100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Get Destroyed | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
When you look at how those buildings fell, and compare them to controlled demolitions, they look VERY similar. There is no building that I know of that collapsed via fire, THAT fast and at THAT rate of speed. Further there are several people that spoke out in the aftermath about hearing explosions coming from the towers. Are you gonna tell me they were hearing things? Come on now. not sure what you researched, but here is a link http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/world-trade-center-collapse.html does the (NIST) National Institute of Standards and Technology have an agenda |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That assumes they care about who caused 9/11 or not. There's a saying: "Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story". It'd behoove you to think about that. So you agree that you have no facts or "truth" so you just make up a "good story" about those people having a cover up agenda. Way to put words in my mouth, though coming from you I shouldn't be surprised that you'd twist my words to suit your own agenda. It's they that make up the truth as they see fit according to what they want to do, no matter what the truth actually is, and they've been doing it for a long time. But I don't expect you to understand that because you are so obviously incapable of seeing this. No I am just continuing to point out that you have provided NO FACTS at all for any of your claims. Also you are not supposed to attack people either or have you forgotten the forum rules? I am willing to see your so called truth if you actually provide anything to support your claims. We ask and ask and nothing is provided so it leads people to believe there is no evidence. It's the truth though, our government has been screwing us all over for YEARS. It's just a matter of being able to see it, and you can't or won't. I don't buy that you would believe me even if I DID give you evidence, because your mind is clearly made up that everything someone like me says is bunk. Prove to me you have an open mind first, then we'll talk. Otherwise the whole exercise is a flat waste of time. Hey I agree the government is retarded but that doesn't mean I think they were behind 9/11 and as far as science is concerned the official story makes sense. I can't argue about previous knowledge of an attack though because that is just skepticism. I have my idea of what the truth is just as you have yours. How is asking for you to share your evidence not being open minded? You are wasting more time calling me closed minded then it would be for you to show your evidence so that is obviously not the real reason. You have not given anyone any reason to believe anything you say. If you have all this proof why not post it here? If not for me then all the other people that deserve to know the truth? If I put it down and people just criticize it, then it was a waste of time. There's no point to me if that's gonna be the case. Asking for evidence is one thing, but when you ask for it in the context of a clear bias as to what the truth is from your end, it's not quite the same. It amounts to a: "Oh yeah, prove it" attitude, and then when one tries the person just goes: "Oh that's crap....." Understand what I mean? If it is ACTUAL evidence it isn't crap is it? Yea lots of the conspiracy theories are crap because people don't actually understand the science and when experts in the field explain it they are all of a sudden part of the conspiracy. Now if you have any actual evidence with either science or documentation proving your theories I would love to see them. If your evidence doesn't hold up to criticism it isn't real evidence is it? Here's the problem though, some of these so called "scientists" are in the government's back pocket. Just like certain people in the legal system are as well. You have to bear that in mind when you hear things before you believe them. That is to say, consider what agenda they might have, or who might be paying them off. It's really not as simple as you think. do you understand the data the scientists put out? if you don't, then you should learn more to understand what they are saying. just because a "scientist" says there is no way a building could fall straight down like that without any data to prove it, that should draw a flag to people. But if you look at the data, and understand it, then the science cannot lie, no matter whose backpocket they are in When you look at how those buildings fell, and compare them to controlled demolitions, they look VERY similar. There is no building that I know of that collapsed via fire, THAT fast and at THAT rate of speed. Further there are several people that spoke out in the aftermath about hearing explosions coming from the towers. Are you gonna tell me they were hearing things? Come on now. no, i cannot say what people heard or didn't hear. I can only draw my conclusions by the evidence at hand. I did some research on it and somewhat understand the "pancaking" effect. I also know that concrete being crushed makes a loud booming noise, like an explosion. you are correct about there not being a building collapsing like that, because no other buildings over 100 stories tall has ever been hit by a fully fueled 747. so there is no way to compare it. There's been people BTW who have claimed it impossible to fly a plane directly into the building like that incidentally, at least a plane that size. You may not believe that, but that is something to consider here. Ok but tower 7 came down too, and all it had was just a small fire. There is no way it makes any sense whatsoever that THAT would collapse just from that alone. As for the concrete, it doesn't factor in that you can actually see fire from the individual sections exploding as the thing came down. That indicates me to some type of explosives were present. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Tue 08/02/11 09:00 PM
|
|
