revisiting 911 truth in the Obama days...

[Remster 24]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Forthe freefall of a steel framed building to occur, pre planted explosives would have to be used.

So the use of explosives to weaken the structure somehow increases the force of gravity?

That, or rockets.

Guys. Stop it. You are all missing the point.

It was giant lasers.

Remster

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

If someone is still on the "Where's the plane that hit the Pentagon" level; any credibility they had just hit zero.

Some of Rhys' mates have, apparently, interviewed many of these eyewitnesses and decided that while a plane was indeed in the area, and while it was indeed flying very low towards the Pentagon, it was on a flightpath such that it could not possibly have struck the Pentagon at the right angle to cause the damage observed.

Unfortunately, they don't seem to have been able to find any witnesses who saw the plane flying away from the Pentagon again after it was hit by whatever else it was actually hit with that wasn't the plane.

Rhys does not appear to think that this is a problem.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Forthe freefall of a steel framed building to occur, pre planted explosives would have to be used.

So the use of explosives to weaken the structure somehow increases the force of gravity?

That, or rockets.

Guys. Stop it. You are all missing the point.

It was giant lasers.

Wow - Dr. Evil was in on it, as well?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[philh 0]

Another point I think the "troofers" should ask themselves is , why would the conspiracy not use planes on the Pentagon given that they clearly did use them on the twin towers? Or were they holograms?

[Remster 24]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Forthe freefall of a steel framed building to occur, pre planted explosives would have to be used.

So the use of explosives to weaken the structure somehow increases the force of gravity?

That, or rockets.

Guys. Stop it. You are all missing the point.

It was giant lasers.

Wow - Dr. Evil was in on it, as well?

Well, Cheney was in the picture... ;-)

Remster

[billvon 2,406]

>Or were they holograms?

Perhaps!

====================
Dr. Stefan Grossmann
What Happened On 9-11: THE GREATEST ILLUSION OF ALL MANKIND
Wed Oct 15 03:12:42 200

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER was built and designed to withstand the impact of a jumbo jet. That includes the Boeing models 747,757,767,777.

Therefore when a Jumbo Jet, consisting primarily of merely a hollow pressurized cabin, impacts the reinforced concrete and steel support beams of the World Trade Center that it crumples on impact on the outside of the building and falls to the ground because of little encroachment into the building.

The American Media has told people that a Jet wing can cut through steel reinforced concrete designed to withstand the impact of a high speed jet impact.

America was told that what they witnessed was what appeared to be a jet flying completely into the World Trade Center as if it were Jello. What the American media reported was something that is physically impossible. This is another Single Bullet Theory.

The answer is that a cruise missile with a military hologram aboard crashed into the building. A Cruise missile is small enough to fly into the building if it were to avoid any steel beams and merely properly aimed at open office glass panes.
===================

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Another point I think the "troofers" should ask themselves is , why would the conspiracy not use planes on the Pentagon given that they clearly did use them on the twin towers? Or were they holograms?

They could only find two pilots?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Therefore when a Jumbo Jet, consisting primarily of merely a hollow pressurized cabin,

Precisely!

Who could possibly think that a mere 150+ tonnes of hollow pressurised cabin travelling at 500mph could do any damage to anything?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DJL 232]

Quote

I would consider their opinion, research their subject matter, and then determine what my thoughts were.

Hey, you said it. Here's the material: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm Do your research and give us your thoughts.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Therefore when a Jumbo Jet, consisting primarily of merely a hollow pressurized cabin,

Precisely!

Who could possibly think that a mere 150+ tonnes of hollow pressurised cabin travelling at 500mph could do any damage to anything?

My daddy always said that there would be times that my patience and tolerance would be severely tested.
I had no idea my daddy would be proved right by a bunch of idiots (truthers).

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[sundevil777 94]

How fast should it have fallen? Until you have some basis for an estimate based upon analysis or experiment, you cannot support your assertion that it was unusual. Perhaps it should have been slowed by 1%, maybe 10%. It makes a HUGE difference in that if it should have been slowed by something on the order of 1%, then you cannot expect measurement by video to be anywhere near accurate enough to capture that.

How accurate do you think the measurement of the fall was? I assert the measurement upon which you rely so heavily is much less accurate than you realize, and it has nothing to do with the repeatability of someone using a stopwatch while watching a video. Many factors are involved that would contribute to the inaccuracy of
such a measurement.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

My daddy always said that there would be times that my patience and tolerance would be severely tested.
I had no idea my daddy would be proved right by a bunch of idiots (truthers).

Isn't there a quote somewhere along the lines of "The internet has done more to further the cause of human idiocy than any other invention"? There certainly should be!

