FIVE QUESTIONS: The Twin Towers and a Controlled Demonlition: HOW?

Originally posted by dillweed

Originally posted by RightWingAvenger
reply to post by lunarasparagus

 

The jet fuel magically seeped it's way into the entire steel structure and a single spark caused it to explode thus taking the entire building with it. Oh and let's not forget those pesky box cutters...without them the entire cabin of the plane would have been able to defend themselves.

Two of the 'cornerstones' of the Official Story.

If you read above, I have basically summed up the actual points about the official story. I don't even believe all of it, personally, but I hate seeing people get this stuff wrong all the time. If you're going to fight something, at least know what you're fighting.

Originally posted by dillweed
You forgot to add the one line that would qualify your wordy response. "In my opinion".

That is a phrase left unsaid in all the truther conspiracy theories. It seems to be omitted in such tried and true boilerplate like "it didn't look right", "it didn't feel right," "buildings don't fall that way," "it was obviously a demolition," and the capper " ______ violates the laws of physics!" This last is invariably spewed by those whose knowledge of the laws of physics is based on old Star Trek reruns.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by dillweed
You forgot to add the one line that would qualify your wordy response. "In my opinion".

That is a phrase left unsaid in all the truther conspiracy theories. It seems to be omitted in such tried and true boilerplate like "it didn't look right", "it didn't feel right," "buildings don't fall that way," "it was obviously a demolition," and the capper " ______ violates the laws of physics!" This last is invariably spewed by those whose knowledge of the laws of physics is based on old Star Trek reruns.

IMHO, the so called laws of physics are a veil.
They merely conform to the here and now moment, relative to the surface area of this planet.
But You see, I am,
Gravitor

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by septic
Verification that the victims ever existed. This has already been started and dozens of false victims, not to mention false corporations have been discovered.

Well, I know that there is a list of names somewhere, so if you look it up, you could try contacting the victims' families, though I doubt they would appreciate you telling them that their family member was made up. It would require a little bit of work, but since you're so dedicated to truth, it should be no hassle for you at all.

I have never said such a thing. Please stop misrepresenting me.

This from the other thread:

I've met about 7 people so far, but each one turned out to be a liar. What would convince me would be someone making a claim that matched the forensic evidence of the damage, not to mention claiming to have witnessed something physically possible.

...

I wrote everyone I've met who has claimed to have seen a plane has been exposed as a liar.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You never really elaborated on how they were exposed as liars. You just said that they were. Thus, you left me plenty of room to assume that you assumed they were liars based on your beliefs.

Stop misrepresenting everything I say.

You:

You've already stated that witnesses are all liars in another thread.

I was referring to the SEVEN witnesses I have met, yet you said I stated that "witnesses are all liars".

See the difference?

Yeah, I didn't elaborate as to how I proved they were lying. So?

Originally posted by gravitor
IMHO, the so called laws of physics are a veil.
They merely conform to the here and now moment, relative to the surface area of this planet.
But You see, I am,
Gravitor

To the best of my knowledge, the laws of physics are always applicable in any observable moment. The problem I have seen is that people like to use the word physics and the word impossible and then assume they are correct. Until a physical experiment is done proving that it can't happen, then it probably did, especially since mathematicians and engineers have crunched the numbers quite a few times, and it all seems to work out. I've seen people here like to ignore math and engineers who don't agree with them. Instead, I see A&E for 9/11 Truth being toted, who last I checked still think that the dust cloud was pyroclastic, even though it didn't burn people, or paper, or anything really. It just caused lung issues and cancer because of it being thick dust and partially Asbestos.

Originally posted by septic
I was referring to the SEVEN witnesses I have met, yet you said I stated that "witnesses are all liars".

See the difference?

Yeah, I didn't elaborate as to how I proved they were lying. So?

Would you mind elaborating then? You're leaving way too much up for imagination. At least give a brief explanation of how you know they were lying. Did they say they were, or did you deduce it through some means?

Originally posted by gravitor
IMHO, the so called laws of physics are a veil.
They merely conform to the here and now moment, relative to the surface area of this planet.
But You see, I am,
Gravitor

In not speaking with your arch-enemy, Astronomitor, you may have missed that physics applies to a bit more than the surface of the planet. Ask Spectroscopitor about emission and absorption lines, while you are at it, and you may discover wonderous things before you become a Skeletor.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

What about all the people who claim to have been working there before? Who went to work that day?

Know any? I have dozens of pictures of myself in my office setting. It shouldn't be difficult to point to thousands of images from people who proudly worked in the Twin Towers.