When you look at how those buildings fell, and compare them to controlled demolitions, they look VERY similar. There is no building that I know of that collapsed via fire, THAT fast and at THAT rate of speed. Further there are several people that spoke out in the aftermath about hearing explosions coming from the towers. Are you gonna tell me they were hearing things? Come on now. not sure what you researched, but here is a link http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/world-trade-center-collapse.html does the (NIST) National Institute of Standards and Technology have an agenda Probably yes. Anything that is coming from the mainstream, I do not trust initially, because I know how they work. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's been people BTW who have claimed it impossible to fly a plane directly into the building like that incidentally, at least a plane that size. You may not believe that, but that is something to consider here. Ok but tower 7 came down too, and all it had was just a small fire. There is no way it makes any sense whatsoever that THAT would collapse just from that alone. As for the concrete, it doesn't factor in that you can actually see fire from the individual sections exploding as the thing came down. That indicates me to some type of explosives were present. i've watched every video that i could, and have seen nothing to support any explosions that you are talking about. if you have one that shows the explosions, i would be glad to watch it. Building 7 had quite a bit of damage from the fall of the other buildins, and every 5 floors they had about 1000 gallons of diesel fuel to run the generators. when they caught fire, it was a slow, hot burn. at least that was what i read. and why do you think flying a plane is so hard? anyone can fly a plane, it is not near as hard as you think. have you ever played a flight simulator game on a computer? anyone can claim anything, we just have to weed out the claims that might not be so true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Tue 08/02/11 09:10 PM
|
|
There's been people BTW who have claimed it impossible to fly a plane directly into the building like that incidentally, at least a plane that size. You may not believe that, but that is something to consider here. Ok but tower 7 came down too, and all it had was just a small fire. There is no way it makes any sense whatsoever that THAT would collapse just from that alone. As for the concrete, it doesn't factor in that you can actually see fire from the individual sections exploding as the thing came down. That indicates me to some type of explosives were present. i've watched every video that i could, and have seen nothing to support any explosions that you are talking about. if you have one that shows the explosions, i would be glad to watch it. Building 7 had quite a bit of damage from the fall of the other buildins, and every 5 floors they had about 1000 gallons of diesel fuel to run the generators. when they caught fire, it was a slow, hot burn. at least that was what i read. and why do you think flying a plane is so hard? anyone can fly a plane, it is not near as hard as you think. have you ever played a flight simulator game on a computer? It was actually said that it was TRIED on flight simulator to do what these big planes supposedly did, and it couldn't be done. What would you say to that? To fly a plane is one thing, but doing something like this is another matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's been people BTW who have claimed it impossible to fly a plane directly into the building like that incidentally, at least a plane that size. You may not believe that, but that is something to consider here. Ok but tower 7 came down too, and all it had was just a small fire. There is no way it makes any sense whatsoever that THAT would collapse just from that alone. As for the concrete, it doesn't factor in that you can actually see fire from the individual sections exploding as the thing came down. That indicates me to some type of explosives were present. i've watched every video that i could, and have seen nothing to support any explosions that you are talking about. if you have one that shows the explosions, i would be glad to watch it. Building 7 had quite a bit of damage from the fall of the other buildins, and every 5 floors they had about 1000 gallons of diesel fuel to run the generators. when they caught fire, it was a slow, hot burn. at least that was what i read. and why do you think flying a plane is so hard? anyone can fly a plane, it is not near as hard as you think. have you ever played a flight simulator game on a computer? It was actually said that it was TRIED on flight simulator to do what these big planes supposedly did, and it couldn't be done. What would you say to that? nothing, really. i've never tried it, and if it is true, programing IMO, would be the cause. me personally, i think anyone could fly a plane into a building, i just can't see any reason why we shouldn't be able too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you look at how those buildings fell, and compare them to controlled demolitions, they look VERY similar. There is no building that I know of that collapsed via fire, THAT fast and at THAT rate of speed. Further there are several people that spoke out in the aftermath about hearing explosions coming from the towers. Are you gonna tell me they were hearing things? Come on now. not sure what you researched, but here is a link http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/world-trade-center-collapse.html does the (NIST) National Institute of Standards and Technology have an agenda Probably yes. Anything that is coming from the mainstream, I do not trust initially, because I know how they work. now i know you didn't click on the link, ponder the information, and come up with something real to ponder in response. why the close minded attitude |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That assumes they care about who caused 9/11 or not. There's a saying: "Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story". It'd behoove you to think about that. So you agree that you have no facts or "truth" so you just make up a "good story" about those people having a cover up agenda. Way to put words in my mouth, though coming from you I shouldn't