(Tenacious little buggers as well, aren't they)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DJL 232]

Alright Rhys, I have a bigger picture question for you. Why all of this conspiracy stuff around 9/11 and how it relates to invading Iraq when you can go after the bullshit story about WMD's? I seems like you guys don't even care about Bin Laden, only Saddam. So if you want a conspiracy, it's right fucking there! Nobody thinks the WMD thing was true, in fact when it became the catalyst for our invasion I was as vocal against it as you are about this.

Here's an issue that coincides perfectly with your grandstanding against Team America but you're not even peeping a bit about it. You could rail all you wanted to and call for sanctions against Bush/Cheney/the US people and be completely validated. Instead you choose to harp on an issue that's so far beyond plausibility that you sound just like another tinfoil hat wearing nutjob.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[rhys 0]

Quote

You have been speculating from day one.

You have been very clear in asserting your belief that a US gov't conspiracy was behind the events of 9/11. So why did that conspiracy decide to demolish Building 7? What possible benefit could there be? See if you can think of even one plausible reason why they would have rigged Building 7.

I did speculate heavily at first, I remeber clearly thinking that is could be the doing of the united states in order to gain access to the minerals of the middle east.

We spent an untold amount of time debating various hypothesises, and it got us nowhere.

Your question is designed to do that and that is what you wish to do, you want to detract from the subject of the freefallng building because that is the 'smoking gun' of this debate.

You are all stumped by NIST's admittance, and with this admittance I no longer need to speculate in order to prove you guys wrong.

So, I will admilt I have used a lot of speculation in the past, we all have. But I no longer need to.

1 point at a time, ahhh 1 point at a time... you may remember the debunking 9/11 conspiracy website 1 point at a time that many of you quoted, you know the speculation website that tries to justify the treason you are all defending.

They said ,

Quote

freefall didn't happen

Do you admit building 7 gained freefall acceleration for at least 2.5 seconds?

NIST does and that is all you have to go on, are 'you' willing to admit you were wrong?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

I seems like you guys don't even care about Bin Laden, only Saddam.

I care about the evidence, Bin Ladin was named only hours after the attack, bin laden was blamed as the mastermind for years. the facts wre denied, and you went and attacked Iraq anyway.

Now that countr is destroyed and countless people dead, you continue in afghanistan for what?

more lies.

i want to know the truth, you should too, a criminal investigation into 9/11 is what is needed to discover the truth, there is plenty of evidence there, all ready to go.

If it can be proven that Bin Ladin was responsable then so be it, but until a bonafide investigation happens (there has never been one) then we will not know for sure.

What we do know is that the US government has lied continuously to us, they have invaded countries and killed innocent civillians and the only people that are benifiting is the armes manufacturers and the other private companies contracted to do the work.

your country has suffered, your country is broke, and you still defent the very people that put us all in this very sad position.

My question for you is;

If you are aware thet 'they' lied about WMD's and destroyed a country and killed it many of its civiliians, why would you not believe they are lying to you about this?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

How fast should it have fallen? Until you have some basis for an estimate based upon analysis or experiment, you cannot support your assertion that it was unusual. Perhaps it should have been slowed by 1%, maybe 10%. It makes a HUGE difference in that if it should have been slowed by something on the order of 1%,...

Bullshit, There are a huge amount of 'probable' times that building 7 'could' take to fall form various levels of damage.

Freefall is impossible without completely removing the structural integrety from below the initiation point.

The words 'completely' and 'freefall' are the key words.

NIST was paid to answer you question, they were paid 10's of millions of dollars and had free access to the evidence.

Give me a quarter of that, and access, hell just give me access and 100k and and I'm sure I will conjur up enough credible volunteers and get you an answer.

Answering a question with a question is the sure sign that you do not know the answer to the origional question, or you simply do not want to answer it.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

But you clain faster than freefall collapse.

you are mistaken or I made a mistake, I do not claim faster than freefall, I claim freefall.

Freefall of building 7 is impossibile without explosives!
I guess this is where the pathetic 'there must have been rockets attached to it' comments came from.

these comments are nothing more han what one4 would expect from school children.

Epecially when yo consider the magnatude of the repercussions of the subject we are discussing.

I'l remind you all again, the lives of many thousands of people were lost on 9/11, your government lied to you about it and you are at war, your country is broke, and you liberties are being removed.

You country had the potential to be great nfor a long time, but now it is silly putty in the hands of corrupt treasonous criminals.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


i met an engineer only a month ago that was sure that truthers were kidding themselves, he took the time to study what they were saying and has been and active truth activist ever since.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I met an engineer about a month ago that was sure that truthers were right, he took the time to study what they were saying and has come to realize they are wrong. (We can all come up with an example, it's just that mine is correct )

But the difference is that you are lying and I am telling the truth.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

My daddy always said that there would be times that my patience and tolerance would be severely tested.
I had no idea my daddy would be proved right by a bunch of idiots (truthers).

Isn't there a quote somewhere along the lines of "The internet has done more to further the cause of human idiocy than any other invention"? There certainly should be!

