Governments 9/11 story Crazy

[Dexter Sinister]

The buildings didn't fall at free fall speed. Watch the videos closely, you can see things in free fall at the edges of the debris cloud at the point of failure accelerating away from it. In the final stage of the collapse, the debris cloud was about 40 stories high. It's impossible to determine the moment when the collapse finished, it wasn't visible. Any argument based on a measured collapse time specified to a tenth or a hundredth of a second is pure invention.

Read the material here.

 

[flipside]

The buildings didn't fall at free fall speed. Watch the videos closely, you can see things in free fall at the edges of the debris cloud at the point of failure accelerating away from it. In the final stage of the collapse, the debris cloud was about 40 stories high. It's impossible to determine the moment when the collapse finished, it wasn't visible. Any argument based on a measured collapse time specified to a tenth or a hundredth of a second is pure invention.

Read the material here.

I've seen the debunking site before and will read through it again to see if I can find any new info..

Even if they fell at 20 seconds and it sill doesn't add up? Once again if one building fell a little differently than the othersI might be more easily persuaded.

As of now I believe its either explosives or the buildings were designed to collapse in this manner..

I'll get back after the debunking...

 

[I think not]

Your links are wrong 95% of the time, they only cover selected conpsiracy theories questions, to prove they are right, withouth covering all the aspects,, and they don't cover 20% of what i asked, plus you dont even bother try to understand by yourself, you let other biased web site-mass media do it for you, come on get real please.

8O

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Bwahahahaha!

 

[flipside]

The buildings didn't fall at free fall speed. Watch the videos closely, you can see things in free fall at the edges of the debris cloud at the point of failure accelerating away from it. In the final stage of the collapse, the debris cloud was about 40 stories high. It's impossible to determine the moment when the collapse finished, it wasn't visible. Any argument based on a measured collapse time specified to a tenth or a hundredth of a second is pure invention.

Read the material here.

Your link does debunk some of the conspiracy theories but only those I had already suspected. It in no way discredits any of the evidence I feel is legit.
Do you have any other "debunking" sites?

I'll have to read more debunking attepts later.. getting cross eyed here

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Your links are wrong 95% of the time, they only cover selected conpsiracy theories questions, to prove they are right, withouth covering all the aspects,, and they don't cover 20% of what i asked, plus you dont even bother try to understand by yourself, you let other biased web site-mass media do it for you, come on get real please.

Oh, what a devastating argument: made-up numbers and a cheap shot. The web site I linked to a few posts ago quite credibly and reasonably answers every question on 9/11 I've ever seen you raise.

Making the same provably false statements over and over doesn't count as a reasoned argument.

 

[Logic 7]

The buildings didn't fall at free fall speed. Watch the videos closely, you can see things in free fall at the edges of the debris cloud at the point of failure accelerating away from it. In the final stage of the collapse, the debris cloud was about 40 stories high. It's impossible to determine the moment when the collapse finished, it wasn't visible. Any argument based on a measured collapse time specified to a tenth or a hundredth of a second is pure invention.

Read the material here.

Nice web site, i can see you are the kind of person, who doesnt dig very far, here is a big lie, in your website, and you will realize how retarded they are.Here is a quote from sylvertein, taken from your web site, and lets have a hard laugh.

Silverstein's Quote:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

As you can see, nothing seems wrong, when in fact this just never happened, you know why?


BECAUSE ACCORDING TO 9-11 REPORT AND NIST REPORT, THERE WAS NO ONE IN THE BUILDING SINCE 11H30 IN THE MORNING, so it kills their entire argument about building 7.


And you know what? they just keep going, because they know people who will believe them(like you) will not dig very far, they even put transcript from 9-11,however the transcript was only uploaded to the New York times in the year of 2005 to prove that pull it meant something else, pretty pathetic and retarded from them, if you ask me, you know the worst ,tons of peoples like you believe them,incredible isnt? here is the text

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt


Now here is what "pull" means , very well describes in the same PBS documentary where sylverstein admit to have destroyed building 7.

pull definition




I just killed the credibility of your link, in less than a minute.



The very worst aspect on your link, is ... they don't even tell who they are, in fact who the hell they are?

 

[Niflmir]

Time for a cartoon interlude:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

BECAUSE ACCORDING TO 9-11 REPORT AND NIST REPORT, THERE WAS NO ONE IN THE BUILDING SINCE 11H30 IN THE MORNING, so it kills their entire argument about building 7.

Nice job of cherry picking. The quote you picked is followed immediately by more detailed explanations. Interesting too that you'll believe those reports when it suits your deluded perception of events and otherwise claim both are fraudulent and wrong in many details. I'm through talking with you about this, you're not well-informed enough and can't think well enough to make it interesting.