be surprised that you'd twist my words to suit your own agenda. It's they that make up the truth as they see fit according to what they want to do, no matter what the truth actually is, and they've been doing it for a long time. But I don't expect you to understand that because you are so obviously incapable of seeing this. No I am just continuing to point out that you have provided NO FACTS at all for any of your claims. Also you are not supposed to attack people either or have you forgotten the forum rules? I am willing to see your so called truth if you actually provide anything to support your claims. We ask and ask and nothing is provided so it leads people to believe there is no evidence. It's the truth though, our government has been screwing us all over for YEARS. It's just a matter of being able to see it, and you can't or won't. I don't buy that you would believe me even if I DID give you evidence, because your mind is clearly made up that everything someone like me says is bunk. Prove to me you have an open mind first, then we'll talk. Otherwise the whole exercise is a flat waste of time. Hey I agree the government is retarded but that doesn't mean I think they were behind 9/11 and as far as science is concerned the official story makes sense. I can't argue about previous knowledge of an attack though because that is just skepticism. I have my idea of what the truth is just as you have yours. How is asking for you to share your evidence not being open minded? You are wasting more time calling me closed minded then it would be for you to show your evidence so that is obviously not the real reason. You have not given anyone any reason to believe anything you say. If you have all this proof why not post it here? If not for me then all the other people that deserve to know the truth? If I put it down and people just criticize it, then it was a waste of time. There's no point to me if that's gonna be the case. Asking for evidence is one thing, but when you ask for it in the context of a clear bias as to what the truth is from your end, it's not quite the same. It amounts to a: "Oh yeah, prove it" attitude, and then when one tries the person just goes: "Oh that's crap....." Understand what I mean? If it is ACTUAL evidence it isn't crap is it? Yea lots of the conspiracy theories are crap because people don't actually understand the science and when experts in the field explain it they are all of a sudden part of the conspiracy. Now if you have any actual evidence with either science or documentation proving your theories I would love to see them. If your evidence doesn't hold up to criticism it isn't real evidence is it? Here's the problem though, some of these so called "scientists" are in the government's back pocket. Just like certain people in the legal system are as well. You have to bear that in mind when you hear things before you believe them. That is to say, consider what agenda they might have, or who might be paying them off. It's really not as simple as you think. do you understand the data the scientists put out? if you don't, then you should learn more to understand what they are saying. just because a "scientist" says there is no way a building could fall straight down like that without any data to prove it, that should draw a flag to people. But if you look at the data, and understand it, then the science cannot lie, no matter whose backpocket they are in When you look at how those buildings fell, and compare them to controlled demolitions, they look VERY similar. There is no building that I know of that collapsed via fire, THAT fast and at THAT rate of speed. Further there are several people that spoke out in the aftermath about hearing explosions coming from the towers. Are you gonna tell me they were hearing things? Come on now. The buildings at 9/11 look nothing like any demolition. "That you know of"? You don't know anything about building demolition at all. The building fell EXACTLY how physics predicts they would fall. The sound of "explosions" was the transfer of force to the building connections lower in the building. Buildings don't use rivets anymore nor do they use bearing connections. They use welded shear connections with friction bolted erection connections. Most moment connections are friction bolted also. Since you don't know about modern construction, friction connections rely on the clamping action of the bolt to hold two pieces (or more) of steel together. If the force exceeds the friction force (which occurs when load redistribution occurs) a hundred tons of steel slams into the connected part as the friction capacity of the bolted connection is exceeded. The friction connection then becomes a bearing connection. The slip of about one 32th of an inch sounds like an explosion and actually carries the force of one. Almost all modern buildings are erected with ASTM A-325 high strength bolts but some circumstances require ASTM A-490... which would make an even louder bang. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You mention building 7. It wasn't just the fire (which was fueled by diesel fuel that was stored in the building for back up generators) that burned for 8 hours but also the structure was badly damaged from the collapse of the WTC. If you watched the video it explains it. They knew the building was going to collapse. The firefighters on the ground knew. There is video of them saying its gonna collapse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You mention building 7. It wasn't just the fire (which was fueled by diesel fuel that was stored in the building for back up generators) that burned for 8 hours but also the structure was badly damaged from the collapse of the WTC. If you watched the video it explains it. They knew the building was going to collapse. The firefighters on the ground knew. There is video of them saying its gonna collapse We can go over that too.....Silverstein saying to "pull" the towers. That's a whole other thing unto itself. Then you had the BBC reporting on the tower falling before it actually did.......with their feed going out just as it "really" happened. Really strange things. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Tue 08/02/11 09:47 PM
