911 Truth Makes Their Appearance At Occupy Vancouver

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

 

A complete collapse could not be the result of fire and gravity....

Well, the last time I looked all conventional demolition collapses are the result of the application of energy and gravity. And if I'm not mistaken fire is an expression of energy. So I think that pretty much wraps this all up now.

That application of energy is controlled, hooper. Fire is random. Fire cannot cause connections to instantly fail, all at the same time, causing symmetrical collapse. The fires in the towers could not have taken away the resistance of undamaged steel. The fires were in less than 20% of the building. Room fires do not get hot enough in an hour to weaken steel. Steel only stays hot when the fire is close to it, fire moves as fuel is used up. So your point is mute.

No fire, no hot steel...



If controlled demolitions were simply an application of energy and gravity, then why does it take so much work to place the explosives in the correct places, and detonate them at precise timings?

Originally posted by ANOK


No fire, no hot steel...

reply to post by ANOK

Disgusting.

Pulling out the picture of Edna Cintron, knowing that she eventually jumped to escape the heat and flames, which according to you, weren't there. I'd post the image of her falling, but I doubt it'd sway anyones opinion anyway.

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by ANOK

 

Disgusting.

Pulling out the picture of Edna Cintron, knowing that she eventually jumped to escape the heat and flames, which according to you, weren't there. I'd post the image of her falling, but I doubt it'd sway anyones opinion anyway.

How would that sway anyones opinion?


Building 7 is the smoking gun, building 1 and 2, not required.

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
How would that sway anyones opinion?

Building 7 is the smoking gun, building 1 and 2, not required.

I notice that everything that happens to be a "smoking gun" spontaneously becomes "not required" whenever it winds up thoroughly debunked and unusable to the truther crowd. It's like what's his name insisting we "need to listen to eyewitnesses" when they say they heard explosions but "eyewitnesses don't matter" when they saw a passenger jet hit the Pentagon or a massive three story tall bulge in the side of WTC 7 from the exterior columns being deformed from the fires.

In case you haven't figured it out...and apparently you haven't...you can't pick and choose what you want to reference like this. Genuine research requires you to take *everything* into account, because if you don't, all your critics need to do to shoot down your claims is to point out the inconvenient details you're trying to hide. This disingenuous presentation is the whole reason all these con artists are able to lead you truthers down all these "lasers from outer space", no planes" etc rat holes to begin with.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
How would that sway anyones opinion?

Building 7 is the smoking gun, building 1 and 2, not required.

I notice that everything that happens to be a "smoking gun" spontaneously becomes "not required" whenever it winds up thoroughly debunked and unusable to the truther crowd. It's like what's his name insisting we "need to listen to eyewitnesses" when they say they heard explosions but "eyewitnesses don't matter" when they saw a passenger jet hit the Pentagon or a massive three story tall bulge in the side of WTC 7 from the exterior columns being deformed from the fires.

In case you haven't figured it out...and apparently you haven't...you can't pick and choose what you want to reference like this. Genuine research requires you to take *everything* into account, because if you don't, all your critics need to do to shoot down your claims is to point out the inconvenient details you're trying to hide. This disingenuous presentation is the whole reason all these con artists are able to lead you truthers down all these "lasers from outer space", no planes" etc rat holes to begin with.

"Smoking Gun" is rhetorical bullsh#!

As a kid I was under the impression that SCIENCE was a Truth Movement.

But 9/11 has proven that most of our so called scientists are not up to the task.

Is the conservation of momentum relevant to science like grade school physics? How about Potential Energy?

Not demanding accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers is a travesty of science right there regardless of what actually destroyed them.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
But 9/11 has proven that most of our so called scientists are not up to the task.

Is the conservation of momentum relevant to science like grade school physics? How about Potential Energy?

Not demanding accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers is a travesty of science right there regardless of what actually destroyed them.psik

All right, fair enough. As I said many times already, since you're not getting the investigation you want, it stands to reason you should conduct your own investigation.

You have the blueprints to the building via Richard Gage, you have the chemical composition of the explosives that were used via Steven Jones, and you have 1000+ engineers ready to bring centuries worth of expertise to the table via AE911truth's petition. Stop wasting everyone's time arguing over conservation of motion and go figure out how the demolitions were planted in the building.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
This would never fly in the U.S. for obvious reasons. However, this seems to be one of the larger gatherings for spreading the 911 truth message without getting swiftly arrested or detained.

Yes, this never would fly in the US...namely, the "Occupy" movement was to protest the current crippling economic conditions and the obscenely wealthy 1% that's causing it. It was never meant to be usurped by other political agendas, and the huge rank and file do not support these "9/11 is a false flag operation to take over the world" claims for the simple reason it makes their own serious movement look like a bunch of idiots by association. If the truthers attempted to infiltrate the NYC Occupy gathering in this same way they'd almost certainly be told to hit the road.

If the 9/11 conspiracy people want to wallow in their abject paranoia, that's one thing, but that does NOT give them the right to fling their abject paranoia onto other political movements the same way chimpanzees at the zoo fling their poo around. Their agenda to go out and infiltrate other political movements is de fact evidence that noone is really taking them seriously.

Anyone else think Dave needs a hug? Good job Dave, you have once again added as much to 911 conversations as I have, nothing. And you've managed to accomplish this nothing over countless posts.

Interestingly when I spoke to one of the key people at Occupy London he specifically mentioned 9/11 Truth. He said that if the broad coalition against the current capitalist model didn't win over the hearts and minds of a wide base of the youth then they would be left to "crazies like the 9/11 Truth Movement".

