9/11 "truthers" will never beat the msm.

Ahh Right so ten years on we are arguing about tiny facts...

If it was missiles or not, if it was really just planes, no charges no bombs, if a plane did crash into the pentagon none of this really matters...

Fact still stands.. i watched bbc that day, i watched them reporting abuilding had collapsed before a building did collapse... this is fact, now due to the carnage they couldnt have set up demo charges at the time, so there has to be more too it as i watched it be reported before it happened!

also... the idea of 8/12 hijackers across 4 planes being in the US undeteced just doesnt seem possible, maybe im wrong about that

As i said im not saying it was all the government.. i would have thought if they new it was going to happen, it would make more sense that they played on it, made sure it was a little worse than it would have turned out without intervention, and didnt prevent it from occuring, is that really so hard to beleive?

reply to post by thedman

So we are playing idiotic games now...?

Only small fraction of WTC 3 was left standing - not 17%. It was the lobby section. Remaining parts of the
building totally collapsed

Here is picture of WTC 1

Notice part of it is still standing



So did WTC 1 totally collapse or not...?

Here is picture of WTC 2 in background

Part of it is still standing - so did it totally collapse or not...?

Are you kidding dude WTC1 was a 110 story skycraper and there is a small part of the wall and core that is still upright. WTC3 is a 23 story building that was crushed. I don't even see what you're getting at here, because even if every inch of WTC3 was completely destroyed, it was crushed.

The damage that caused WTC7 to collapse wasn't the falling debris from the collapse of the twin towers crushing it to the ground, the fire damage supposedly caused the collapse.

So can you explain to me how comparing a building whose destruction was caused entirely by being crushed to a building whose collapse was caused by a fire-damage initiated single core column failure is accurate? WTC3 did not collapse, it was crushed. WTC7 collapsed.

The 3 buildings that collapsed that day were the Twin Towers and WTC7, WTC3 and St. Nicholas Church were crushed by the debris that resulted from the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Originally posted by liejunkie01
It suddenly hit me a few minutes ago when my daughter was watching one of the Nickelodeon stations. A commercial came on advertising their own show explaining to kids what happened on 9/11. I have also noticed many of the more mainstream (history channels) gearing up for the shows.....

I saw this promo earlier, and can't be more ticked. Can we say "pushing the nationalist agenda on to the next generation"? They say it will air at 9 at night, but I really do not think that will shield very young kids from seeing the images & be frightened out of their wits. If this is a clever way to hit the curious older kids & younger, more impressionable ones at the same time with the All-American Ego-Stroking, it may in fact work wonders with impression manipulation.
I don't think this should be aired on a children's channel at all. Taught in an age-appropriate class, yes, talked about around the dinner table, yes, but plastered on a children's network for any & all ages to see? Absolutely not.
As a parent of 2 under 4, whom both love to work the channel buttons on the TV set when they can get away with it, the thought of one of them accidentally landing on this special at random & potentially seeing burning buildings & injured people amidst the footage of general chaos alarms me. They're not old enough to understand the context of the event, and odds are it would be Nightmare City for them.

Originally posted by GonzoSinister
Ahh Right so ten years on we are arguing about tiny facts...

Yes, it is like trivial bullsh# has to be rehashed and rehashed way beyond ad nauseum until everybody is bored out of their skulls and this fades away.

But most of the physics profession doesn't have to demand distribution of steel information and explain its relevance to the conservation of momentum in a supposed gravitational collapse of a self supporting structure. They can practically pretend 9/11 never happened.

Sometimes I think most people that want to understand something meaningful to resolve this are just being played.

Curious how the physics profession can't talk about mass distributions in skyscrapers all over the world. Have they heard of gravity?

psik

We've got to get it into our heads that it's fun to promote 9/11 truth even if it makes us look like fools. And that it's fun when we succeed even if it's just a little. We can't be stopped from saying what we are able to say. How other people live after they hear what we say is their business.

Originally posted by lightninboy
We've got to get it into our heads that it's fun to promote 9/11 truth even if it makes us look like fools. And that it's fun when we succeed even if it's just a little. We can't be stopped from saying what we are able to say. How other people live after they hear what we say is their business

No, this is not fun.

It is just that listening to this stupid bull# and knowing people believe it is really aggravating.

Physicists not shooting this crap down years ago is infuriating.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Maybe the physicists haven't shot it down because their college level Physics understand it better than your elementary school Physics. Maybe?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Maybe the physicists haven't shot it down because their college level Physics understand it better than your elementary school Physics. Maybe?

Physics does not have anything to do with the so called EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.

Physics is how reality works. The physicists don't have a choice about it. Newtonian Physics is 324 years old. It is grade school level. It is just that our educational system is designed to make people pay a lot of money to have simple information dribbled out to them.