|
|
That assumes they care about who caused 9/11 or not. There's a saying: "Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story". It'd behoove you to think about that. So you agree that you have no facts or "truth" so you just make up a "good story" about those people having a cover up agenda. Way to put words in my mouth, though coming from you I shouldn't be surprised that you'd twist my words to suit your own agenda. It's they that make up the truth as they see fit according to what they want to do, no matter what the truth actually is, and they've been doing it for a long time. But I don't expect you to understand that because you are so obviously incapable of seeing this. No I am just continuing to point out that you have provided NO FACTS at all for any of your claims. Also you are not supposed to attack people either or have you forgotten the forum rules? I am willing to see your so called truth if you actually provide anything to support your claims. We ask and ask and nothing is provided so it leads people to believe there is no evidence. It's the truth though, our government has been screwing us all over for YEARS. It's just a matter of being able to see it, and you can't or won't. I don't buy that you would believe me even if I DID give you evidence, because your mind is clearly made up that everything someone like me says is bunk. Prove to me you have an open mind first, then we'll talk. Otherwise the whole exercise is a flat waste of time. Hey I agree the government is retarded but that doesn't mean I think they were behind 9/11 and as far as science is concerned the official story makes sense. I can't argue about previous knowledge of an attack though because that is just skepticism. I have my idea of what the truth is just as you have yours. How is asking for you to share your evidence not being open minded? You are wasting more time calling me closed minded then it would be for you to show your evidence so that is obviously not the real reason. You have not given anyone any reason to believe anything you say. If you have all this proof why not post it here? If not for me then all the other people that deserve to know the truth? If I put it down and people just criticize it, then it was a waste of time. There's no point to me if that's gonna be the case. Asking for evidence is one thing, but when you ask for it in the context of a clear bias as to what the truth is from your end, it's not quite the same. It amounts to a: "Oh yeah, prove it" attitude, and then when one tries the person just goes: "Oh that's crap....." Understand what I mean? If it is ACTUAL evidence it isn't crap is it? Yea lots of the conspiracy theories are crap because people don't actually understand the science and when experts in the field explain it they are all of a sudden part of the conspiracy. Now if you have any actual evidence with either science or documentation proving your theories I would love to see them. If your evidence doesn't hold up to criticism it isn't real evidence is it? Here's the problem though, some of these so called "scientists" are in the government's back pocket. Just like certain people in the legal system are as well. You have to bear that in mind when you hear things before you believe them. That is to say, consider what agenda they might have, or who might be paying them off. It's really not as simple as you think. do you understand the data the scientists put out? if you don't, then you should learn more to understand what they are saying. just because a "scientist" says there is no way a building could fall straight down like that without any data to prove it, that should draw a flag to people. But if you look at the data, and understand it, then the science cannot lie, no matter whose backpocket they are in When you look at how those buildings fell, and compare them to controlled demolitions, they look VERY similar. There is no building that I know of that collapsed via fire, THAT fast and at THAT rate of speed. Further there are several people that spoke out in the aftermath about hearing explosions coming from the towers. Are you gonna tell me they were hearing things? Come on now. The buildings at 9/11 look nothing like any demolition. "That you know of"? You don't know anything about building demolition at all. The building fell EXACTLY how physics predicts they would fall. I know enough to know that what it looked like was a controlled demolition that's what it looked like. If you compare it to other building implosions, they look quite alike in the rate they were brought down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That assumes they care about who caused 9/11 or not. There's a saying: "Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story". It'd behoove you to think about that. So you agree that you have no facts or "truth" so you just make up a "good story" about those people having a cover up agenda. Way to put words in my mouth, though coming from you I shouldn't be surprised that you'd twist my words to suit your own agenda. It's they that make up the truth as they see fit according to what they want to do, no matter what the truth actually is, and they've been doing it for a long time. But I don't expect you to understand that because you are so obviously incapable of seeing this. No I am just continuing to point out that you have provided NO FACTS at all for any of your claims. Also you are not supposed to attack people either or have you forgotten the forum rules? I am willing to see your so called truth if you actually provide anything to support your claims. We ask and ask and nothing is provided so it leads people to believe there is no evidence. It's the truth though, our government has been screwing us all over for YEARS. It's just a matter of being able to see it, and you can't or won't. I don't buy that you would believe me even if I DID give you evidence, because your mind is clearly made up that everything someone like me says is bunk. Prove to me you have an open mind first, then we'll talk. Otherwise the whole exercise is a flat waste of time. Hey I agree the government is retarded but that doesn't mean I think they were behind 9/11 and