See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" "Violates the Law of Physics"
Source:
opednews.com
URL Source: http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=7524
Published: Jun 2, 2008
Author: Diary Entry by George Washington
Post Date: 2008-06-02 22:50:01 by TwentyTwelve
Keywords: 911, "Impossible", "Violates the Law of Physicsā€¯
Views: 1575
Comments: 117
May 27, 2008 at 15:08:49 Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" "Violates the Law of Physics” Diary Entry by George Washington Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" "Violates the Law of Physics" :::::::: Numerous structural engineers now publicly challenge the government's account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11, including: A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this) Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here) Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says: "Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition" Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes: "Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust." Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out: "WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?" Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues: "In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!" Mills M. Kay Mackey, structural engineer, of Denver, Colorado, points out: "The force from the jets and the burning fuel could not have been sufficient to make the building collapse. Why doesn't the media mention that the 11th floor was completely immolated on February 13th, 1975? It had the weight of nearly 100 stories on top of it but it did not collapse?" David Scott, Structural Engineer, of Scotland, argues: "Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . ." Nathan Lomba, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California, states "I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective. “If” you accept the argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and “if” you accept the argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures. Neither of the official precipitating sources for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that, given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness. Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, “if” the structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse. For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the causes for the structural failures." Edward E. Knesl, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona, writes: "We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below. We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top. The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from ?" David Topete, civil and structural engineer, San Francisco, California Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this) Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired) Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College See this website and this website for further additions. There are many other structural engineers who have questioned the government's account in private. We support them and wish them courage to discuss these vital issues publicly.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-57) not displayed.
.
.
.
#58. To: Original_Intent (#57)
(Edited)
Mearsheimer and Walt never said a thing about any 9/11 false-flag cover-up. That makes them lamers on the topic. They haven't even mentioned zionist-NWO false flagging in any other context either, as far as I know. They promulgate an appreciable amount of zionist-NWO propaganda in this way, IMO. That's why they get as much play as they do from the MSM. Of their many poison pills is their apparent assertion that AIPAC functions as a legitimate American lobby and not as an unregistered agent of a foreign state. I haven't read much of their stuff, I get this second-hand. Wouldn't surprise me if M&W do not mention the USS Liberty either, although a fair number of articles on the web combine the two subjects almost as if they do. I could be wrong on that last part, but the cynic in me is never disappointed when it comes to zionists. In any event, Houndclown's lameness agenda is showing quite plainly. You guys are quite an act.
Well said. To those of us who have had newspaper columns under our own names in the past, anonymous cowards shilling for the puppeteers are simply unworthy of anyone's time or consideration. It takes zero courage to snipe anonymously, and intellect devoid of character is a tool of the evil doers, the very beasts we're targeting for exposure and elimination. Although you've done a yeoman's job of pointing out that the troll is standing in quicksand, the fact is, in a meat world debate he wouldn't dare reveal his loyalties or the hands he licks and he's received more attention than he's entitled to already. SO, I don't cross swords with anyone who wouldn't stand their ground in a live gathering. The internet actually disguises demented dwarves and obscures that which would automatically preclude them from ever having the support of a live audience where their agenda and defects would be exposed for all to see. People like you and I are natural leaders in public discussions while trolls and their masters can only conspire against us from their cowardly hides. I see no reason to afford them any more attention than they'd be entitled to if they showed their kinky haired, swarthy selves in public.
"...and somewhere out there is the entire 141st NVA regiment..."__PLATOON
I see no reason to afford them any more Very well said.
Thank you for the kind words. It occurred to me that one of the few remaining tactics they have is to simply show up and throw their puff ball attacks to try to intimidate us by letting us know that we are under constant surveillance - like we didn't already know it. You are quite right in that they are mentally deformed, twisted, and debilitated shrills, but they do serve one useful purpose - as ineffectual foils to illustrate both their presence and what that implies. They do fear us because we are much more effective than they are, are much brighter (not to give myself "airs" but it is simply a factual statement - intelligent people do not generally become criminals), and have a weapon which their lies cannot neutralize - the truth.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
No idea what you're talking about, don't care if you're a retired whore, you have all the marking of a zionist in drag.
I really don't care what a bunch of asshole pig thugs think, no matter how big their gang is or how long and hard they've been working on their creds here or anywhere.
You are simply making an ass out of yourself, confident that you have enough pull with others here to carry it off. Chummy bunch of fakes acting just like pigs.
Maybe you're a zio-nut with no context flacking for M&W.
Dawg, you are, without a doubt, the most ridiculously inept liar I have ever encountered here or anywhere else in recent memory.
