Why are you so goddamn fucking ignorant and stupid? Why?

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1Aindex.htm

Go read that and fucking shut your mouth you dumb fucking moron.

Every post you faggots make is full of bs and made up shit and other crap. It's so fucking pathetic.

253 posts

So your theory is that the fire department was in on it and they work for Silverstein answering to his every whim? You're ridiculous.

Ok, well let's use the fascinating science of "common sense" to analyze how a building would fall down.

let's look at the forces at play in the system.. we have a building with lots of mass. We have the force of gravity acting with constant force in the direction of towards the centre of the earth (ie straight down). We have some wind forces acting on the building as well.

So there is basically 2 possibilities - the building, due to loss of structural integrity, succumbs to the force of gravity and falls - wait for it - straight down, or it get's blown over by a gust of wind.

Please, tell me how a building would NOT fall straight down. Then explain specifically how the twin towers "should" have fallen, given you believe it was a controlled demolition.

In order to calculate this you have to identify t0 (the moment the building began to fall) and t1 (the moment when the building stopped falling). This is impossible, or at best horribly inaccurate because

a) no building falls as one solid mass - perhaps internal structures like floor beams (that cannot be scene in the video unless you have superman x-ray eyes) began to fall before the exterior skin of the building. How do you identify t0 accurately?

b) you cannot identify when the building "stops" falling, due to the debris cloud that is about 200-300 feet in radius.

I welcome any possible rational response. Unfortunately, there isn't one - the best any looney-bin 9/11 "truther" can come up with is postdictive speculation, pseudo-science, fallacy, lies, deflection, etc.

In this case, please select the appropriate 9/11 truther response:

"Yeah well, what about the pentagon? huh? what about that?"
"yeah well look at this pic of molten steel"
"yeah well steel doesnt MELT at the temperature of jet fuel, so there!"
"oh yeah well look at these puffs of smoke - see! that's explosives!"
"ya look at this video of thermite burning.. then look at this video - look it's thermite!"
"ya well, none of this explains building 7?? ha HA! building seven.. explain that one then smart guy"

Type 'wtc flashes' in the search toolbar on youtube - watch the first video - you can clearly see 'flashes' going off as the building falls

not enough damage to bring the entire building straight down into it's own footprint at free fall speed.

here's what he said:

when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

The insurmountable problem with this explanation of Silverstein's statement is that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7.

dispite everything that happened that day, the collpase of WTC 7 is clear evidence that it was planned.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Dude piss off already...

Youre sick in your head. Go away.

How do you know that? Are you an expert who studied this stuff? Seriously, how do you know. I'm very interested.

you can tell when someone is losing an argument...they start resorting to name calling an insults to try and discredit evidence.

NEW* ANGLE OF WTC TOWER FLASHES
https://youtube.com/watch?v=fa61Q3g4rbM

debunk that fuck face

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

You don't have any evidence, that's why we're calling you an idiot.

You didnt even look at this link did you? You dont want to know it exists. It explains why the tower came down but you dont want to hear it.

sad...

yup, clearly fire damage!

hehehe piss poor you lot can't debate this, fires bringing down skyscraper buildings hahahaha

In which case, the bldg would have weakened on the south side causing it to topple toward the weakest wall.. But.. it fell straight down..
Why would the north wall fall at the same rate, and straight down..

When you have a weak wall that collapses, all other walls are pulled in the direction of that wall.. or in some cases, will not fall at all.. such as with the Oklahoma City Bombing (pic)..

It's sad that a lot of people online who try to push the conspiracy are fucking retards because then the skeptics automatically assume that they are correct simply because they happen to be debating idiots who don't know their asshole from a hole in the ground.

Most of you just seem to have the problem of thinking authority is synonymous with credibility. You believe anything as long as it comes from either someone in "power" or someone with "authority," as if people with power would never mislead you. The only information you deem legitimate is the information that is perceived to be "official."

Dirty Franck, you seem to be the king skeptic and question asker, so I would like to ask you a question. Why is John Farmer, ex Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, coming out with a new book titled The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America?s Defense on 9/11 where he says "the public had been seriously misled about what occurred during the morning of the attacks," and "at some level of the government, at some point in time? there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.?

So my question to you, is why? Why would John Farmer do this? He was on the goddamn 9/11 commission itself, the "official" government commission. Do you really just think it's a coincidence that someone who had inside knowledge is now coming out with statements like these? Or are you going to make the even more giant leap of calling him a crazy kook? Attorney General of New Jersey, a federal prosecutor, and Senior Counsel to the 9/11 commission... yea must be a pretty big wack-job, right?