I think it's a valid point. What definitely isn't valid is for the TM to pretend that it is on the side of the Occupy movements while "debunkers" are squarely against it. There's no evidence for that at all.

reply to post by TrickoftheShadeI agree with you, and it's a group I haven't taken seriously enough, the kids that were 5 and 6 yrs. old when it happened, are now young adults. This is possibly our salvation, because american history in the twentieth century showed us how the young feel about the 'establishment'. And because the OS is the ;establishment', the people who work so hard to keep the truth down have a potential sh*t storm of it coming at 'em. Hell hath no fury like a teenager scorned.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by TrickoftheShadeI agree with you, and it's a group I haven't taken seriously enough, the kids that were 5 and 6 yrs. old when it happened, are now young adults. This is possibly our salvation, because american history in the twentieth century showed us how the young feel about the 'establishment'. And because the OS is the ;establishment', the people who work so hard to keep the truth down have a potential sh*t storm of it coming at 'em. Hell hath no fury like a teenager scorned.

 

Well, I think you may be out of luck there. I am not getting the impression that the participants and supporters of the OWS movement are particularly enemies of the government. In fact, I would go so far as to say that they are in fact petitioning the goverment to refress inequities in our culture. They obviously have more faith in the "establishment" than I think you would hope they do. Don't forget its not "Occupy the NIST" its Occupy Wall Street.

reply to post by hooper
Once again you take on the appearance of a fool. You know nothing about what millions of young adults think or feel, but for sure they know what bullsh*t smells like.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by hooper

 

Once again you take on the appearance of a fool. You know nothing about what millions of young adults think or feel, but for sure they know what bullsh*t smells like.

I've been following OWS from its inception. Hooper's right on the mark. Where are you getting your information?

reply to post by Varemia
Where are you getting your information? How do you pretend to know what anybody's motivation is? My point, which is unassailable, is that teenagers know bullsh*t when they see it. That fact, spells trouble for those who are spreading it.

Originally posted by Varemia

I've been following OWS from its inception. Hooper's right on the mark. Where are you getting your information?

Where else? Off of one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites trying to convince truthers the OWS protest is really a 9/11 protest. Of course, nowhere on occupywallst.org nor on any other OWS web site does it mention anything about anything about 9/11 conspiracies, but that's just disinformation from all those secret government agents.

reply to post by dillweed

My point, which is unassailable, is that teenagers know bullsh*t when they see it.

Well, first, the OWS is far, far, far from being a bunch of teenagers. That alone shows that you have no clue about which you speak. I was just a one of the OWS sites in a major eastern city on Monday. Not a bunch of teenagers. Lots in their 20's and 30's, but there are representatives of all age groups. Secondly, teenagers don't know BS when they see it. That's long been a problem. If they did then we wouldn't have such problems with crime and drugs. Third, you better hope I'm right about my second point because thats the only way the "truth movement" is going to get any new adherents. Finally, I know the OWS participants and supporters don't believe in the boogeyman version of government that is required to hold an "inside job" mind frame. They believe, to the contrary, that government has become ineffective due to its elected leaders being prepetually beholden to money interest required to finance election campaigns.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Great you showed a picture of fire, I didn't say there was no fire. I was pointing out that fire MOVES when fuel is used up, and the spot where the fires started was no longer on fire, thus the steel in that area was not hot enough to fail.
No one can stand next to heat that is causing steel to fail.

You need to learn the science of fire before you make wild claims about what it can do.

Why do all always misinterpret my posts?

reply to post by ANOK

That application of energy is controlled, hooper.

And? So what? Does that mean that it no longer is qualified as energy?

Fire is random.

Well, not really. If that were true any house in the world with a fireplace would burn to the ground.

Fire cannot cause connections to instantly fail, all at the same time, causing symmetrical collapse.

So what does that have to do with 9/11? The building collapsed symmetrically because it was constructed symetrically. And all the connections did not need to, nor did they all fail at the same time.

The fires in the towers could not have taken away the resistance of undamaged steel.

Well, actually, the strenght of any section of steel is compromised as soon as it is heated to anything above the neutral temperature. Its just a matter of degree.

The fires were in less than 20% of the building.

Irrelevant.

Room fires do not get hot enough in an hour to weaken steel.

What the hell is a "room fire"? Is that different then say, a outside fire?

Steel only stays hot when the fire is close to it, fire moves as fuel is used up.

Huh? So if I pull a hunk of steel out of a fire and let it go for 10 seconds then you can just pick it up because its only hot when its close to the fire? Fire doesn't "move". It only appears to move relative to its fuel source.

So your point is mute.

Moot. Unless, of course, you mean the point is not capable of speech.

No fire, no hot steel...

You're probably a barrel of laughs around a campfire!

If controlled demolitions were simply an application of energy and gravity, then why does it take so much work to place the explosives in the correct places, and detonate them at precise timings?:

So, if the blasters take long to place the explosives then energy is not involved? What's the time limit?

So in this thread we've learned that everybody at the Occupy events is a teenager, and that they are mainly there because they're pissed off about 9/11.

Riiiiight.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
So in this thread we've learned that everybody at the Occupy events is a teenager, and that they are mainly there because they're pissed off about 9/11.

Riiiiight.

edit on 28-10-2011 by TrickoftheShade because: (no reason given)

Doggone if you haven't gone and figured it out. You're coming along fine.