Pure projection. It's pig-speak, you're inverting the truth while ganging up on me for asking the questions you refuse to answer in a sensible manner. You have no explanation for why you say you know how old the quotes are and none either for suggesting that they are not yet two years old. But there you are insinuating they're all suspiciously late, and you know exactly when they all were made. "Constant surveillance" indeed. It's the odor wafting off houndclown, you and others here. You might want to stop sniffing yourself in public. Who's the ex-newspaper journalist houndclown is blabbering about? Did an ex- journalist here write a newspaper column about 9/11? No need to explain if you'd rather not say. You know what they say about US journalists often having to work two jobs and all.
Do you guys hear a buzzing sound?
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
These guys are the pain in the ass I knew I'd find doing the gang-up gatekeeping here, like every demonstration has its gang of plants, and I'm now convinced they've figured out a way to give everyone else a different version of this thread than the one I'm seeing. There's no other explanation for why they think it's not obvious to many people what they're up to.
I think people should note two things: 1. The speed with which the next post following mine came. 2. That the poster insists on attacking people personally and has never in the thread posted anything which supports its alleged point. Twenty Five Ways to Suppress The Truth: The Rules of Disinformation 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist by H. Michael Sweeney "The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
These clowns apparently are actually now practically bragging that they have a way of knowing when I'm looking at the site and they often put a post near the top of the front page when I check here, is the thought I had. Needless to say, they suggest I'm checking the site too frequently for their taste while they banter about with various atttacks on me.
This is where you started getting personal and inverting the facts with me. Right off the bat. Before that it was you guys attacking the people quoted in the article, me questioning you on it and suggesting the appearance of what you were all doing was not good, and me correcly pointing out where one quote literally made no sense as written. From there you never backed down and merely compounded your lies. It must be your job. I feel obliged to point out your capacity for inverting facts with spectacular efficiency. Again you appear confident that others here have a different version of the thread from mine. Now you're trying to keep me occupied and waste my time.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
I simply commented then, as now, about where were these guys several years ago and they were nowhere in evidence. You challenged that comment, with ill grace, but as of yet have presented nothing to support your Argumentum Ad Hominem attacks.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
When a person asserts something while they're attacking someone's motives and another person questions the assertion, it is up to the asserter to support the assertion as best as possible. You apparently attempted that when you weren't busy lying about me and I've informed you, though not in so many words, that your explanation is full of incongruities. In the meantime you've continued your efficient cut-paste aggressively-inversional lying campaign as if you've got quite the playbook for this approach, and you've avoided the incongruities. That's about where we stand, minus my complaints about the downright nastiness of it all interjected here and there. I'm done with you for at least few hours now, I hope.
Thank you.
"...and somewhere out there is the entire 141st NVA regiment..."__PLATOON
Worth repeating. The good news is, if we bozo him and his bait remains untouched then he'll soon realize that the virtual world is a cold, lonely, desolate place for a man without a country. I only have to read your replies to picture his ugly troll ass, and if you stop replying he ceases to exist for me.
"...and somewhere out there is the entire 141st NVA regiment..."__PLATOON
LMAO! I don't see any of his trollisms at all and I'm laffing my ass off at him! Too funny! He started out thinking of himself as a really clever gadfly, and now he's desperately crying out for someone, ANYONE to read and reply point by point to his frantic dewdie! We got him right where we want him now, boys.
"...and somewhere out there is the entire 141st NVA regiment..."__PLATOON
Any moment now he's/she's going to start stamping their feet and threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue. "The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
LMAO! It amazes me how people who believe themselves to be intelligent and witty can make the same stupid mistake again and again. They seem to think that they can come here and plop their dumb asses down in the middle of friends and acquaintances and anonymously screw with people without our consent! Would they walk into our campfire and demand a green stick and a marshmallow to roast? "Oh yeah, Mister Trolly Boy, you're just too clever by half!" I'm gonna try not bust out laffing so I can write this. He thinks that the sheer, crushing weight of his intellect is all the invitation he needs! BWWWAAAAAAAAAAAHH!
"...and somewhere out there is the entire 141st NVA regiment..."__PLATOON
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return Interesting that you claim converts can't use 'the law of return,' as it states otherwise.
I did not assert that converts could not use "the law of return" what I asserted is that some Jews, per recent discussions in Israel - particularly among the more Orthodox, do not and will not recognize converts as true Jews. Search on it, there has been some degree of controversy, some of it from senior Israeli Rabbis, militating toward not recognizing converts and some discussion of no longer accepting converts, or at least some converts, under "the law of return". Rabbinical Court Puts Thousands of Converts in Legal Limbo "The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Thanks for the links, and clarification of your post's meaning.