as far as science is concerned the official story makes sense. I can't argue about previous knowledge of an attack though because that is just skepticism. I have my idea of what the truth is just as you have yours. How is asking for you to share your evidence not being open minded? You are wasting more time calling me closed minded then it would be for you to show your evidence so that is obviously not the real reason. You have not given anyone any reason to believe anything you say. If you have all this proof why not post it here? If not for me then all the other people that deserve to know the truth? If I put it down and people just criticize it, then it was a waste of time. There's no point to me if that's gonna be the case. Asking for evidence is one thing, but when you ask for it in the context of a clear bias as to what the truth is from your end, it's not quite the same. It amounts to a: "Oh yeah, prove it" attitude, and then when one tries the person just goes: "Oh that's crap....." Understand what I mean? If it is ACTUAL evidence it isn't crap is it? Yea lots of the conspiracy theories are crap because people don't actually understand the science and when experts in the field explain it they are all of a sudden part of the conspiracy. Now if you have any actual evidence with either science or documentation proving your theories I would love to see them. If your evidence doesn't hold up to criticism it isn't real evidence is it? Here's the problem though, some of these so called "scientists" are in the government's back pocket. Just like certain people in the legal system are as well. You have to bear that in mind when you hear things before you believe them. That is to say, consider what agenda they might have, or who might be paying them off. It's really not as simple as you think. do you understand the data the scientists put out? if you don't, then you should learn more to understand what they are saying. just because a "scientist" says there is no way a building could fall straight down like that without any data to prove it, that should draw a flag to people. But if you look at the data, and understand it, then the science cannot lie, no matter whose backpocket they are in When you look at how those buildings fell, and compare them to controlled demolitions, they look VERY similar. There is no building that I know of that collapsed via fire, THAT fast and at THAT rate of speed. Further there are several people that spoke out in the aftermath about hearing explosions coming from the towers. Are you gonna tell me they were hearing things? Come on now. The sound of "explosions" was the transfer of force to the building connections lower in the building. Buildings don't use rivets anymore nor do they use bearing connections. They use welded shear connections with friction bolted erection connections. Most moment connections are friction bolted also. Oh really? This would disagree with you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Huq0EM3aGkI |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What do you mean the PT-109 incident was influenced by his father? I read that it was pretty accurate, including the books and movie. Oh, I don't think anyone is saying that Kennedy didn't do some amazing things in that incident, but he also did some things that weren't up to military muster that helped cause the incident, too. I read about it in the last issue of 'The Quarterly Journal of Military History'. I think the article posted here: http://www.historynet.com/pt-109-disaster.htm ... is the same one I read. If you read it, you'll find out why his squadron called him "Crash Kennedy", and why many graduates of Annapolis called the PT boat crews "The Hooligan Navy". You'll also read how Joe Kennedy's influence with journalists and how a chance meeting with John Hershey (author of Hiroshima) helped bring the incident into the public eye. Also, how Kennedy was actually classified unfit for duty for health reasons, but again how his father's influence help to get him into the officer's corps. Again, not to detract from JFK's bravery, it just tells the rest of the story. -Kerry O.  One also can't call JFK's resolve during the Cuban Missile Crisis into question, either. I lived through that, too, and it made the current debt ceiling crisis look like a day in the park. People were actually spending bunches of money constructing bomb shelters in their back yards and the schools were doing 'duck and cover' drills during school hours regularly. Not that they would have done any good if an airburst happened nearby... -Kerry O. I had to do nuclear drills in school too. Bomb shelters were still popular in the early 70s. But it was when I got to high school when it dawned on me the only safe place from a nuclear blast is as far away from it as you can get. Just the shockwave alone can kill people in their bunkers. Fact is SAC NORAD is supposed to be nuke proof and that is a fallacy! the thing is Russia did not want an exchange like that with us. They really didn't want a war with us. it was all politics. There weren't stupid and Nikita Kruschev paid a heavy price meted out to him by his own Communist Party for the Cuban Missile Crisis. I can't remember the book which contained it-- probably 'The Prisoner's Dilemma' by William Poundstone-- but it pointed out the the arms race in the early 50's was largely fearmongering and playing nuclear poker, because the Russians just did not have that much fissile material and enough bomb cores to make MAD stick if a 'shooting war' broke out. Of course, no one knew that at the time... -Kerry O. Kennedy actually managed to avert a disaster but America was mislead about the survivability of a nuclear attack. I suspect Kennedy was taken out because of how he handled the crisis. Yes this was what ended Nikita Kruschev's career since he lost a lot of face in the world arena trying to put medium ranged nuked in our back yard. But the drills themselves were a waste of time. The idea of hiding in a shallow hole and coming out of it and not succumbing eventually to radiation poisoning is darkly hilarious to me. We did manage to out produce bombs then them and when it was clear we could nuke them