about the fire weakening the structure.

    In our conventional weapons arsenal we have FAE's - fuel/air explosives (bombs) - also known as "Poor Man's Nukes". They atomize kerosene and oxygen into a large oxygen rich cloud and then a secondary explosive source ignites the vapor. BMFKB!

    The BLU-96 FAE II is a 2,000 lb fuel/air bomb (that's the 10% I referred to above). When a FAE explodes the effects are very similar to a low yield atomic bomb explosion sans ionizing radiation. The temperature near the detonation is above 4,000 C degrees and the overpressure of the blast is on the order of 500 lbs/sq. Inch. A BLU-96 FAE II could destroy the tower by blast effects alone.

    If it were physically possible to "instantly" create a 20,000 gallon fuel cloud and ignite it the result would have been a bit more than a "low yield" nuke. It would have flattened several city blocks of lower Manhattan. Fortunately its not really possible to create such a cloud by crashing an aircraft. There's not sufficient time to expand the cloud while simultaneously suspending the vapor in the air before it becomes super saturated locally and insufficient oxygen to support instant ignition. The FAE's work because they carry pure oxygen and through very elegant technology mix the fuel and air and allow the cloud to expand before igniting it (BLEVE - boiling liquid, expanding volume explosion).

    When a large aircraft crashes the fire frequently does involve a BLEVE-like fuel explosion. But the fuel consumed in that explosion is minute compared to the total fuel carried (unkless the tanks are mostly empty). It took a considerable amount of time for the fuel to burn off.


    I'm not qualified to answer that my friend. But one must ask this question, 2 weeks before 9-11 why were all the bomb sniffing dogs removed from the twin towers? Oh and if you follow the money trail which I'm sure your capable of doing a whole new world of very very odd things will fall into your lap. Sometimes it's best to hide things in plane site. But I have said one thing that is a fact. Millions and MILLIONS of people are waking up to the fact that 9-11 was and inside job.
    Peepo, Sep 10, 2006
    #328

  9. Peepo New Member

    Oh what the hell, since some people here are coping and pasting large text here and trying to impress everyone why don't I just past this simple link to Professor Steven Jones With his 20yrs of experience in physics lets see what he says about it. Oh I'm sure someone will say he is not qualified he is fake or I'm weak minded for posting his link here. This guy researched everything and this is the conclusion he came to. Oh he just lost his job for it also. What a brave man putting his whole life on the line and standing strong for his nation. http://wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7.html but I guess he just saw what he wanted to see. Right?
    Peepo, Sep 10, 2006
    #329

  10. Darby Well-Known Member

    Peepo,

    This is what I don't quite understand:

    We're having a discussion concerning an accusation against the government that it committed some 3,000 plus premeditated first-degree murders but that's not as important as what the conversation proves about Ray, i.e. that he sometmes gets over-the-top and "spins" topics to his liking while posting on an unmoderated alt-sci time travel Internet forum.

    Do I have this right?

    Spinning a topic cuts both ways. In the case of Ray you don't appreciate how he spins a topic and you rebel against it. But are you absolutely sure that relative to your position on 9-11 that you haven't been spun because you happen to agree with the conspiracy aspect of that particular spin? It is possible that that's what occured?

    Have you considered the possibility that you want it to be true (and God only knows why someone would want that) therefore in your mind it will be true even if the truth involves some remarkably absurd (and unexplaned) conspiracy?

    Is it possible that some people make a living by creating conspiracy theories because they know that there are people who want to believe and that it is an easy sell?. And I mean "sell" in both the persuasive ability sense as well as the financial gain sense.

    "Conspiracy theory" is big business and the creators don't necessarily believe their own theories. Its only necessary that the targets believe the spin. You identify your market and then sell them the product that they demand.

    I tossed out an absurd proposition - that Pegelow has spent virtually his entire adult life working for Big Oil therefore it is theoretically possible that he's yet another co-conspirator candidate. Considering the overall absurdity of the proposition why hasn't that "obvious connection" been explored?

    That's why I've been asking you about Pegelow and the fuel burn rate. At some point in the recent past you've been convinced that Pegelow is a valid professional source and that 20,000 gallons of jet fuel can burn off in a flash fire. Were you manipulated by conspiracy spin into trusting those propositions?