I even have family members who claim to know people who died, but even they buckle under examination. It's all hearsay, nothing more.

If they were faking a terrorist attack on an empty building, doncha think people might not be quite as outraged as if they thought thousands had died?

If you were recruiting actors for such a scam, would it be easier if they thought no one would be killed, or would it be easier to recruit them if they thought thousands of innocents would be killed?

You think they are all fake? You think that the government or whoever pulled this off is powerful enough to pretend that an enormous - a truly vast - office complex in one of the world's major cities was buzzing with people when really it was empty?

I don't just think as much, the evidence leads to that conclusion. Propaganda is ALL they have.

There are so many ludicrous notions contained in that. But what about the thousands of actors who would be reuired to make the buildings look lived in? They're all still lying, aren't they? Thousands of lies.

The buildings were sitting atop a mall and PATH entrance. The traffic from the tubes and the shops would give the WTC concourse the look of being a bustling metropolis. Lights in the towers would be the only thing needed to give the impression they were occupied.

Once again, I suggest you read:

False Fronts For A False Flag

reply to post by Varemia

Would you mind elaborating then? You're leaving way too much up for imagination. At least give a brief explanation of how you know they were lying. Did they say they were, or did you deduce it through some means?

None of their stories were consistent. Some described jetsam and body parts, yet couldn't say where they were when shown a map. Most refused to even attempt to prove their stories, they simply expected to be taken at face value, and none would provide details. Most of the stories could be boiled down to repeating factoids found in the public domain. None could provide details that weren't found in the public domain. Some described seeing a jet, but finally admitted they saw it on TV. A friend of the family has a cousin who allegedly died in the towers but can't provide a name or a company she worked for. That sort of thing. They all have claims they can't back up.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by gravitor
IMHO, the so called laws of physics are a veil.
They merely conform to the here and now moment, relative to the surface area of this planet.
But You see, I am,
Gravitor

To the best of my knowledge, the laws of physics are always applicable in any observable moment. The problem I have seen is that people like to use the word physics and the word impossible and then assume they are correct. Until a physical experiment is done proving that it can't happen, then it probably did, especially since mathematicians and engineers have crunched the numbers quite a few times, and it all seems to work out. I've seen people here like to ignore math and engineers who don't agree with them. Instead, I see A&E for 9/11 Truth being toted, who last I checked still think that the dust cloud was pyroclastic, even though it didn't burn people, or paper, or anything really. It just caused lung issues and cancer because of it being thick dust and partially Asbestos.

You couldn't know if the so called laws of physics are applicable at all, You just assume that they do because You have been TOLD they do, and Your a believer.
There is no speed of light, or any force called gravity.
there are consequences relative to the surface area of this planet called the speed of light and gravity, but they are part of the veil that is in place and stopping You from been able to comprehend how matter and mass are created and annihilated, as they were in New York sept 11th 2001
The DUST was a result of the transmutation of mass by very powerfull magnetic resonance flows.
The flows always seek the path of least resistance, and the bathtub sat on the bedrock provided that pathway up from the earth.
The break at where the drones were targetted at was to enable some debris to be visable, otherwise it would have been almost totally annihilated by transmutation.

gravitor

Originally posted by RightWingAvenger

Oh and let's not forget those pesky box cutters...without them the entire cabin of the plane would have been able to defend themselves.

Of course on seeing a stewardess murdered in front of you and having been informed of the bomb on board you would have leapt into action, beaten those dastardly ragheads single handed and then probably landed the plane?

Assuming of course you were in first class. In the back you would have just heard about the bomb. But of course unlike the other passengers you would have ignored the precedent of almost every single hijack up to that date, worked out what the terrorists' plan was, and rushed them.

You must be incredibly brave and clever.

reply to post by septic

Know any?

Yep.

I have dozens of pictures of myself in my office setting. It shouldn't be difficult to point to thousands of images from people who proudly worked in the Twin Towers.

Prove it. Post your photos. Prove that they're not fake.

I even have family members who claim to know people who died, but even they buckle under examination. It's all hearsay, nothing more.

Prove it.

If they were faking a terrorist attack on an empty building, doncha think people might not be quite as outraged as if they thought thousands had died?

No, why?

If you were recruiting actors for such a scam, would it be easier if they thought no one would be killed, or would it be easier to recruit them if they thought thousands of innocents would be killed?

Either way its a bunch of crap. Thousands of recruited actors are not going to keep quiet for decades. This is nonsensical.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia

 

Would you mind elaborating then? You're leaving way too much up for imagination. At least give a brief explanation of how you know they were lying. Did they say they were, or did you deduce it through some means?