They seem to think that they can come here and plop their dumb asses down in the middle of friends and acquaintances and anonymously screw with people without our consent! Could it be that they are not as witty or intelligent as they think they are? Someone who comes in swinging and talking trash is, on any forum, going to find that the reception is less than cordial. Besides you don't have to use profanity to pin someone's ears back - I'm not impressed, just the opposite really, by someone who as to rely on gutter terms and personal insults to assert their questionable manhood. It just tells me that they have no class and likely no brains. I am not averse to having a new kid on the block, but some of em' need to be larned' a few manners.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
No problemo. Thank you for the gentlemanly reply. As an aside, despite our disagreements and the needling I have given you on Oh'Bummer, I do like and respect you. Just wanted you to know that.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
You've just gotten the O_I logical fallacy smoke screen. I think this is a cut and paste.
Let's just call it, and the clever animated gifs, what they are: SPAM in the service of BS.
For the people who matter, anything but the most accurate, and peer-reviewed of criticisms, will simply be dismissed as another type of disinformation. It seems that you're just asking for clarification.
Explain which comments you were referring to and justify your criticism.
It is called posting a reference. I long ago ceased wasting time doing a point by point refutation for people who insist upon using fallacious reasoning. I stated an opinion and observation and got a snide attack upon it. I responded by disecting the attack. Nothing unusual in that. My intolerance of your apparent friend extends prior to this thread and thus my short fuse. If my stated opinion is incorrect then correct it with sound logic and support of your reasoning. Otherwise I will treat it as an unsupported assertion, a logical fallacy, and if couched in insulting or uncivil language such as an implied attack and/or accusation will treat it as an attack and respond appropriately to the originator.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
I'm familiar with n's posting style. He's not going to go out of his way to make you feel welcome.
I don't know buckeye from a hole in the ground. Your alleged dissecting of my remarks consists entirely of self-serving insulting characterizations, not that I care what you think.
Your comment #5 which you began with " I don't want to be critical here" and then proceeded to be critical. If you have a difference state it forthrightly in a civil manner - citing your complete thought. You might then find that even if someone disagrees they will not mistake what you are saying for sniping.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
More of what I am talking about. I declined to respond to a whole series of your sophomoric sniping and yet you continued it until I decided to take notice again. If you want to scream for attention stop whining when you get it.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
So? I'd rather the person had made more sense, hence my regret. My criticism is valid, and you haven't bothered to discuss it on the merits except to throw insults at me for making it. My criticism is not a character assault, as with you calling all the people quoted "yellow-bellied." Face it, you're a truly proud hypocrite. Learn to live with the consequences.
How do you supposedly know this? Many are building engineers, they may have learned what they know about thermite from Jones. They are supposed to weigh in on a BYU personel issue involving a WTC chemical analysis/thermate hypothesis? How? How do they even know that the question of whether Jones is right or not was truly at issue there? Maybe he was dismissed entirely for accusing the 'wrong' people of doing something those people actually did, in which case these people would be wasting their time.
You are free to disagree with my opinion. That is certainly your right, but when you make an assertion implying malice when it was simply pique that more people have not had the guts to state the obvious i.e., that the Official 911 Fairy Tale is so full of holes and inconsistencies that anyone who is intellectually honest, and looks at the data, cannot but conclude that the Official Fairy Tale is wildly inconsistent with the observed data. Too many people follow the herd and will acquiesce to evil rather than be seen to be out of step with the herd. My comment was intended as much praise for those who had the courage to stand up despite personal risk and state that "the emperor has no clothes" in the face of withering assaults and attacks upon their lives, their fortune, and their sacred honor (ring any bells). And I still stand by my comment that the flood of new converts is a relatively recent phenomenon because I was arguing the case against the Bushbots and other sundry shills two years ago (and several years before) and it was very hard to find much in the way of professionals who were willing to be courageous enough to stand up and be counted - something the shills took great delight in pointing out over and over. It is a result of the trail blazed by those courageous few that these "Johnny-come-latelies" now, at this late date, have found the intestinal fortitude to stand up and state the obvious "the emperor has no clothes" and 911 WAS an INSIDE JOB. What the evidence supports is controlled demolition, and has since very early on, not "19ARABSWHOHATEUSCUZWE'REFREE" crashing airplanes into buildings. The Aircraft were the diversion for the the slight of hand i.e., the apparent cause that was not the cause of the building collapses.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Look, have I been notably unfair with you here, especially considering the context I'm having to operate within? You're better off ignoring me as opposed to trying the skunk-blast routine.
Comments (99 - 117) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestthe momentum is building like TOPSY thanks to Mearsheimer and Walt! Agreed.
#59. To: Original_Intent (#56)
The trolls will no longer even attack on the facts trying disparage the obvious and proven data instead they just try cover it over like a cat hiding a turd - almost instinctively. What we get now, as opposed to a couple of years ago, are attacks on obscure or irrelevant points trying to simply divert the debate and turn it into a flame war. The problem is that the shills are low paid low I.Q. flunkies and when you pay for a minimum wage worker that is usually what you get. They are no better at flame wars than they were at deriding hard physical data.