The Empire State Building is 80 years old. There were no electronic computers when it was designed. It is just that people who think this is complicated are morons.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Why am I not surprised you completely missed the point. Maybe the people that actually KNOW physics have looked at what you think is wrong, and they KNOW that YOU are in the wrong with your beliefs.




Of course, I guess the physicists could all be in on it..........

reply to post by vipertech0596

If I might interject.
A physicist can be in on a deception. A physicist can be bought, or intimidated and threatened.
Physics cannot be.

reply to post by SirClem


So, you think all the physicists are in on it too I take it?

Or could it be all the internet physics experts are making assumptions not supported by reality? (like MOST of their goofy theories)

reply to post by vipertech0596

No, I actually know that all physicists aren't IN on it.
I do understand that 99.9 % of the physicist don't get their papers published. So, anyone that wants to control thought only needs to concentrate their attention of the .01 that gets published.
It is really THAT simple.
We are going to win.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Why am I not surprised you completely missed the point. Maybe the people that actually KNOW physics have looked at what you think is wrong, and they KNOW that YOU are in the wrong with your beliefs.

Of course, I guess the physicists could all be in on it..........

You had a point?

So how do the people who KNOW THE PHYSICS proceed to do the physics without the data?

Do we need to argue about whether or not skyscrapers have to hold themselves up? Didn't the first level of the north tower have to support more weight than the tenth? Didn't the tenth have to support more weight than the 30th? Didn't the 30th have to support more weight than the 80th?

So even if airliners and fires were solely responsible for the destruction then how could physicists analyze it without accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete all of the way down the buildings? Where is that data? Where are the physicists who have been demanding it for almost TEN YEARS?

That is why this is such a JOKE. As physics goes this is not that complicated a problem But even simple problems need accurate data. But the physicists should know what data is necessary to solve a problem before they even try to solve it. But then the NIST spent 3 years and $20,000,000 to produce 10,000 pages and they can't even specify the total for the concrete much less accurate distributions for steel and concrete all of the way down the buildings.

But then the physics profession does not even raise a stink about the missing information.

Velly Intelisting! But so shtupid!

psik

Originally posted by tyson45
reply to post by kaya82

 

oh im sorry, is this forum only reserved for people who think this was an inside job? do you all want to sit around sing kumbaya with eachother? last time i checked people debate on this website, so your theory is, 2 planes hit and 3 buildings fell so our govt had to have something to do with it? that is so idiotic. 2 planes packed with fuel hit those buildings, those buildings burned and fell to the ground sending tons of debris into other buildings surrounding it, hence why tower 7 collapsed. what the hell is the point of demolishing wtc7 when youve already taken down 2 of the largest skyscrapers in the world. there is no point, there is no conspiracy, there is only entertainment for you people who want to find something that holds our govt accountable because you have nothing better to do.

Wow your ignorance speaks volumes its quite apparant you havnt done a shread of research regarding this subject. Of course anyone is welcome on this site but i cant understand what anyone who beleives the os would gain from coming on here? You just come to argue.

Yes wtc7 took some damage yes there were very minimal floors on fire this would never cause a totally symetrical free fall speed into its own foot print collapse. Why would they demolise wtc 7? Heard of the enron scandal hmmmm interesting so your logic is because i cant explain why tptb would bring down wtc7 it didnt happen? What a critical thinker you are!

Sunday night I was watching the new WTC being constructed. ......One floor a week is unheard of.

I went to work early monday morning and told a few of the guys they were building one floor a week. One guy, my supervisor in the field, said " I saw something on TV that said "they" (as in you crazies) say that we(as in the government) did it, can you believe that"? Thats when I said, "thats what they say"....The other guy just scoffed it off and the subject changed.

Nobody really wants to hear it..........

You can say that at least he heard about it and spread the word......Maybe he was fishing because I told a few of the other guys I was a member of a conspiracy website.....I doubt that though...... He is a pretty good guy........Maybe he said it because he really thinks it is absurd

The point is...... that the subject came up for only a second. He only mentioned it because he was flipping through the channels.................

Thats it and I believe that is as far as it will ever go..............

reply to post by liejunkie01

It has already gone further than that ignorant, programmed dummy.
Be the change you want to see, or be an ignorant dummy. That is the choice.

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by liejunkie01

 

It has already gone further than that ignorant, programmed dummy.
Be the change you want to see, or be an ignorant dummy. That is the choice.

I really do not know how to respond to your post.

Currently I am laughing.......

Sorry.

reply to post by liejunkie01

Hey, that is okay. I am like SO embarrassed because you are laughing.
Really.

Oh heck, its easy to know how to respond to personal attacks. Its call reporting it to the moderators.