None of their stories were consistent. Some described jetsam and body parts, yet couldn't say where they were when shown a map. Most refused to even attempt to prove their stories, they simply expected to be taken at face value, and none would provide details. Most of the stories could be boiled down to repeating factoids found in the public domain. None could provide details that weren't found in the public domain. Some described seeing a jet, but finally admitted they saw it on TV. A friend of the family has a cousin who allegedly died in the towers but can't provide a name or a company she worked for. That sort of thing. They all have claims they can't back up.

I probably couldn't point out on a map where I stumbled across a rock on my way home, especially if you ask me 5-10 years later. I can see the plane-on-TV thing easily, but for people who were actually there, it's a little more believable.

See, the crappy thing right now is that it has been so long that there are no longer fresh memories. You're going to find holes in anything. Just try to remember any moment 10 years ago. Muster up as much detail as you can, and I bet you you'll be messing up your memory. That's actually why I keep a diary, because I know that memory is fallible. However, this does not support your conclusion any more than it supports mine. Your claim has thus far remained unproven.

reply to post by gravitor

There is no speed of light, or any force called gravity.

Well, that clears things right up, doesn't it?

Stupid physicists, making up lies like that!

Originally posted by gravitor
You couldn't know if the so called laws of physics are applicable at all, You just assume that they do because You have been TOLD they do, and Your a believer.

You're assuming again. I know most of the laws of physics are applicable because I've tested them myself and seen the experiments done. I've spent a lot of time watching high-speed cameras record things in slow motion to see how energy propagates through mass and liquid. It's not just because I was told. I was taught, and then I verified what I was taught through experience.

There is no speed of light, or any force called gravity.

I'm kind of with you there, but only because I'm a theorist myself. I don't believe that there is a speed of light (edit: limit of the speed of light, I mean), though with higher speed comes gravitational distortion, and one must dissipate this distortion before being able to travel faster than light.

there are consequences relative to the surface area of this planet called the speed of light and gravity, but they are part of the veil that is in place and stopping You from been able to comprehend how matter and mass are created and annihilated, as they were in New York sept 11th 2001
The DUST was a result of the transmutation of mass by very powerfull magnetic resonance flows.
The flows always seek the path of least resistance, and the bathtub sat on the bedrock provided that pathway up from the earth.
The break at where the drones were targetted at was to enable some debris to be visable, otherwise it would have been almost totally annihilated by transmutation.

Matter is not created or destroyed, only converted. This has been proven. The dust is from fireproofing, gypsum drywall, and sheetrock. Just look at any normal demolition that does not use dust suppression. The cloud is always massive and looks just like 9/11's.

I don't even know how you're making up some of this stuff. It sounds like you've been reading a lot of science fiction novels.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by gravitor

 

There is no speed of light, or any force called gravity.

Well, that clears things right up, doesn't it?

Stupid physicists, making up lies like that!

I didn't use the word,,,"lies"
YOU did.
Don't ascribe false terms to my posts.
gravitor

reply to post by hooper


Aw. I guess you'd make number 8.

reply to post by Varemia


I can remember traumatic events from 40 years ago like they happened yesterday. I could point on a map where I hit a tree skiing, where I almost drowned, thrice, and exactly where I was when I first heard about 911.

There were no eye-witnesses to steel-slicing planes.

Originally posted by gravitor

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by gravitor

 

There is no speed of light, or any force called gravity.

Well, that clears things right up, doesn't it?

Stupid physicists, making up lies like that!

I didn't use the word,,,"lies"
YOU did.
Don't ascribe false terms to my posts.
gravitor

You are quite correct, your quote does not contain the word lies.

However, by stating that the is no speed of light or any force called gravity.... You are either inferring that physicists are stupid, or liars. You pick, then we will know your take on it.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia

 

I can remember traumatic events from 40 years ago like they happened yesterday. I could point on a map where I hit a tree skiing, where I almost drowned, thrice, and exactly where I was when I first heard about 911.

There were no eye-witnesses to steel-slicing planes.

I also can remember events from 40+ years ago. I can tell you about Sputnik, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Kennedy Assassination. I remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident because it really affected my life several years later and provided me with more traumatic events that I can remember but really don't care to.

Not everyone in NYC was hypnotized or part of the plot.
The buildings were populated with people who worked at offices in the buildings.
FDNY firemen died trying to save people.

Your theory is completely bankrupt. Your knowledge of physics is miniscule as is your knowledge of the capabilities and behavior of cruise missiles.
There were no eyewitnesses to, videos of, or physical evidence of any projectiles striking the WTC on 911 other than two passenger planes.