Giuliani Confronted By 9/11 Truthers, Lies About WTC Collapse w/videos

Originally posted by truthseeka

Originally posted by Iblis
Half of the responses here are making the pre-assumption he's guiilty -- Which despite all of your 'logic', and 'evidence' has yet to ever be proven.

On another note, perhaps he snarled because he's tired of nutjobs claiming 'NWO' theories.
If I had someone come to my offices everyday becrying something about how I was in a black cabal of world-domination schemes, I'd get ticked too.

Yeah...

The fact that he's made millions off of it, used it for political gain, and lied about it doesn't suggest guilt at all. Yeah right; tell that to someone with half a brain.

Made millions? So, an enterprising individual makes millions off a tragedy. Complain about the other 299,999 books made about it, let alone videos.

Political Gain? Well, being that he was in charge of the city, I think that's -perfectly- in line. Hell, if he ignored it, that'd be criminal and obviously misrepresenting his experiences in office.

Lied? Again, preassumption of guilt.

My god.

I have dialup that is slower than molasses on a cold morning, so could someone please post a transcript for those of us that live in an area that has little access to high speed. TIA



[edit on 31-5-2007 by goose]

Originally posted by Griff

Gee, can we go any more off topic of what he was talking about. You know, my penis wasn't hit by a plane either but it tingled that day. Is that a conspiracy? Get real.

I think you succeeded in going about as far off topic as one can go!

Ahem.... getting back to the subject at hand, Griff is right. If the steel beams were severely damaged by the plane's impact, the buidling was going to collapse no matter what.

It looked like WTC1's internal core was hit. This is evidenced by the radio tower dropping first. And WTC2's west side and NW corner were severely damaged. This is evidenced by WTC2 buckling to the west before collapsing.

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by nick7261
The Madrid fire destroyed everything BUT the steel framing of the building. There doesn't seem to *be* any structural support damage.

Thus proving that the world trade center tiny little fire did not melt any steel.

Strange, you'd think you have to melt steel in order for it to fail, the number of times it's mentioned, whereas it isn't that simple.

The buildings were a different structure weren't they? And whether the impact of the plane did much structural damage or not, the impact forces that caused the tower to slightly oscillate, must have done something.

And when they collapsed, the top floors fell into the impacted floors first didn't they?

Originally posted by Griff

I'm getting so sick of saying this. BTW, so sick I might just leave this board. It's unreal. No matter where the planes hit, if they took out the core, the buildings WOULD COLLAPSE FROM THE IMPACT ZONE!!!!!!!~~~!

I'm not saying it again here.

that might not be a bad idea, griff, although i'd miss your smackdowns.
you may be wasting energy trying to teach to see those who are pretending to be blind.

even the new group is almost guaranteed to have a few NWO agents who will try and shred the ae911 group apart like they did with the scholars.

keep on your toes, dude.

Originally posted by spiritp0wer
Guiliani let New York down because he was our governor,

WRONG. He was MAYOR of NYC.

hes suppose to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic,

Actually, you are quoting from the job of the President of the USA, not the Mayor of NYC.

But he chose money over being a hero.

Exactly how did he do that? He is entitled to live and earn a living.

:shk:

Originally posted by Iblis
Made millions? So, an enterprising individual makes millions off a tragedy. Complain about the other 299,999 books made about it, let alone videos.

Yeah. Only a real man exploits the victims and victims' families of a national tragedy, all the while accusing those of exposing him of precisely what he is doing.

Political Gain? Well, being that he was in charge of the city, I think that's -perfectly- in line. Hell, if he ignored it, that'd be criminal and obviously misrepresenting his experiences in office.

Yeah. A mayor who exploits a city's tragedy rather than strives to take down the real perpetrators of the tragedy is the exact type I want leading my city.

Lied? Again, preassumption of guilt.

He is ON RECORD lying. Nuff said.

See? This is exactly what I meant when I said that we have bigger problems than the crooks who did this. People with the above mentality are the reason they got away with this crime, and will get away with future crimes.

Guiliani could get on TV tomorrow and say it was a CD, but it was the hijackers that rigged it, and these folks would buy it hook, line, and sinker.:shk:

Originally posted by snoopy
The hindenburg wasn't hit by a plane either. Must be a conspiracy. London bridge wasn't hit by a plane when it came down either. That too must be a conspiracy.

