Posts by Steppenwolf

  • a blog!

    aenfe Leakfea nfael kfeal kfael fkeaffflea kfea fleaj feaj fkeajf link mfeal fea jnz hjoqur aj ldqitt hqeti e ktnaekljh kfaen bae zio-qu thea nkdan kzj hiqtytiq e abn mdnz lgkaj tiqutpaj dnas kdja įlgjaopig ha gnamnfgpaghgaglinkaga ndakdhaxmn phapghskgn

    !!!

  • post your work place extravaganza

    Quote from von*ferret

    our building is one giant catacomb designed so that there are no glare on the monitors. Yeah no glare, but then again its depressing knowing I get here when its dark and leave when its dark a lot =(

    Thats like working in a supermarket. I worked in one for a year. The lack of daylight is indeed depressing. There are lights available that produce the same light spectrum as real sunlight. They are used in therapy against depression. Maybe a good idea for your office? :wink:

  • post your work place extravaganza

    working in the city archives

    my desktop (with nazi and socialist times documents):

    [Blocked Image: http://www.insmod.net/team/upload/Users/Steppenwolf/workplace1.jpg]

    a small part of the documents that i have to check and catalogize within the next months:

    [Blocked Image: http://www.insmod.net/team/upload/Users/Steppenwolf/workplace2.jpg]

    view from my window:

    [Blocked Image: http://www.insmod.net/team/upload/Users/Steppenwolf/workplace3.jpg]

    the building where i work under the roof (our city hall):

    [Blocked Image: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Pic-Tour-BIG/Altenburg%5B2%5D.jpg]

    how we decorate our wall in the archives:

    [Blocked Image: http://www.insmod.net/team/upload/Users/Steppenwolf/workplace4.jpg]

  • 9/11 - some scientific stuff to think about it

    Quote

    Yeah, I think G.W. Bush is a dick. I think he does a lot of bad stuff, but I do not think that he is evil. I don't think that he or anybody else in the government would agree to this plan. Assuming you're going to do this, you need a few guys to think it up in the first place, a few guys to do the math and planning, and a few more to plant the bombs. You've got to distract everybody working at the busiest office in the whole world. That's a lot of people you've got to make sure are 100% pure eveil and don't have a consiceince to tell somebody about it. It's not going to happen.

    This is only your opinion. In my opinion he is a evil person and i can imagine that he agrees to plans like that. Not to forget that he and some of his buddys are member in a secret guild or however thats called in english. Nobody except themselves knew what their targets are but it seems to have to do with money and power.

    For the planning you dont have to know many people who know whats going on. Thats how secrets agencies work. You have a handfull off people know the plan, from all other involved persons the left hand doesnt know what the right hand does.

    And there have been distractions. It is said that in the weeks before 9/11 were a number of unusual fire trainings in the tower (again my english isnt good enough to find the correct word).

    Quote

    Also, there is no rational benefit for the government to do this. Don't give me the whole "Oh, it's so they can get oil!" bullshit. Iraq's oil reserves are smaller than a lot of other coutries. Hell, Argentina has more oil. The slight benefit that you're able to to get some oil rights is not worth the risk that you are killed as a traitor to your nation, everybody you've even known is thrown in prison, and your grave is spit upon for all eternity.

    When 9/11 occured was the iraq war still far away. From my point of view had the current american government a lot of benefits from the attacks. The main point is increase of power inside and outside. The whole thing polarized and extremized the society. This thread is a good example of how it changed peoples mind to not accept opinions that are against the american government.

    Besides political benefits there is also the possibility that single private persons, organizations or lobbys had a advantage from 9/11. The guy who insurenced the buildings against terrorists attacks shortly before, the guys who made a shitload of suspicious money on the stock market, the guys who possibly robbed a few billions of gold dollars.

    I dont know which of all this stuff is bullshit and what is the truth. From my experience truth is in most cases somewhere in the middle.

  • 9/11 - some scientific stuff to think about it

    Quote from The Postman

    This is crackpot bullshit. It doesn't deserve even lip service because the "science" behind it is so fundamentally flawed. Listen. Two planes hit the WTC and another plane hit the Pentagon. That's what happened. There's no two ways about it.

