New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Univ of Alaska confirms 9/11 collapse of Bldg 7 was controlled demolition

Days

Governor
We all know Saddam flew all those planes and bailed out just in time.
remember that one? Saddam is coming to poison your home! Duct tape it air tight!

Saddam actually did have drones capable of 500 mile radius flight... you have to wonder why he never hit Israel; they were within reach. USA was not even close.
 

Nostra

Governor
remember that one? Saddam is coming to poison your home! Duct tape it air tight!

Saddam actually did have drones capable of 500 mile radius flight... you have to wonder why he never hit Israel; they were within reach. USA was not even close.
What if he fueled his drones with nano-gas?
 

Nostra

Governor
NIST did not make an independent investigation that came to conclusions...

quite the opposite...

The Federal government put out contracts for bid to NIST; in order to capture the prize money, engineering firms had to give the best explanation for how the fires brought down the towers and WTC7. The conclusion was already set in the contracts... in short, Bush bribed NIST to back up his 09/11 lies and they took the bribes.

No one dared cross Bush, well almost no one, but the 1000 people who did went missing.

So this was the first scientific investigation of the collapse that didn't start with a conclusion. Anyone with a brain knows it was demolition. But politics is the art of lying with a stiff upper lip, eh?

Are you aware that the current world record height for a building demolished is 47 stories.

And you think two of them more than twice that high were taken down secretly.
 

Days

Governor
Are you aware that the current world record height for a building demolished is 47 stories.

And you think two of them more than twice that high were taken down secretly.
Are you aware that the twin towers were taken down openly, on live TV?

 

Days

Governor
You are wasting your time trying to convince me your whackadoodle conspiracy is worthy of any effort on my part.
no kidding?

cuz I thought you was about to break down and admit the obvious...



fire burns up, the steel cooled enough for people to be hugging it at the impact area...
so there's no loss of structural strength in steel once it cools back down, then the only way to collapse the tower was to take it down by demolition.
 

Days

Governor
No, discussing the validity of the primary source the thread is based on is exactly relevant to the thread. In no way shape or form is that thread jacking.
Okay, let's look at your argument...

what you are saying is the University of Alaska did no such study, that this is all Russian propaganda... correct? Because I've already come across the study when searching Google and YouTube.

So, now do you want to discuss the topic or look for another thread jack?
 
Okay, let's look at your argument...

what you are saying is the University of Alaska did no such study, that this is all Russian propaganda... correct? Because I've already come across the study when searching Google and YouTube.

So, now do you want to discuss the topic or look for another thread jack?
Is that what I said?

Nope. That is clearly not what I said.

How about you review and get back to me when you figure out the right answer.
 

Days

Governor
Is that what I said?

Nope. That is clearly not what I said.

How about you review and get back to me when you figure out the right answer.
translation: I was thread jacking all along ... it is all I have here.

If you ever want to discuss the thread topic, let me know.
 
translation: I was thread jacking all along ... it is all I have here.

If you ever want to discuss the thread topic, let me know.
Translation: to refute my point you would have to first be able to re state my point accurately.

You can't or won't so instead you make up an argument that is easier for you to handle and pretend that is what I said.

There is a word for that:

Straw man fallacy.
 
translation: I was thread jacking all along ... it is all I have here.

If you ever want to discuss the thread topic, let me know.
By the way.

Discussing the primary source a thread was based on is NEVER thread jacking.

It's a logic thing.
 

Days

Governor
Discussing the use of questionable sources is always valid.
What do you want a gold star for making a valid point? I'm giving you a gold star.

Is that all of it?

Because my father wrote code for the National Standards Institute and subcontracted for the architect who designed the World Trade Center... I can discuss this story... Anybody?
 
Top