into oblivion the deterrent of MAD made no sense any more. Nikita lost Russia's security blanket. But here and now the Russians are not happy with us and Star Wars! Our test with SM III scared them a lot. And to think we want to install and anti missile shield world wide. And now China is blowing smoke about being able to sink a carrier. Gee, they sink a carrier with a nuke and several Boomers retaliate on them for having used a nuke! And we are supposed to take their threat seriously? Haven't you read anything on the Garrison trial? He was taken out for a lot of reasons, Cuba was one of them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The whole "Truther" story is one of ignorance piled upon ignorance. If you survey any population you can find some people who will believe anything and have no education to understand what they are believing. If only one percent of the population falls into this category, it leaves a loud silly group. And then there are the hard core "truthers" who will deny any science to believe any absurd story. The actual truth just gets in the way of the trumped up garbage they have imagined. To them, anyone who disagrees is "stupid", "brainwashed", "gullible", or some other nasty adjective to use as a weapon. i'll buy into that, someone must have dropped the ball for allowing it to hit the pentagone, what was it, 45 minutes after the twin towers?... maybe they were busy shooting down the other plane, and i have read that russia had some planes in our airspace during this, and some of our fighters were escorting them back... I NEVER said the ball wasn't dropped. F-16's and 18's should have been launched at the first hint of trouble, not after both towers are hit, the Pentagon and another wildcard plane heading for the capitol, not after all of them went down like what happened. We wern't well coordinated and we learned from our mistakes, now all's a plane has do do is go a little off track and they will be meeting a couple F-22's. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the end game of it all is what we have now. A crippled broke middle class. Bankrupting wars makeing someone rich the bankers got bailed out by the tax payers and the rich stil pay an historicly low tax rate. Our media once the standerd for journalism is about as worthless as the soviet pravda. So many americans are struggling to survive and have no time or energy to quistion the authoratative voice of cbsmsnbcfoxcnn. Unlike the rest of the free world we have no universal healthcare, we have poor people blameing poorer people for our economic troubles. We may as well submit I see no end to it. "When peaceful revolution becomes impossible, violent revolution becomes inevitable." -- John F. Kennedy Then they blew his brains out. Wait who blew his brains out? The trail led right to Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Lpdon
on
Tue 08/02/11 10:04 PM
|
|
That assumes they care about who caused 9/11 or not. There's a saying: "Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story". It'd behoove you to think about that. So you agree that you have no facts or "truth" so you just make up a "good story" about those people having a cover up agenda. Way to put words in my mouth, though coming from you I shouldn't be surprised that you'd twist my words to suit your own agenda. It's they that make up the truth as they see fit according to what they want to do, no matter what the truth actually is, and they've been doing it for a long time. But I don't expect you to understand that because you are so obviously incapable of seeing this. No I am just continuing to point out that you have provided NO FACTS at all for any of your claims. Also you are not supposed to attack people either or have you forgotten the forum rules? I am willing to see your so called truth if you actually provide anything to support your claims. We ask and ask and nothing is provided so it leads people to believe there is no evidence. It's the truth though, our government has been screwing us all over for YEARS. It's just a matter of being able to see it, and you can't or won't. I don't buy that you would believe me even if I DID give you evidence, because your mind is clearly made up that everything someone like me says is bunk. Prove to me you have an open mind first, then we'll talk. Otherwise the whole exercise is a flat waste of time. Hey I agree the government is retarded but that doesn't mean I think they were behind 9/11 and as far as science is concerned the official story makes sense. I can't argue about previous knowledge of an attack though because that is just skepticism. I have my idea of what the truth is just as you have yours. How is asking for you to share your evidence not being open minded? You are wasting more time calling me closed minded then it would be for you to show your evidence so that is obviously not the real reason. You have not given anyone any reason to believe anything you say. If you have all this proof why not post it here? If not for me then all the other people that deserve to know the truth? If I put it down and people just criticize it, then it was a waste of time. There's no point to me if that's gonna be the case. Asking for evidence is one thing, but when you ask for it in the context of a clear bias as to what the truth is from your end, it's not quite the same. It amounts to a: "Oh yeah, prove it" attitude, and then when one tries the person just goes: "Oh that's crap....." Understand what I mean? Every piece of so called evidence the truthers put out was debunked by MULTIPLE sources in fields of expertiece the evidence was in. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thats why theres an owl (molech) on every dollar bill.look up bohemian