Slapped this on DC. Not getting into this gfy debate. I never thought that airplane collisions caused the collapses. :2 cents:

That's a bullshit remark that people like you have to fall back on in a pinch and its how you rationalize and validate your own irrational paranoia.

Who the fuck says everything is perfect? Government is always right? Government doesn't lie to people? Who says "you should believe everything they say" or "you should believe everything in the media"?

Answer... no one.

Not one single person. "The Official Version" has nothing to do with absurd, irrational and impossible conspiracy theories that only a borderline retard could latch on to and run with.

It's one thing to have a question or two or to disagree with some aspect of whats generally accepted... its another thing entirely to construct a wildly impossible scenario, based on impossible facts and poorly reasoned arguments, to summarily dismiss anything that contradicts your firm CONCLUSION while demanding others "see it your way" and if they don't, they're just "sheep, brainwashed by the media" because you know your arguments fall apart otherwise.

so basically, you are telling us in one breath that government can't be trusted. and in another breath you are telling us that if you dismiss the views of someone in that SAME government that YOU AGREE WITH... that its a "giant leap" .

right?

really?

i mean... i'm reading this correctly right?

lunatic much?

Naturally, since you have been lied to about reality your entire life, any truthful revelations contradicting your false worldview may indeed appear to be far-fetched. But, to make things even worse, human beings are stubborn creatures who let their egos override everything else: Instead of learning about new information that does not fit within your current worldview, you would rather exercise your ego by letting others know what is and is not possible, merely based upon your personal knowledge and feeble understanding of what actually exists.

As a matter of fact, human beings are actually pompous enough to think that their status quo worldview is more rational than the truth. They neglect to factor the concept of intentional deception into their logical thought process, and thus fail to realize that the only reason why their worldview seems "rational" is because it is actually composed of a plethora of lies and distortions. So, in one of the greatest ironies ever, human beings think the lies that they are fed are reality, and that the truth, on the other hand, is crazy, unrealistic, and bizarre.

Official doctrines, by definition, do not incriminate the officials who created them. If official doctrines did incriminate the officials who created them, then the officials would be looked down upon by the public, and therefore they and their doctrines would no longer be considered official. This is simple logic.

So, as you can see, official doctrines are by no means synonymous with the truth. Rather, official doctrines are simply doctrines that were designed to keep in power the very officials who created them.

Furthermore, the word "official" should not be associated with the word "rational." Science is indeed an official government doctrine, yet it is not completely rational. The scientific community, in a bizarre and irrational manner, completely blows off the concept of government secrets. Science, by design and necessity, always downplays the significance of the government's power.

Science must downplay the significance of the government's power because it is of the utmost importance that the ignorant followers of science who are not "in the know," such as the common atheist, only think within the framework of status quo reality. If science did not downplay the significance of the government's power, then people would quickly realize that science is bullshit and that the status quo conception of reality is also bullshit. In other words, if people knew what really goes on behind the scenes, then they would quickly realize that science is just another form of control, courtesy of the ruling elite.

That's not what I said at all, you're just twisting it around to sound how you want it to.

I was simply making the case that John Farmer is most likely not a psychopathic nut-job, as most people who say things about 9/11 like him are labeled, because his credentials are impressive and he is obviously an educated man. Sure, he could be lying to make a profit or something along those lines, but my point is that's probably not the case. He is probably actually a good man (yes, there are a few here and there in the government) who wants to do the right thing and tell the truth.

so let me get this straight... everyone who doesn't see things exactly like you do and share your world view, has a problem. and you... you're the enlightened one. i have a "false world view" and you do not... yet we are both exposed to that same "reality" (whatever you seem to think that is). you're not arrogant or misguided or even sick. you, just like a hahahahahahahahaha tracker... "just know".

uhmm... ok.

haha

BTW... i don't dispute for a second that a lot of crazy shit happened that day that was misreported or that facts were altered.

i don't doubt for a second that WTC was intentionally destroyed. I would expect it to be ... being that it housed a lot of sensitive shit, including CIA offices.

you're saying (again)... wrongly that i agree with everything the government said 100%... yet you have ZERO basis for such a position other than you feel it bolsters your own position. you are fabricating the facts... just as you fabricate conspiracy theories.

what i believe or don't believe has zero to with wildly impossible theories which are more full of holes than any official explanation.

ok, none of us are engineers so lets put it in our terms.

have you ever seen those fake huge cock vidoes with the ridiculous cum shots? you know, the Freaks of Cock ones like this:

http://galleries.freaksofcock.com/vb...lane/vid03.mpg

what if the producer was trying to convince everyone that they are real cocks with real cumshots? would you believe him? what if the guy who was wearing the fake cock swore up and down it was real.

