I am? Well darn! Somebody screwed up my checking account then! LOL You're right to a degree though I agree. I certainly SHOULD be paid for my brilliance.
Hey,turnabout is fair play.....you get to say we are 'paid shills' without a shred of proof and we get to do the same.
wow thats almost as much as the they spent to investigate 911! legal fees are expensive, did you donate? People off the street cant simply raise taxes to get more money like the gub can but you fault them. Lets see the word hypocrite comes to mind.
Uh, I guess. I don't have any angst against banks. Maybe they say that, but I'm sure trickie dickie gage laughs all the way to the bank.
so does dubya and all his pals. its ok for the industrial complex, banks and wealthy elite to make (*)(*)(*)(*) loads but not for someone to collect money for a petition? I was not aware there was a time limit? What is the time limit for petitions that you are claiming fraud?
Two wrongs don't make a right, and it's sad you're trying to rationalize him taking $400k+. It has nothing to do with there being a time limit, and everything to do with the fact that he, obviously, isn't using the money to get a petition going. Hell, starting a petition doesn't even cost any money. I think 20 of the states in the US signed a petition to secede from the Union. It cost them absolutely nothing. If ALL these engineers, architects, and professionals back Gage, as truthers toss out on the boards, why hasn't he done (*)(*)(*)(*) with the multiple millions of dollars he's made since starting A&E? Why, instead of cruising the world, hasn't he put that money to good use? He could organize things like rallies, he could contact government officials, picketing, he could fund interest groups that can further his goals. He has done NONE of this. He's toured the world on the truther dime, and peddled his woo. All the while charging, and asking for donations to continue his non sense. Get real
Reading takes up time. The more complicated the subject the more time. But if people take a simple subject and make it complicated then they are wasting other people's time. A skyscraper must hold itself up. So the distribution of weight affects how strong every level must be to support all of the weight above. So if a 10,000 page document does not even specify the total weight of the concrete when it does it for the steel in THREE PLACES and yet the steel must support the weight of the concrete... THEN THE DOCUMENT IS REALLY STUPID and certainly not worth reading the whole thing. If the planes could destroy the towers then it could have been explained with that data in 500 pages. The tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level could have been specified in four pages or fewer. Even the tons of steel in the core versus tons of steel on the perimeter on every level. So people defending the NIST report who will not acknowledge that it does not specify the total for the concrete but also will not say what it is and where it is in the report are totally idiotic. I have only been pointing this out for about FIVE YEARS! And yet sources from before 9/11 say there were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. That is more then 300,000 tons per tower. But those same sources agree with the NIST on the amount of steel. Very curious that. SAD also. Sad but very curious. And the report cost $20,000,000 and took three years, but can't specify the concrete. SO SAD! psik
It doesn't matter the amount of concrete.....outside of the basement levels,it was only in the floor pans
Sorry. I thought that since you and other "folks" routinely rename my handle and are allowed to do it continuously, I figured I could and should so, I did. Sorry lonely.
Lol This section of the forum seems like a conspiracy all of its' own eh ? A conspiracy against freedom of thought and or discussion hey ho
So says you. I am so impressed! Then why do sources from before 9/11 say 425,000 cubic yards? That would be 212,000 cubic yards per building. The basements were 208×208×70÷27 = 112,165.9, and that assumes NO EMPTY SPACE which we know was not the case. There is something wrong with the data somewhere. But for the NIST to not specify the concrete at all is utter nonsense no matter what it actually was. So reading all of that report would be idiotic when they completely leave out such simple information. How can a reasonable model be constructed to test the collapse theory without accurate distribution of mass data? psik
Name anyone posting here that's preventing your 'free thought and discussion'. Telling you that your views are full of beans isn't doing it.
You need a reading comprehension class psi.......it's 425,000 for the WTC COMPLEX,Not just the towers http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/about/facts.html
Freedom from thought appears more apropos when dealing with Truther theories, but I wouldn't expect a mouthbreather to recognize that distinction.
Your math is pathetically off. Not only with what Lonestar mentioned, but in other key areas as well. I'll let you figure out why and where. Telling you would do no good.