groove.thats why the washington monument stands 555 ft tall buried 111 feet underground.thats why dept of transportation has 666 logo.thats why the disney logo has built in 666.thats why walt had his head cut off and frozen.thats why theres a pentagram in washington dc layout.thats why washington sits like baphomet.thats why the pentagon is the only 5 sided building.thats why you have an eye logo for your tv station.thats why you never hear any satanic stuff on the news.thats why every barcode has 666 built into them.thats why everybody has to go through body scanners and their buying information is tracked and their phones are tapped.thats why yep busted right open |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thats why theres an owl (molech) on every dollar bill.look up bohemian groove.thats why the washington monument stands 555 ft tall buried 111 feet underground.thats why dept of transportation has 666 logo.thats why the disney logo has built in 666.thats why walt had his head cut off and frozen.thats why theres a pentagram in washington dc layout.thats why washington sits like baphomet.thats why the pentagon is the only 5 sided building.thats why you have an eye logo for your tv station.thats why you never hear any satanic stuff on the news.thats why every barcode has 666 built into them.thats why everybody has to go through body scanners and their buying information is tracked and their phones are tapped.thats why yep busted right open 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That assumes they care about who caused 9/11 or not. There's a saying: "Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story". It'd behoove you to think about that. So you agree that you have no facts or "truth" so you just make up a "good story" about those people having a cover up agenda. Way to put words in my mouth, though coming from you I shouldn't be surprised that you'd twist my words to suit your own agenda. It's they that make up the truth as they see fit according to what they want to do, no matter what the truth actually is, and they've been doing it for a long time. But I don't expect you to understand that because you are so obviously incapable of seeing this. No I am just continuing to point out that you have provided NO FACTS at all for any of your claims. Also you are not supposed to attack people either or have you forgotten the forum rules? I am willing to see your so called truth if you actually provide anything to support your claims. We ask and ask and nothing is provided so it leads people to believe there is no evidence. It's the truth though, our government has been screwing us all over for YEARS. It's just a matter of being able to see it, and you can't or won't. I don't buy that you would believe me even if I DID give you evidence, because your mind is clearly made up that everything someone like me says is bunk. Prove to me you have an open mind first, then we'll talk. Otherwise the whole exercise is a flat waste of time. Hey I agree the government is retarded but that doesn't mean I think they were behind 9/11 and as far as science is concerned the official story makes sense. I can't argue about previous knowledge of an attack though because that is just skepticism. I have my idea of what the truth is just as you have yours. How is asking for you to share your evidence not being open minded? You are wasting more time calling me closed minded then it would be for you to show your evidence so that is obviously not the real reason. You have not given anyone any reason to believe anything you say. If you have all this proof why not post it here? If not for me then all the other people that deserve to know the truth? If I put it down and people just criticize it, then it was a waste of time. There's no point to me if that's gonna be the case. Asking for evidence is one thing, but when you ask for it in the context of a clear bias as to what the truth is from your end, it's not quite the same. It amounts to a: "Oh yeah, prove it" attitude, and then when one tries the person just goes: "Oh that's crap....." Understand what I mean? If it is ACTUAL evidence it isn't crap is it? Yea lots of the conspiracy theories are crap because people don't actually understand the science and when experts in the field explain it they are all of a sudden part of the conspiracy. Now if you have any actual evidence with either science or documentation proving your theories I would love to see them. If your evidence doesn't hold up to criticism it isn't real evidence is it? Here's the problem though, some of these so called "scientists" are in the government's back pocket. Just like certain people in the legal system are as well. You have to bear that in mind when you hear things before you believe them. That is to say, consider what agenda they might have, or who might be paying them off. It's really not as simple as you think. do you understand the data the scientists put out? if you don't, then you should learn more to understand what they are saying. just because a "scientist" says there is no way a building could fall straight down like that without any data to prove it, that should draw a flag to people. But if you look at the data, and understand it, then the science cannot lie, no matter whose backpocket they are in When you look at how those buildings fell, and compare them to controlled demolitions, they look VERY similar. There is no building that I know of that collapsed via fire, THAT fast and at THAT rate of speed. Further there are several people that spoke out in the aftermath about hearing explosions coming from the towers. Are you gonna tell me they were hearing things? Come on now. The sound of "explosions" was the transfer of force to the building connections lower in the building. Buildings don't use rivets anymore nor do they use bearing connections. They use welded shear connections with friction bolted erection connections. Most moment connections are friction bolted also. Oh really? This would disagree with you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Huq0EM3aGkI ? how does it disagree? in fact, it supports us more than anything... you can clearly see the top of the building falling to the south, instead of straight down like the truthers always say it does. to me, those lights looked like electrical shorting out more than anything else. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That assumes they care about who caused 9/11 or not. There's a saying: "Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story". It'd behoove you to think about that. So you agree that you have no facts or "truth" so you just make up a "good story" about those people having a cover up agenda. Way to put words in my mouth, though coming from you I shouldn't be surprised that you'd twist my words to suit your own agenda. It's they that make up the truth as they see fit according to what they want to do, no matter what the truth actually is, and they've been doing it for a long time. But I don't expect you to understand that because you are so obviously incapable of seeing this. No I am just continuing to point out that you have provided NO FACTS at all for any of your claims. Also you are not supposed to attack people either or have you forgotten the forum rules? I am willing to see your so called truth if you actually provide anything to support your claims. We ask and ask and nothing is provided so it leads people to believe there is no evidence. It's the truth though, our government has been screwing us all over for YEARS. It's just a matter of being able to see it, and you can't or won't. I don't buy that you would believe me even if I DID give you evidence, because your mind is clearly made up that everything someone like me says is bunk. Prove to me you have an open mind first, then we'll talk. Otherwise the whole exercise is a flat waste of time. Hey I agree the government is retarded but that doesn't mean I think they were behind 9/11 and as far as science is concerned the official story makes sense. I can't argue about previous knowledge of an attack though because that is just skepticism. I have my idea of what the truth is just as you have yours. How is asking for you to share your evidence not being open minded? You are wasting more time calling me closed minded then it would be for you to show your evidence so that is obviously not the real reason. You have not given anyone any reason to believe anything you say. If you have all this proof why not post it here? If not for me then all the other people that deserve to know the truth? If I put it down and people just criticize it, then it was a waste of time. There's no point to me if that's gonna be the case. Asking for evidence is one thing, but when you ask for it in the context of a clear bias as to what the truth is from your end, it's not quite the same. It amounts to a: "Oh yeah, prove it" attitude, and then when one tries the person just goes: "Oh that's crap....." Understand what I mean? If it is ACTUAL evidence it isn't crap is it? Yea lots of the conspiracy theories are crap because people don't actually understand the science and when experts in the field explain it they are all of a sudden part of the conspiracy. Now if you have any actual evidence with either science or documentation proving your theories I would love to see them. If your evidence doesn't hold up to criticism it isn't real evidence is it? Here's the problem though, some of these so called "scientists" are in the government's back pocket. Just like certain people in the legal system are as well. You have to bear that in mind when you hear things before you believe them. That is to say, consider what agenda they might have, or who might be paying them off. It's really not as simple as you think. do you understand the data the scientists put out? if you don't, then you should learn more to understand what they are saying. just because a "scientist" says there is no way a building could fall straight down like that without any data to prove it, that should draw a flag to people. But if you look at the data, and understand it, then the science cannot lie, no matter whose backpocket they are in When you look at how those buildings fell, and compare them to controlled demolitions, they look VERY similar. There is no building that I know of that collapsed via fire, THAT fast and at THAT rate of speed. Further there are several people that spoke out in the aftermath about hearing explosions coming from the towers. Are you gonna tell me they were hearing things? Come on now. no, i cannot say what people heard or didn't hear. I can only draw my conclusions by the evidence at hand. I did some research on it and somewhat understand the "pancaking" effect. I also know that concrete being crushed makes a loud booming noise, like an explosion. you are correct about there not being a building collapsing like that, because no other buildings over 100 stories tall has ever been hit by a fully fueled 747. so there is no way to compare it. There's been people BTW who have claimed it impossible to fly a plane directly into the building like that incidentally, at least a plane that size. You may not believe that, but that is something to consider here. Ok but tower 7 came down too, and all it had was just a small fire. There is no way it makes any sense whatsoever that THAT would collapse just from that alone. As for the concrete, it doesn't factor in that you can actually see fire from the individual sections exploding as the thing came down. That indicates me to some type of explosives were present. Ok here is some facts. Back in 1945 a B-25 Mitchell flew into the Empire State building. it is still standing although a ten ton airplane hit it on accident. http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/Empire_State_building_crash.htm  That was ONE 10 ton aircraft that for the most part was unloaded. The WTC was hit by FOUR jets each weighing in excess of 73 tons each and they were flying faster than a B-25 could. The structural damage was more than enough to allow the remaining structure to weaken and fall on itself. If your math or grasp of physics is reasonable you would know that the WTC was hit with a LOT more firepower from jet airliners. A 737 is a smaller jumbo jet fully laden at takeoff is about 73 tons. A 747 fully laden is around 488 tons. Show me any structure that could survive a raw impact that large! Bear in mind those jets can reach just below super sonic speeds. In a dive they can break the sound barrier but they are designed to fly just below the speed of sound. A fully laden 18 wheel truck is about 35 tons. Hell, several 500 pound iron bombs BARELY come close to that much inertial damage alone! Our largest bunker buster bomb is not even the equivalent. Buildings are surprisingly tough but they do have limits! |
|
|
|
|