#60. To: HOUNDDAWG, Original_Intent (#59)
People like you (Original_Intent) and I are natural leaders in public discussions while trolls and their masters can only conspire against us from their cowardly hides.
#61. To: HOUNDDAWG, TwentyTwelve, christine, all (#59)
#62. To: HOUNDDAWG (#59)
To those of us who have had newspaper columns under our own names in the past
#63. To: TwentyTwelve (#60)
(Edited)
#64. To: Original_Intent (#50)
(Edited)
You are simply trying to manufacture a gotcha.
#65. To: HOUNDDAWG (#2)
Maybe they were waiting for Mearsheimer and Walt to weaken the Zionists' stranglehold on the minds of Americans before acting.
#66. To: HOUNDDAWG (#53)
Here we go. What took them so long? (to reprint these remarks in places where I and like minded others will see and discuss them?)
#67. To: Original_Intent (#61)
(Edited)
they have is to simply show up and throw their puff ball attacks to try to intimidate us by letting us know that we are under constant surveillance
#68. To: HOUNDDAWG, TwentyTwelve, all (#59)
#69. To: All (#68)
#70. To: All, HOUNDDAWG, TwentyTwelve, christine, nobody (#69)
8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: 1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth. 2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command. 3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
#71. To: All (#70)
The speed with which the next post following mine came.
#72. To: Original_Intent (#7)
(Edited)
Heaven forfend that we might mistake your caustic innuendoes for criticism.
#73. To: All, HOUNDDAWG, TwentyTwelve, christine, nobody (#71)
#74. To: nobody (#72)
This is where you starrt getting personal and inverting the facts with me. Before that it was you guys attacking the people quoted in the article. From there you never backed down and merely compounded your lies. It must be your job.
#75. To: Original_Intent (#74)
(Edited)
#76. To: TwentyTwelve (#60)
#77. To: Original_Intent (#61)
It occurred to me that one of the few remaining tactics they have is to simply show up and throw their puff ball attacks to try to intimidate us by letting us know that we are under constant surveillance - like we didn't already know it. You are quite right in that they are mentally deformed, twisted, and debilitated shrills, but they do serve one useful purpose - as ineffectual foils to illustrate both their presence and what that implies. They do fear us because we are much more effective than they are, are much brighter (not to give myself "airs" but it is simply a factual statement - intelligent people do not generally become criminals), and have a weapon which their lies cannot neutralize - the truth.
#78. To: Original_Intent (#73)
#79. To: HOUNDDAWG (#78)
#80. To: Original_Intent (#79)
Any moment now he's/she's going to start stamping their feet and threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue.
#81. To: Original_Intent (#42)
Those who are eligible to immigrate under the Law of Return are immediately granted citizenship. Controversy has arisen as to whether all those claiming citizenship rights under the Law of Return should be registered as "Jewish" citizens for census purposes. Jewish status is traditionally granted according to the halakhic definition of being Jewish-- if your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish as well or if you convert to Judaism (though conversions to Reform and Conservative Judaism streams are generally not recognized by many people in Israel). However, any Jew regardless of affiliation may return and claim citizenship in Israel.
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#82. To: Ferret Mike (#81)
Interesting that you claim converts can't use 'the law of return,' as it states otherwise.
#83. To: Original_Intent (#82)
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#84. To: HOUNDDAWG (#80)
It amazes me how people who believe themselves to be intelligent and witty can make the same stupid mistake again and again.
#85. To: Ferret Mike (#83)
#86. To: nobody, Original_Intent (#50)
#87. To: buckeye (#86)
O_I logical fallacy smoke screen. I think this is a cut and paste.
#88. To: nobody (#87)
#89. To: Original_Intent (#7)
We never mistake snide comments for mere criticism.
#90. To: buckeye, HOUNDDAWG, TwentyTwelve, nobody (#86)
You've just gotten the O_I logical fallacy smoke screen. I think this is a cut and paste.
#91. To: Original_Intent (#90)
#92. To: Original_Intent (#90)
My intolerance of your apparent friend extends prior to this thread
#93. To: nobody (#89)
#94. To: nobody (#92)
#95. To: Original_Intent (#93)
(Edited)
you began with " I don't want to be critical here" and then proceeded to be critical
#96. To: Original_Intent (#11)
They were certainly nowhere to be found when Dr. Stephen Jones was forced out of his Professorship and pushed out the door at BYU and that was less than 2 years ago.
#97. To: nobody (#95)
#98. To: Original_Intent (#97)
(Edited)
You are free to disagree with my opinion.
.
.
.