    This is what Ray means when he says "weak minds". Some people allow themselves to be manipulated even to the extent that they end up believing just about anything no matter how absurd. Now, I wouldn't use his specific term because in my mind it is a bit over-the-top. But the underlying thought is valid. As Lincoln said, you can fool some of the people all of the time.

    Thankfully its just the Internet. As Willie Davis once said, "It's not my life and it's not my wife." He was talking about playing baseball - but it can also apply to an unmoderated Internet alt-sci time travel forum. [IMG]
    Darby, Sep 10, 2006
    #330

  11. Darby Well-Known Member

    Peepo,

    I have a feeling that you don't actually see it but I'd be interested in hearing what you believe is going on.

    Thanks.
    Darby, Sep 10, 2006
    #331

  12. Peepo New Member

    In your mind Darby you have it right, again I did not start the topic of 9-11. I only responded to the Spin Master when he tried to talk down to Tikmovado. I will say this again, if you want more info about Mr.Pegelow, go look it up. There are at least 60 to 70 scientist and engineers that have come aboard to the 9-11 truth movement. Professor Steven Jones is another who just recently lost his job over his findings. You can see what he says here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586 .
    Peepo, Sep 10, 2006
    #332

  13. RainmanTime Administrator

    Re: You Don\'t Know When To Quit, Do You?

    This line is getting quite tired. Do you think that by using it over and over again that people will forget or ignore that you have not addressed one, single technical issue I have raised about your controlled demolition theory? Is that how you think this works? So if you keep calling me a spinmaster a million times over that will nullify the fact that you do not wish to discuss the technical details of column buckling. Interesting approach, that is.
    In reality there was only a single reply of mine that just pointed out two things about Mr. Pegelow. Since that one reply the majority of my replies have been about SCIENCE NOT PEOPLE. You, however, wish to make this about me and not about the science.
    Oh good, I was wondering when you were going to bring his name up. I was almost going to bring it up for you, but I am glad you have finally played this card. Now for all your accusations of ME spinning something, it will be interesting to dissect your very words above just to see how much YOU are spinning professor Jones' work! Let's dissect your words above one piece at a time:

    1) Professor Steven Jones' 20 years of experience - NONE of it is in structural engineering. You are aware of that, right? In fact, the majority of his "experience" is in teaching and researching nuclear energy, solar energy, and "cold fusion" (which is not a highly accepted theory in science to begin with). So you cannot just say he has 20 years of experience without pointing out that he has NO experience in structural engineering. But let's move on to...

    2) Peer-reviewed research in the field of physics - The paper that Jones wrote on "controlled demolition" of the WTC towers WAS peer-reviewed, but it was NOT peer-reviewed by ANY journal of structural or civil engineering. THAT, my friend, is SPIN! But we are not done yet, because one must ask "OK, so if his paper WAS peer-reviewed, where and by whom was it peer-reviewed?". The answer is pretty shocking: The first time he has this paper published it was in a volume entitled "9/11 And The American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out". This is not even a professional journal, and one must point out that the editor of this volume is one David Ray Griffin who is a known 9-11 Conspiracy Theory propagandist. In any event, the peer reviewers for this volume did not include any structural engineers that I could identify. The latest journal to publish his paper is the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" edited by Kevin Ryan. It is noteworthy here to point out that NONE of Kevin Ryan's "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" are credentialed in structural engineering. So once again we see that while Jones' paper was "peer reviewed" by people associated with this journal, none of them have the relevant qualifications in structural engineering to perform a proper critique of his science application in this important area.

    3) I would find some way to call his findings phoney - Actually, I do not have to say anything about professor Jones' findings, because the statements of HIS OWN COLLEAGUES at Brigham Young University are quite telling indeed! And here you have finally gotten to a point where I can give you those quotes I promised from credentialed structural engineers who disagree with Jones' theory. Are you ready?