    I see you already run out of arguments before the discussion started.

    Quote

    Anymore mod sass and I'll see to it that actions are taken against you. Your first warning.

    Jawohl Mein Führer! :roll:

  • 9/11 - some scientific stuff to think about it

    Quote from Bic-B@ll

    fletch makes me feel warm on the insidei think your vision is being shrowded by his phd in physics. fine, he has a physics phd, did you see anything in that presentation that went beyond highschool physics? every point in there has been made in some random 9/11 video on the internet. it looks like he pretty much took them all and made a bigass powerpoint presentation and wrote a paper.

    look what some other professors wrote

    "A few department chairmen at Jones's university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims"."

    "The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."[5] The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." [6]"

    If you quote things from wikipedia why dont you quote the whole thing?

    You missed that part:

    Quote

    Jones has replied to the critique on December the 5th 2005, in the BYU NewsNet article "Censor rumors quelled" He (Professor Jones) said he feels "a bit awkward" that some colleagues now question the peer review process his paper initially passed through. "My paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication before being made available on the Web with the editor’s approval," Jones said. "The reviewers included a physicist and an engineer, I now understand. The review has not been shown to have been inappropriate and I believe it was appropriate." Still, Jones said he willingly submitted his paper to another publication, where he is confident it will pass peer review a second time.

    How trustfull are his collegues who change their opinion afterwards?

  • 9/11 - some scientific stuff to think about it

    Quote from Fletch

    2) Not that it was on TV. But the fact that FEMA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, the National Fire Protection Association, the American Institute of Steel Construction, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and the Structural Engineers Association of New York all seem to be on the same page, as well as the architect fo the building. Seems to be that is one shitload of smart people with a whole lot of dergees and real life experience looking into this shit. Now I'll weigh all of that against some retard with a home computer, a high school physics book, and a basic knowledge of Adobe Premier and his friends that he met at the sci-fi convention.

    Let me get this straight. You call Professor Steven E. Jones who is a big number in cold fusion research a "retard with a home computer, a high school physics book, and a basic knowledge of Adobe Premier and his friends that he met at the sci-fi convention." :roll:

  • 9/11 - some scientific stuff to think about it

    Quote from Bic-B@ll

    i happened to have the same discussion about 9/11 in another forum about a month ago.about the building collapsing as if it were an explosion:

    the way the building was constructed was that it relied heavily on an external support structure in addition to support columns in the center of the building. you can see in pictures the building was just vertical lines of windows and steel. the vertical pieces of steel held the outside of the building. when the top floors dislodged a few after gigantic fucking planes hit into them, they were added to the weight of the floor below, which couldn't handle 2x the weight, so that floor gave. ad so it went on like dominoes. all the floors crashed down the tube of the exterior structure. that is why there are pictures like this:

    Well yes thats the old theory and i dont say its wrong. It's just arguable imo and we will never find out if people in important positions dont start to be honest and tell everything that they know. As long as this isnt the case will conspiration theorys float around and that for a good reason.

  • 9/11 - some scientific stuff to think about it

    Quote from The Postman

    I can't believe we're still actually arguing this crackpot crap.

    I cant believe you are still moderator in this forum. Thanks for participating as such a valuable discussion partner :roll:

    The video i posted is one month old and brings some new views into the topic of 911. Nobody forces you to discuss about it. How about you just shut up instead of making silly comments that have no value for the discussion? last time you said i was trolling around. How is that called what you do?

  • 9/11 - some scientific stuff to think about it

    lol RD the pics show exactly the suspicious parts that are doubted to be parts of a boing by the sceptics. like the tiny aluminium part that doesnt look as if it would belong into the scene and the too small engine parts that definately not belong to a boeing.

    edit: well i was wrong here. the engine part _could_ belong to a boeing engine. But what is suspicous is that boing refuses to proof this. Again it would be so easy to get answers if important people would just be honest to us and tell us what they know. Someone MUST know how this part is called and to which engine it belongs.