For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT

a reply to: audubon


No, the outlandish claims of the official story is the nonsense that demands the laws of physics be suspended and that a vision of 72 virgins makes poor pilots into super pilots.

I don't believe that nonsense, but apparently you still do. That's cool, they say delusional thinking is fun.

It took me a number of years to realize I had been deceived, but I did get through it.

If the official story were so rock solid as you believe, Dick & Dubya would have testified under oath. If it were so solid, the testimony of Mr. Rodriguez would have been taken in public. Instead, it was taken in private and then not included in the final report.

Maybe I'm just more skeptical and analytical than you?

a reply to: Salander

Maybe I'm just more skeptical and analytical than you?

But then again, maybe not, eh.

It still amazes me that after 16 years, events that supposedly 'broke the laws of physics' somehow can't be articulated in a technical paper submitted to a respected journal of physics in order to refute them and convince the scientific community.

It's so obvious that nobody can be bothered to write a simple physics paper? It's too obvious for basic calculations, I guess. Or else the people who keep saying it are unbelievably mistaken.

I wonder which is more likely? Hmmm.

a reply to: blackaspirin

Right you are ....

If one can demonstrate to the scientific community how the events of 911 "violated laws of physics" would
probably be in line for Nobel Prize

As we have seen Nobel laureates are in short supply in the conspiracy community ........

how does the OP's video even relate to what happened to the towers????......this is hillbilly science in all it's glory.....if ALL the steel girders at the street level was heated to 1500 to 2000 degrees, and then an enormous side force was applied to the top of the tower, yes, you could PUSH the tower over, as in this video....and if you notice, the steel where his hand was remained rigid and strong, and that distance from the white hot steel was 12 to 18 inches...tell me how over a 1000 feet of steel girders were softened enough to cause vertical freefall of the entire building, and it's sister tower, and building 7 that fell exactly the same way as the towers, which didn't have any jet fuel drenching it's steel girders?

originally posted by: blackaspirin
It still amazes me that after 16 years, events that supposedly 'broke the laws of physics' somehow can't be articulated in a technical paper submitted to a respected journal of physics in order to refute them and convince the scientific community.

It's so obvious that nobody can be bothered to write a simple physics paper? It's too obvious for basic calculations, I guess. Or else the people who keep saying it are unbelievably mistaken.

I wonder which is more likely? Hmmm.

here......911expertsspeakout.org... course, you have to actually read what the experts say, and not dismiss it out of hand

a reply to: jimmyx

Your link's bust.

a reply to: jimmyx

That link is broken, and it is supposedly a link to a documentary by AE911Truth, not a legitimate technical paper introduced to a respected physics journal.

Perhaps you should read my post again, since you just reinforced my point.

a reply to: jimmyx

l freefall of the entire building, and it's sister tower, and building 7 that fell exactly the same way as the towers, which didn't have any jet fuel drenching it's steel girders?

You must have watched different videos than I did.

a reply to: samkent

That is indeed bizarre - I'm used to seeing the same claims over and over again, but I seriously don't recall ANYONE ever claiming that WTC7 fell exactly the same way as the Twin Towers.

I'm not even sure how to mock that, uh...wow.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430


No, the government has spent decades building mistrust in me by demonstrating the criminal behavior shown in the Pentagon Papers. With the CIA in the dope business, the government demonstrates its utter contempt for the rule of law.

Why should I trust well known liars? Why should I believe a word they say about 911 when all the facts contradict their damn lies?

All the facts, eh?

And so now you've contradicted yourself by admitting that you don't believe one word. Therefore everyone's a liar.

This is not healthy. It sounds like paranoia.

That sounds like ranting.

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: Salander

Maybe I'm just more skeptical and analytical than you?

But then again, maybe not, eh.

This reminds me of Plato's words: We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark. The real tragedy in life is when men are afraid of the dark.

Some say the cover-up is worse than the crime, and that may be true. The lengths gone to in order to cover-up many facts is blatant, but some folks happily participate in that cover-up.

Impossible physics, impossible aeronautical facts all make the official story untenable for the person being honest intellectually.

originally posted by: blackaspirin
It still amazes me that after 16 years, events that supposedly 'broke the laws of physics' somehow can't be articulated in a technical paper submitted to a respected journal of physics in order to refute them and convince the scientific community.