What the hell does this have to do with anything? Typical "debunker" strawman setup.

So anything that collapses or is destroyed can only be accounted for by being hit by a plane right? Because surely hundreds of tons of falling debris crashing into the building and 7 hours of fires couldn't have had anything to do with it right?

Equine excrement.

The OKC building was admittedly blown up, and it didn't collapse. The damage was MUCH more extensive than that to WTC 7. The Madrid building burned hotter than dragon fire, but it didn't collapse. But WTC 7, with less damage than OKC and less fire than Madrid, magically falls straight down like a hooker's drawers. Yeah right.

It's funny how whenever I bring this up to the "well they were hit by planes" crowd, someone chimes in with this fairy tale about big flames and killer debris. Please.

remember, Challanger wasn't hit by a plane either.

Dee dee dee!

Originally posted by esdad71
Watch the videos from that day and it is a credit to architecture that they did not fall over when hit.

LoL...just LoL...Aluminum shell hits steel structure...yeh, I'm surprised they didn't just keel over too... (note sarcasm...)

Originally posted by CyberSEAL

Originally posted by esdad71
Watch the videos from that day and it is a credit to architecture that they did not fall over when hit.

LoL...just LoL...Aluminum shell hits steel structure...yeh, I'm surprised they didn't just keel over too... (note sarcasm...)

ever had a paper cut?
ever heard of a plastic straw sticking into a pine tree in a tornado?

things aren't that 'clean cut'.

a moving body has more mass than a stationary one. that is inertia. you can cut steel with water, if you have enough pressure.

that said, it is also true that the building hit's the plane as hard a the plane hits the building. i'd expect at least SOME deceleration, and at least SOME breakage, crumpling, etc.

check this out...
water saw

Originally posted by billybob
A moving body has more mass than a stationary one. that is inertia. you can cut steel with water, if you have enough pressure.

that said, it is also true that the building hit's the plane as hard a the plane hits the building. i'd expect at least SOME deceleration, and at least SOME breakage, crumpling, etc.

Just a few points:

A moving body has more Kinetic Energy than a stationary one (body). The mass of a moving object does not change, at least not appreciably, and at least not until the velocity of the object has reached a significantly relativistic speed.

Inertia is the tendency of a object at rest to remain at rest; its resistance to be moved.

Momentum is the tendency of an object, already in motion, to remain in motion.

Mass+Momentum= Kinetic Energy, ie. the potential force of impact.

Such as when an airplane slams into a skyscraper.

So when an airplane (Mass+Momentum=Kinetic Energy) hits a skyscaper(Mass+0 Momentum=Inertia) there is a transfer of energy from the plane to the building, in a strictly mechanical sense.

But the plane is destroyed because, even with all the kinetic energy expressed, the force generated by the impact is not sufficient to overcome the building's far greater inertia. The building, in this instance, merely absorbed the force of impact through minor deflection and non-critical structural damage.

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
Just a few points:

A moving body has more Kinetic Energy than a stationary one (body). The mass of a moving object does not change, at least not appreciably, and at least not until the velocity of the object has reached a significantly relativistic speed.

Inertia is the tendency of a object at rest to remain at rest; its resistance to be moved.

Momentum is the tendency of an object, already in motion, to remain in motion.

Mass+Momentum= Kinetic Energy, ie. the potential force of impact.

Such as when an airplane slams into a skyscraper.

So when an airplane (Mass+Momentum=Kinetic Energy) hits a skyscaper(Mass+0 Momentum=Inertia) there is a transfer of energy from the plane to the building, in a strictly mechanical sense.

But the plane is destroyed because, even with all the kinetic energy expressed, the force generated by the impact is not sufficient to overcome the building's far greater inertia. The building, in this instance, merely absorbed the force of impact through minor deflection and non-critical structural damage.

i think you need review.

inertia is the tendency of a body that is in motion to remain in motion, and a body at rest to remain at rest.

momentum is an increase in mass(potential energy) of a moving body. increased by it's velocity factor. ie:

p is the momentum
m is the mass
v the velocity

p = m X v

when you increase the velocity, you EFFECTIVELY increase the mass for moment calculations.

when you increase one factor, you increase the others, as well. that's why there is an 'equals' sign between the two sides of the EQUAtion.