    Did you get that title? PROFESSOR EMERITUS... In case you are not familiar, this is the highest level a professor can reach after MANY years of research and teaching. And you will also note that he is the civil engineering Professor Emeritus from Steven Jones' own university, BYU. But we are not done yet (and remember, these are ONLY responses from BYU, I have not even begun to list the opinions of other structural engineering professionals outside BYU). Read this one:
    and yet another from the BYU engineering department:
    Now if you are going to call this "spin" then you are going to have to direct your "spinmaster" tired catch-phrase at the individuals and institutions who are denying the validity of professor Jones's work and his theory. Get this through your head: These quotes are NOT MINE... hence, they ARE NOT MY SPIN!
    The opinions of structural engineering professionals with regard to Steven Jones' theory are HARDLY "rubbish and puke"... and once again I must point out this has NOTHING to do with me or any attempt to "spin" it. The VAST MAJORITY of professional structural engineers do not agree with Jones' theory AND for his claim of "peer review" there is NO EVIDENCE that his paper has ever been peer-reviewed by a qualified structural engineer. These are simple facts that you can "research for yourseld" to use a term you enjoy throwing at others.
    Ahhhh, how sweet! Here we see YOUR OWN SPIN MASTER TECHNIQUES AT WORK! Not only are you NOT answering any of the technical questions I put to you, but you are choosing to answer questions that are DIFFERENT than the ones I am asking you! This is a perfect example. I did NOT ask you specifically if a jet hit WTC... what I asked is as follows:
    Clearly my question is different than the point you are making about a jet...who is spinning now, Mr. Peepo? Will you now answer my question? And oh, BTW, my question was prompted by YOUR ASSERTION which reads as follows:
    You are asserting that WTC7 was not hit by anything. But all you want to do now is talk about not being hit by a jet. Your assertion is simply WRONG, and it is quite obvious that this is YOUR attempt at spin!

    So maybe I should use your same tactics: Peepo is nothing but spin, spin, spin! Spinmaster Peepo! ALl you do is spin, spin, SPIN! SPIN! SPIN! Spinster Peepo! (Gee, isn't this so terribly mature!) [IMG]

    Talk about your rubbish! Could you please explain to me how video footage can possibly show that it "was not enough to bring the building straight down on itself"? ONLY scientific analysis could confirm or deny this! And your SPIN SPIN SPIN relating to "2 small fires" is also not in concordance with EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS! To make you look even more foolish (and show YOUR tendency to use SPIN to make your point) let me now share with you quotes from firemen who were eyewitnesses to the damage to WTC7 and its fires:
    Gee, it doesn't sound like this genteleman, a professional fire fighter, would agree with you that there were "only 2 small fires".
    Again, the good lieutenant doesn't seem to think it was "2 small fires". How do you reconcile these statements from EYEWITNESSES with your SPIN, eh SpinDoc? But wait, there are more eyewitness accounts of the damage to WTC7:
    OK, I think this is enough evidence to seriously call into question what YOU BELIEVE about WTC7's damage. I suppose I will now sit back and wait for your next reply that says nothing more than "SPIN SPIN SPIN". It is apparant to all reading this thread by now that you have NO other tactic to address the problems with your outrageous conspiracy theory.

    RMT
    RainmanTime, Sep 10, 2006
    #333

  14. RainmanTime Administrator

    SPIN ALERT! SPIN ALERT!!

    Spinmaster Peepo:
    See my post above, and start answering my questions. Otherwise what you are doing is nothing more than your own spin, and you continue to ignore any form of scientific discussions.
    Does anyone think this statement is NOT spin? I'd like to hear from you if so! Do you want to know the REAL truth? Here it is straight from the Utah Desert Morning News:
    Now this, THE TRUTH, does not quite jive with YOUR SPIN that he "he just lost his job", now does it?

    How ridiculously FUNNY it is for ME to end up pointing out YOUR SPIN, Peepo! [IMG] [IMG] For all the flamethrowing you have done at me about "spin", this last statement of yours is clearly 100% SPIN by you (or the people you believe).

    SPIN! SPIN! SPIN! SPIN! SPIN! Who's the SPINMASTER DADDY now Peepo? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

    Like I told you many replies back: If you keep going with this Peepo, you will continue to look more and more foolish.

    RMT
    RainmanTime, Sep 10, 2006
    #334

  15. RainmanTime Administrator

    MORE SPIN CYCLE!