It's so obvious that nobody can be bothered to write a simple physics paper? It's too obvious for basic calculations, I guess. Or else the people who keep saying it are unbelievably mistaken.

I wonder which is more likely? Hmmm.

Oh, but they can be articulated, and have been articulated by a number of people, effectively by 2300+ architects and engineers, Mr. Hulsey of Alaska being the most recent.

That you and others are so deeply in denial that you refuse to grasp it simply means some people are most obtuse, or involuntarily in deep denial.

Nice try, but a petition of architects and engineers, the vast majority of whom have no relevant expertise in the subject (software engineers? Landscape architects?), is worthless.

This 'broke the laws of physics', remember? Put it in a technical paper and introduce it to a respected physics journal. IF you want to garner scientific support on the matter. If it's so obvious, the calculations should be easy to put into a technical paper instead of a petition, YouTube video or blog post.

That's only if you want to win over the scientific community. If not, then keep making YouTube videos and petitions, and waste another 16 years.

Here's perhaps the most respected public intellectual in the world, articulating the very same thing:

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: blackaspirin

That's an interesting video, but after he's made the points about WTC7 (which are fairly sensible) he then goes on to talk about 9/11 and the Iraq war. He says the Bush administration would have tried to pin 9/11 on Iraq as an excuse to invade.

The thing he's unaware of is that this did in fact happen. There was a serious push to try to engineer a yarn in which Mohamed Atta had met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Vienna shortly before the attacks. It's interesting to watch Chomsky build his argument on his ignorance of this fact. And it's even more interesting that either no-one in the audience knew it either, or was willing to raise a hand to correct him.

a reply to: audubon

His point (and he's made it before) is that IF the government carried out this plan, then blaming it on Saudis is a complete non-sequitur. They're a close ally, and if you want to go to war in Iraq, you don't blame Saudis and then try to switch the blame later with bizarre, erroneous connections between the two.

You blame it on Iraqis, and then you get a green light to go to war, and nobody bats an eye. By the same token, I'll go a little further - there had already been an attempt to bomb the WTC in 1993. If you want a simple way to go to Iraq, then set up a bombing, blame a few Iraqis and connect them to Saddam, and you have a green light.

No need for demolition teams, remote-controlled planes, faked phone calls, thousands of people who can snitch, and 9 million ways in which the plan can fail and get found out.

If you want to hear him address the fact that 9/11 was exploited by the U.S. Government, and other governments around the world, listen to the part that begins @ 41:36. The original question starts @ 40:15.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: blackaspirin

The simple answer to that is that the Bush administration didn't try to pin it on the Saudis. It was the 9/11 Commission that came up with the goods on that score. And the "28 pages" that spelt it out were suppressed for more than a decade.

And that youtube link, I think, is irrelevant. The clip is of NC talking about how various governments around the world used 9/11 as a "window of opportunity" to introduce repressive domestic measures.

a reply to: audubon

If the government was behind the 9/11 attacks, in planning them - then yes, they pinned it on Saudis and then tried to blame Iraq.

You have to keep it in the context of a planned attack by the government (which is the majority of the Truth Movement).

Here's a more direct answer to the claim regarding Saudis vs. Iraqis and the desire to go to Iraq, go to 3:14 of this video.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: blackaspirin

If the government was behind the 9/11 attacks, in planning them - then yes, they pinned it on Saudis and then tried to blame Iraq.

Well, no, that's not the case, because as I explained the government didn't pin it on the Saudis. They cut out the middleman and went for Afghanistan while trying to drag Iraq into it too. The 9/11 Commission is not the government.

Anyway, this is really a quibble about how much insight into 9/11 Chomsky has, and a bit of a distraction, so let's stop.

Yes, but the 9/11 Commission had to conclude that based on something. Where did the evidence that Saudis did it come from? The entire question posed to Chomsky was predicated on an Inside Job™. The 9/11 Commission either got that from direct evidence, or if not - from where? The Truth Movement considers the 9/11 Commission just an accessory to the whole plot, or else they were fooled by the evidence that was selectively provided to them.

If you don't wish to argue against the point, that's fine - it's not personal. It's one of the common-sense reasons why the Inside Job™ doesn't make sense. Someone who believes in the Inside Job can address it if they wish.