A conversation about 9/11 between myself and a friend of mine on Facebook.

[jcannon98188]

Still waiting to hear how fire took down building 7. I don't know if it was a government false-flag, but they are def. lying about what really happened.

 

[QuickZ06]

That said - I think "truthers" just want to think they're smarter than everyone else.

Maybe they just want the truth, hence the name.........................

Man you shouldn't post someone's picture on a forum unless you have permission. Just bad ethics IMO.

I bet he pulled it from facebook and like most people, her FB is probably not even private. Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids.

 

[QuickZ06]

Professor8000, nice score on the liberty girl.

 

[mz10]

Because what you don't understand is Government got bigger because of 9/11.

If I didn't understand that do you really think I'd be on this forum? I just don't like that this whole 9-11 Truth thing becomes such a red herring. All the energy you are spending trying to show people how "stupid" they are for not thinking the government massacred its own people, could easily be spent campaigning for liberty candidates who want to repeal the government overreaches that you are talking about.

 

[Professor8000]

I can copy and paste wikipedia crap all day.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

"Able to withstand an airplane crash" sounds like one of those sales "gimmicks" to me. Way to many variables.

Have you ever seen what it looks like when a building falls and not all of the supports are cut at the same time? In case you haven't...


That's not exactly free fall speeds there. Tell me, how do you come up with free fall speeds if the damage is just in one tiny area in the building?

 

[donnay]

If I didn't understand that do you really think I'd be on this forum? I just don't like that this whole 9-11 Truth thing becomes such a red herring. All the energy you are spending trying to show people how "stupid" they are for not thinking the government massacred its own people, could easily be spent campaigning for liberty candidates who want to repeal the government overreaches that you are talking about.

I do not argue and call people stupid. You just assume that people who are awake call people who are being deliberately dumb downed and in denial-- stupid.

If government is big enough to cover-up false flag operations, then they are big enough to rig elections. You have to step out of the box and understand these people in power do not play by the rules. We have witnessed this by the way the establishment treated Dr. Paul in 2008 and 2012. Or did you miss that part?

 

[Kodaddy]

Seeing her picture, I'm inclined to agree with almost anything she says...



Just saying'...

 

[Kodaddy]

That said...
I don't have to believe Bush had to have any knowledge of an operation such as this. There are people in high level positions that have even in their positions for decades. Some 8yr newbie only has to know as much as he needs to know (although Bush was in office less than a year).
Do I believe our government would be complicit in such an atrocity? I'm not sure, but we did drop 2 atomic bombs on innocent civilians. I'm also not sure what I would put past money and power hungry sociopaths...


Just sayin'

 

[Kodaddy]

been*, not even

 

[Professor8000]

been*, not even

You can always edit your posts...

 

[Carehn]

Actually I take back what I said. If I believed the U.S. government killed 3,000 of its own people, I would leave this country immediately and never return. That would put Bush in a league with some of the worst military dictators ever on this planet (and as much as I despise Bush, he is not Josef Stalin or Omar al-Bashir).

No where to run. All you have left is your voice.

 

[fr33]

Have you ever seen what it looks like when a building falls and not all of the supports are cut at the same time? In case you haven't...


That's not exactly free fall speeds there. Tell me, how do you come up with free fall speeds if the damage is just in one tiny area in the building?

Judging by the windows and the appearance of the structure, it's not even comparable to the WTC. It's tiny and appears to have some central tower structure or something. It does not appear to be an office building. It appears to be industrial.

 

[QuickZ06]

I do not argue and call people stupid. You just assume that people who are awake call people who are being deliberately dumb downed and in denial-- stupid.

If government is big enough to cover-up false flag operations, then they are big enough to rig elections. You have to step out of the box and understand these people in power do not play by the rules. We have witnessed this by the way the establishment treated Dr. Paul in 2008 and 2012. Or did you miss that part?

Guess he also missed the part about FDR hiding what Stalin did that was posted a few days ago. But I guess it was just someone trying to tell people how stupid they were in that article.........

 

[QuickZ06]

No where to run. All you have left is your voice.

Exactly, globalists are just that, GLOBAL.

 

[Professor8000]

Judging by the windows and the appearance of the structure, it's not even comparable to the WTC. It's tiny and appears to have some central tower structure or something. It does not appear to be an office building. It appears to be industrial.

You completely miss the point. The video is to show what happens when all support beams are not cut at the same time. Part will fall, but the intact beams will provide resistance to the collapse. If there is enough force to buckle the structure at it's next weakest point, the building will slow and even change direction as new variables come into play. As the building falls some more it will come across the next part of the structure that hasn't collapsed, If there is enough force to buckle the support beams, the process will repeat itself and repeat itself until the structure comes to a rest. This is the huge gaping hole in the NIST report that doesn't account for the free fall speeds that the building came down at.

 

[fr33]

You completely miss the point. The video is to show what happens when all support beams are not cut at the same time. Part will fall, but the intact beams will provide resistance to the collapse. If there is enough force to buckle the structure at it's next weakest point, the building will slow and even change direction as new variables come into play. As the building falls some more it will come across the next part of the structure that hasn't collapsed, If there is enough force to buckle the support beams, the process will repeat itself and repeat itself until the structure comes to a rest. This is the huge gaping hole in the NIST report that doesn't account for the free fall speeds that the building came down at.

That video didn't prove anything of what you are claiming. This is the problem with truthers. They overreach. That structure and WTC are apples vs oranges architecturally.

And to say impact has no effect is to say tornadoes cause no damage.

 

[fr33]

Stick to building 7. It's your best argument and I cannot rationally explain it.

 

[PierzStyx]

That was one of the greatest counters I've ever seen. Even those who disagree (not that I do) have to give you props for that.

Agreed. I'm not entirely sold on 9/11 being an inside job. I feel more like it was something the government allowed to happen so they could use it as an excuse to do exactly what they did. That said, he totally just punched her directly in the ovaries, metaphorically of course, and left her writhing on the ground clutching her uterus in defeat.

 

[Professor8000]

That video didn't prove anything of what you are claiming. This is the problem with truthers. They overreach. That structure and WTC are apples vs oranges architecturally.

And to say impact has no effect is to say tornadoes cause no damage.

Obviously I did not adequately explain my use of that video. It was to show that uncompromised support beams will give resistance to the momentum of the falling structure upon impact. Should one of the uncompromised parts buckle, something not shown in the video, the energy that is required to buckle the structure comes from the momentum of the falling structure resulting in a loss of momentum. Because no two beams are exactly the same and the forces exerted on them are not exactly the same at each point in time, it is impossible for them to buckle uniformly during a collapse unless they are cut on every level at the same time. This also means that unless controlled, it is astronomically unlikely that the building will fall straight down. The point I am attacking is the fact that the buildings collapsed at free fall speeds, directly into their own footprint, meaning that there was no resistance given by the uncompromised lower floors. It is a precise science to get a building to do this under controlled conditions.

 

[acptulsa]

Motivation makes a big difference to people--maybe bigger than it should, especially since people lack imagination when it comes to motivation. But this can be advantageous. I find it does get through to some people to point out that the fishiest collapse of 9/11/01 and the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City had something in common: Both were repositories of federal trial evidence.

Somehow just bringing the mafia into the picture seems to make people change their minds about what's impossible and what isn't. Both in terms of the scope of a conspiracy and the ruthlessness of it.