would you believe it? well, believe it or not alot of people believe those are real but we know better don't we!

now imagine a structual engineer watching those videos of the buildings collapsing. don't you think they would know the difference between a structual failure and a demolition?

really? you honestly have no concept of "fantasy" and that users understand its fantasy? you think people are sitting around waiting for a hot chick to deliver a pizza and drop to her knees and blow him?


which engineers?

the ones you agree with? or the ones you disagree with?

i presume you are telling everyone to only listen to the opinions of those "structural engineers" you happen to agree with?

if you watch these vids over and over... its clear

demolition

be it nano-thermite, whatever

look at all the videos on youtube of steel buildings that burned for 15 hours or more that DID NOT collapse...

then WTC

its pretty obvious, be it US GOV or not... it was an inside job.

read the post carefully pleasuregays. sound it out if you have to...

You don't have to be a genius to see that most people on this forum are average joe-six-pack idiots who don't know shit about shit. While some are more educated than others, it is still a waste of time discussing things like this on here.

At least, if nothing else, a lot more people here know that some Danish chemist found nano-thermite in the WTC dust... lol... because it's not like they would have visited a website where important information like that is reported on their own.

I'm out, have fun arguing with idiots. Oh, but I would like to eventually see what Franck has to say about John Farmer's new book.

Just stop arguing with the idiots. If they were capable of learning we'd never be having this discussion.

you mean the book from the government guy who you don't not believe in? from the commission that can't be trusted... i mean the government you do believe in? i mean the government you say you don't believe in ... until you agree with them, then its ok.. its just those you don't agree with that are wrong?

your position is quite confusing

There's two things in this world I can't stand.
People who are intollerant of other cultures and the Dutch

I would've thought that wine with bottle caps would be on that list.

Seems Silverstein did ....

oh well, just skip over it ... np at all ... :1orglaugh

O'Bummers doing a really great job passing 20 acts on ya freedom - way to go O'Bummer owned by Wall Street,hes really scammed the black people into voting him in. We know hes controlled by the ILLUMINATI.

Get serious. Silverstein did in fact use the word "pull" but nobody other than Internet nut jobs have ever said they were talking about demolition.

The fire chief said they were talking about pulling back the fire crews. Silverstein clarified that was also what he was talking about. So the comment earlier that I was responding to about the fire chief admiting they "Pulled" the building and being called fact stands.

One word, this is over one word. Logically, it doesn't even make any sense that the Fire Chief was involved in any conspiracy. I mean, why did he send all those firemen to their deaths in the twin towers? Why would he answer to Silverstein who could then make the decision to demolish the building with explosives? It just doesn't make any sense and surely even you can see that.

for those of you who believe the towers were attacked by Al-Qaida, what was the motivation for the attack?

so now you're speaking for him and know what he meant? of course he's going to say he meant pull the fire crews out, especially when no firefighters were in the building in the first place. you saw the video of the building coming down, it was completely engulfed in flames.

dont ruin your credibility by denying you made a mistake, you said no one said pull and someone did say pull (you even said pull the building in any fashion, so now that you're saying it has nothing to do with demolition doesn't matter, you said never in any fashion)

The word terrorism comes to mind. It's what they like to do.

I'm not denying I made a mistake. Had I made one I would admit it.

Look, I posted the chief's exact statement here so I know exactly what they said. The original comment was it's fact that the fire chief was talking about "pulling" the building, when in fact the fire chief himself says they were talking about pulling back from the building.

This whole thing about "pull" is among the more stupid "evidence" you ding bats constantly bring up.

Fire chiefs are not building demolition experts nor is Silverstein. It's just stupid you guys hang on one word that's been clarified from the source over and over again all the while ignorning the mountains of evidence against. For example, why would the fire chief be involved in a covert demolition? Why would he be reporting to Silverstein? It makes no sense what so ever. A single word, that you've put in to an entirely different context is not evidence of any sort I'm afraid.

Seriously it takes A LOT of planning and expertise for demolition experts to get a building to fall straight down. Even after all that planning and expertise it often doesn't work out that well.

The idiots are the ones who are ignorant and closed minded. What happens if it does come out that it was a massive conspiracy?

Who's dick are you going to suck?

You really never know.



Alfred P Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma didn't fall straight down. It didn't even fall and It had the entire side blown off.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...-fema-1562.jpg

Flawless logic right up until the point when you started comparing buildings of completely different designs.

government fucks us, life as normal

???????

:error:1orglaugh

You know damn well what I meant. We're pretty full up on idiots in this thread so you can go apply your proofreading skills elsewhere.