[pclayton]

Winston, why did you change your name to Pelethan?

I think I saw this same list on a wall in a barber shop about 20 years ago.

[the saint]

I think that the computers sent a pair of terminators back from the future to do it. Its as plausible as all the conspiracy theory nonsense.

[Winstonm]

Not an apt comparison - try this:

1) NIST: No explanation for WTC-7 collapse:

WTC-7 and controlled demolitions of buildings:
Crink in center of roofline before collapse
Plumes shoot from descending floors
Building crumbles into its own footprint
Building collapses at free-fall speed.

Conspiracy or coincidence?

[Gerben42]

Coincidences - Did you know that the more you look for coincidences the more you will find? Nowadays the amount of information available is enormous compared to 50 years ago. No wonder there are more conspiracy theories.

Maybe that's the real conspiracy!

[joshs]

Pelethan is my hero! Now, if I understand correctly, if you take the King James version of the bible, and read every 5'th letter, you get an excellent recipe for gaspacho.

[P_Marlowe]

nice, reality is stranger than fiction.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[EricK]

P_Marlowe, on Nov 15 2006, 07:30 PM, said:

nice, reality is stranger than fiction.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Some of those coincidence are fictional though.

John Wilkes Booth was born in 1838 and I don't think Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy

[slothy]

Kennedy was male AND American....

Lincoln was male AND American!!!!

The coincidences keep coming like a newly-formed bore (sic)

Alex

[pclayton]

slothy, on Nov 15 2006, 12:10 PM, said:

Kennedy was male AND American....

Lincoln was male AND American!!!!

The coincidences keep coming like a newly-formed bore (sic)

Alex

And they're both WHITE.



Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.....

[Winstonm]

Kennedy and Lincoln were both elected President - eerie.

[keylime]

Kennedy and Lincoln both start and end with consonants....

<took a lot of brain power to determine that>

[Winstonm]

I have a legitimate question for you guys: how is asking for a full and complete explanation of the collapses of the 3 towers on 11 Sept 2001 a conspiracy theory?

Here are the simple facts:

1. The NIST report only attempted a hypothesis to the point where "the buidlings were poised for collapse." The actual collapse sequences were totally ignored. The collapse of WTC-7 was not even attempted by the NIST.

2. The prepoderance of the questions concern the collapse itself and not the sequence leading to it - physics Ph.D.'s make two claims: A) The collapse speed could not have occured based on the NIST hypothesis, and B) Controlled demolition would explain all the data known to date.

Controlled demolition is simply a working hypothesis no different in status than the NIST working hypothesis - neither has been proven correct. If controlled demolition is not possible, it should be easily disproven. What is so odd about requesting this possibility be ruled out and an explanation of the collapse sequence that fits physics for the NIST hypothesis - why is a scientific method of investigation automatically derided as "crazy conspiracy theory"?

[EricK]

Winstonm, on Nov 16 2006, 12:54 AM, said:

2. The prepoderance of the questions concern the collapse itself and not the sequence leading to it - physics Ph.D.'s make two claims: A) The collapse speed could not have occured based on the NIST hypothesis, and Controlled demolition would explain all the data known to date.

Do you happen to know what proportion of Physics PhDs claim this, and what proportion claim the opposite?

[jikl]

I have a new conspiracy theory...

How is it that every subject in the Water Cooler has a conspiracy theory post from winstonm?

Fred and Uday must be behind it and trying to tell us something. But, what is it they are trying to say?

Sean

[bid_em_up]

deleted

[bid_em_up]

deleted

[pigpenz]

pclayton, on Nov 14 2006, 02:47 PM, said:

Winston, why did you change your name to Pelethan?

I think I saw this same list on a wall in a barber shop about 20 years ago.

no there was one of those talking songs back in the sixties about this but was probably in a barbership that specializes in flat tops and crew cuts.

[Winstonm]

EricK, on Nov 15 2006, 10:26 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Nov 16 2006, 12:54 AM, said:

2.  The prepoderance of the questions concern the collapse itself and not the sequence leading to it - physics Ph.D.'s make two claims: A) The collapse speed could not have occured based on the NIST hypothesis, and Controlled demolition would explain all the data known to date.

Do you happen to know what proportion of Physics PhDs claim this, and what proportion claim the opposite?

Nope.

However, here are just a few of the people calling for an independent investigation:

Edward L. Peck – Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under Ronald Reagan. Former Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the State Department. U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq (1977-80). 32-year veteran of the Foreign Service.

Morton Goulder – Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warning under Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Carter (1973-77). Founder of Sanders Associates.

Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11:
"We want truthful answers to question. … As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:
An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry."

Morgan Reynolds, PhD – Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Labor under George W. Bush 2001-2002. Former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis. Professor Emeritus, Economics, Texas A&M University.

Essay 6/9/05: "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely [to] prove to be sound."

Paul Craig Roberts, PhD – Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan, "Father of Reaganomics", Former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Currently Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute.

Essay 8/16/06: "We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to "pancake" at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false."

I could go on and on but you get the point - these are not a bunch of looney-tune nut cases asking these questions.


The fact remains that the NIST only took into accounts events to the point where "the buildings were poised for collapse."

No reason was given for the collapse WTC-7.

[Winstonm]

Quote

How is it that every subject in the Water Cooler has a conspiracy theory post from winstonm?

Why is it when anyone asks a legitimate question about the NIST report there is always a "straw dog" post that tries to equate sane discussion with the "crop circle extraterrestrials" and "we didn't really go to the moon" crowd?

The NIST only formed an opinion on what happened to the point the buildings were "poised for collapse". I would like the NIST to explain how pancaking floors can fall at free fall speed - the speed that they announced occured.

How is that conspiracy?

I claimed that controlled demolition explains all known facts - I did NOT say that the buildings were brought down this way or that any other explanation could not be plausible.

How is that conspiracy?

The question I have asked is why did the NIST ignore scientific method and form an opinion on presumption? Where is the proof of their conclusions?

How is that conspiracy?