    More spin, and more falsehoods!

    I believe I know what list you are going to trot out now... perhaps I should cut to the chase and provide some FACTS about this list of academics (NOT ALL OF WHICH ARE SCIENTISTS OR ENGINEERS)?

    Or maybe I will be just a tad bit kind to you, and ask you if you REALLY want to go down this path, Peepo? I can guarantee that I can demolish your spin-cycle statement above and demonstrate how there is NOT ONE credentialed structural engineer on the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" movement.

    You just let me know... if you want to pursue this, I would be happy to make you look like an even bigger fool.

    RMT
    RainmanTime, Sep 10, 2006
    #335

  16. Peepo New Member

    Re: MORE SPIN CYCLE!

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Oh I'm sorry I was going to respond sooner but I fell asleep trying to read all of that none sense posted by the Spin Master. In all of that poop that he posted about Steven Jones he failed to mention that Mr Jones got 2 molten steel samples from the site and found Thermate. As you all can see again Mr Spin Master does nothing but spin spin and spin.
    Now we shall all site back and watch the spin master spin what Mr Jones found in the samples he got from the site. And again proving what I have said all along about Mr spinster. One of the links I have posted is a video link to Mr Jones explaining his findings. And again we will see the work of the spin master spinning anything anyone post any place on the net. Oh and thanks for all the private messages in support of Operation Expose Rainman. Yes it's been a hard fight but we shall win the fight!! We shall stay the course!!! Oh yea I bet the Spinster thinks that weapons of mass destruction was in Iraq and we should have our troops over their. What you say Oh great Spinster? And as for answering your dribble, I have or did it go over your head.
    Peepo, Sep 10, 2006
    #336

  17. Peepo New Member

    Re: MORE SPIN CYCLE!

    Oh one more thing someone told me that your next move would be to take a poll, boy they sure do know how you are. Looks like you have made many enemies here my little ru ru. But your little boyish tactics will not work this time. You've been called out. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

    And also in all of that poop up there that Mr spin master posted he also did not mention the fact that the official story by the Military Industrial Complex I mean government, has changed 5 times now.

    And in a 2000 paper titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses," Project for a New American Century, whose founding members were Dick Chaney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, argued for vast increases in military spending to assure American global dominance. Such a process, PNAC said, would take time absent "a catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor." Military deployment into Central Asia followed 9/11, as well as their desired increases in military spending. Now lets all site back and watch the spin!!!
    Peepo, Sep 10, 2006
    #337

  18. TimeNot_0 New Member

    Re: MORE SPIN CYCLE!

    It's a Fruit Loop Universe. First came the Fruit Loop bird, and then you ate of the Fruit Loop and then created the Universe(s) and put yourself here at this time.

    The structural beams someone said a while back on a website were not actually the ones the engineer called for, but I think were somehow different. I am sure the Building was not designed to have a Jet land on it, in it, or through it. There are people in the Building and Furniture in the Building, and many other structural things that changed since it was in use. That does not mean that everyone has the time to babysit in this Universe.

    And dis-jointed analysis without having all the info is what it is -- a dis-jointed attempt to not include all the facts that make a determination on what happened with the World Trade Tower Buildings.

    I just do not like Microsoft, since now Nero Showtime does not work anymore, when it worked before -- Microsoft updates.

    Blah!
    TimeNot_0, Sep 10, 2006
    #338

  19. keke New Member

    Re: MORE SPIN CYCLE!

    Thanks for what you are doing. He also fails to mention how fast they shipped all the metal out of the country from the crime scene and none of the so called engineers got to look at the metal. And how the "official Report" doesn't even mention building 7. This guy jumped all over me for asking questions about Qronos 16. I don't know what his problem is, and I don't see how any women would put up with him. Thanks Peepo!!
    keke, Sep 10, 2006
    #339

  20. Peepo New Member

    Re: MORE SPIN CYCLE!

    Ah according to the guy who designed the building who by the way should know this stuff, he said the building could withstand multiple hits by jets. The key word being multiple.
    Peepo, Sep 10, 2006
    #340
Page 17 of 23

Share This Page