(Tenacious little buggers as well, aren't they)

Yeah. They're like frickin' fleas.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

How fast should it have fallen? Until you have some basis for an estimate based upon analysis or experiment, you cannot support your assertion that it was unusual. Perhaps it should have been slowed by 1%, maybe 10%. It makes a HUGE difference in that if it should have been slowed by something on the order of 1%,...

Bullshit, There are a huge amount of 'probable' times that building 7 'could' take to fall form various levels of damage.

Freefall is impossible without completely removing the structural integrety from below the initiation point.

The words 'completely' and 'freefall' are the key words.

And he (and I) asked you what you think it did fall at, and what it should have if it were what we all believe it to be.

The second question is just as important as the first. You seem to be saying it fell exactly at 1G. This immediately begs the question, how do you know this? The accuracy of measurement cannot possible be down to .01G.

And like I said - the idea that bombs could be set off to perfectly remove all resistance is also a bit far fetched. It's a level of perfection that is not only rather difficult (to impossible), it wouldn't even be desirable. If the conspiracy was to crash two planes into the Towers, and then have them somehow collapse building 7, there is nothing served by such a perfect demolition. Quite the opposite - the best plan would be to cripple the building's integrity in a very asymmetric manner.

Which again goes to show, your theory lacks any plausibility. If you wanted to destroy B7 by bombing, you don't need airplanes. You bomb all of the buildings and avoid the airplane circus stunts. And you make sure an Iraqi rents the trucks.

[DanG 1]

Quote

these comments are nothing more han what one4 would expect from school children.

And in some cases the school they attended was an engineering one.

Quote

Freefall of building 7 is impossibile without explosives!

You keep saying this, but can't explain why. I've tried to explain in layman's terms repeatedly why you are wrong, but you just keep repeating this line. Are you just screwing with us, or do you actually want people to answer your questions?

- Dan G

[rhys 0]

Quote

Quote

Eerily, the north face is on the debris pile as if a shroud were laid gently over the dead building. It fell over after the majority of the building fell. This indicates that the south side of the building fell before the north. It's almost as if the buildings last words were "[This] did it!..".

this excerpt from you debunking page is ludercrous considering the video evidence clearly shows symmetrical collapse straight down and it is filmed from the undamaged side of the building.

Just another example of how the 'debunkers' use photgrahic evidence to skew your memory of what actually happened.

If the damage to the bulging and the fires caused the collapse we wouldhave witnessed an 'asymmetrical' collapse through the path of least resistance.

It would have fallen over, not down!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

• Quote

[philh 0]

Quote

Quote

I seems like you guys don't even care about Bin Laden, only Saddam.

I care about the evidence, Bin Ladin was named only hours after the attack, bin laden was blamed as the mastermind for years. the facts wre denied, and you went and attacked Iraq anyway.

Now that countr is destroyed and countless people dead, you continue in afghanistan for what?


more lies.

i want to know the truth, you should too, a criminal investigation into 9/11 is what is needed to discover the truth, there is plenty of evidence there, all ready to go.

If it can be proven that Bin Ladin was responsable then so be it, but until a bonafide investigation happens (there has never been one) then we will not know for sure.

What we do know is that the US government has lied continuously to us, they have invaded countries and killed innocent civillians and the only people that are benifiting is the armes manufacturers and the other private companies contracted to do the work.

your country has suffered, your country is broke, and you still defent the very people that put us all in this very sad position.

My question for you is;

If you are aware thet 'they' lied about WMD's and destroyed a country and killed it many of its civiliians, why would you not believe they are lying to you about this?

Becuase there is evidence they lied about WMD's, there isnt evidence they lied about 9/11, not in a way that supports the sort of Alex Jones conspiracy nuts.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

If the damage to the bulging and the fires caused the collapse we wouldhave witnessed an 'asymmetrical' collapse through the path of least resistance.

It would have fallen over, not down!

That, Sir, reveals like no other statement the lack of knowledge you have in the subject. Not only do you believe what you wrote, you have not a clue as to why it is wrong.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[philh 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Eerily, the north face is on the debris pile as if a shroud were laid gently over the dead building. It fell over after the majority of the building fell. This indicates that the south side of the building fell before the north. It's almost as if the buildings last words were "[This] did it!..".

this excerpt from you debunking page is ludercrous considering the video evidence clearly shows symmetrical collapse straight down and it is filmed from the undamaged side of the building.

Just another example of how the 'debunkers' use photgrahic evidence to skew your memory of what actually happened.

If the damage to the bulging and the fires caused the collapse we wouldhave witnessed an 'asymmetrical' collapse through the path of least resistance.

It would have fallen over, not down!

Are there any serious peer reviewed journals that draw the same conclusion or are you lie a creationist who avoids those or sets up their own review of creation research?

• Quote