 

[flipside]

The buildings didn't fall at free fall speed. Watch the videos closely, you can see things in free fall at the edges of the debris cloud at the point of failure accelerating away from it. In the final stage of the collapse, the debris cloud was about 40 stories high. It's impossible to determine the moment when the collapse finished, it wasn't visible. Any argument based on a measured collapse time specified to a tenth or a hundredth of a second is pure invention.

Read the material here.

I'm not getting much from your link?
They seem to only debunk the theories i question..and others they don't do a very good job of debunking.

The Molten metal, the debunker states; why would they use explosives and thermite/mate? From what i know thermite/mate is used for steel and explosives (several different kinds) are used for concrete. (The majority of the time). The explosives are used to break the concrete up into small managable peices and insure a collapse directly downward into its own footprint. He also claims Thermite can not cut verticle columns? Remember the center columns were hollow and the theory would be the explosives/thermite could possibly be placed inside the columns through the access points or holes cut into them from empty floors or during the 48 hour power out or the several evacuations before 9/11. This would mean you could get access to all the floors from inside the columns by lowering explosives inside the columns. Some would say the plane entering the building would cut the denonation wires, and set off the explosions. Can you be sure none did go off when the plane hit, can you be sure they used detonation wire? Any explosives would have been set off by remote, definatley not timers and these remotes are very small and cheap!. A system for collapsing a hollow beam is fairly easy you use a wadding (imagine a pillow shoved into a tube) then pour in some concrete let it set. Then add your explosives around the interior wall of the tube/beam(a ring loop) add more wadding and more concrete, and that sucker will cut a clean slice right through.
Do you know there were plenty of empty floors throughout the wtc towers at the time? I'm also not one to think they had to plant explosives on every beam, support and connection, they would just need to start the collapse. There were also explosives going off before the collapse. Reports claim the sounds started in the basement, then reports of explosions throughout several floors. yada yada yada.. So the debunker site now has me thinking more of what I had thought..scary

I'll keep digging through the debunker info..

 

[flipside]

Nice job of cherry picking. The quote you picked is followed immediately by more detailed explanations. Interesting too that you'll believe those reports when it suits your deluded perception of events and otherwise claim both are fraudulent and wrong in many details. I'm through talking with you about this, you're not well-informed enough and can't think well enough to make it interesting.

I might have to agree with you here... slightly
I wouldn't trust a word of what the NIXT report or the Obmissions reports say as they seem to be the most unreliable.
On the other hand most logical folks only believe what they see as believable and should evaluate the evidence and facts themselves to come to thier own conclusion.
That being said, to use a reference from an unreliable source to counter an attack by a supporter of that source could be considered fair. If what your source states supports what the opposition stands for it is only natural to point this out.

Now lets stop this nonsense and cut some verticle beams with thermite!

 

[Logic 7]

Nice job of cherry picking. The quote you picked is followed immediately by more detailed explanations. Interesting too that you'll believe those reports when it suits your deluded perception of events and otherwise claim both are fraudulent and wrong in many details. I'm through talking with you about this, you're not well-informed enough and can't think well enough to make it interesting.

It is not that i believe those reports, is just to show how liar they can go, they can't even get their story straight.

Another fact you seems not really to comprehend, is the clarification of sylverstein, came a year after conspiracy theorist ask them about demolition of building 7, but that is ok for you.


If you were someone who look for detail, you would have noticed that you are totally out of track, here is what you say, i quoted for you.

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business

Here is the proof that the author(which we don't know who they are) is out of touch.


definition of pull


Watch it, and you will understand how biased are your Unknown links.

 

[flipside]

I have been reading the debunkers site and am a little shocked..

Some of the theories they do debunk, but they were never theories I completely agreed with in the first place.

For example I'm not one to support the "there was no plane" at the pentagon theory.. but the debunkers do not prove in the least bit that there was a plane. They only seem to make excuses for why the theory of no plane doesn't stand up yet can't prove there really was a pane..heck all the government would have to do is release all the security tapes from the pentagon and we would clearly see what hit... but i suppose its top secret? and if thats the case why would they release an incriminating tape? The pentagon security tape shows nothing byt a nose entering the frame (far too low for a plane if it was a jet that low the engines would be inches off the ground? then theres the little white trail of smoke left behind as the frame skips forward to a huge explosion where aparently 90%. of the plane and its contents are destroyed and burned in the explosion/fire..hmm yet picture indicate a large initial explosion then minimal fire?

The there the Molten metal expalanation the debunker uses: He states thermite can not cut verticle columns? and asks why would they use explosives and thermite together. Well from what i have learned thermite/mate is for metal while the explosives (and there are a variety) are used generally for breaking the concrete into very small managable peices, while keeping the resistance of the falling building to a minimum which insures the collapse to go directly down and not shift from the resistance of large concrete sections.
Thermite can cut verticle beams easy if the beams are hollow which the central beams were in the WTC 1&2. To cut a verticle beam which is hollow one would have to go through one of the access spots on the beams or cut a hole to access the inside. Once this is done several floors and joints can be reach from one floor by lowering remote controlled explosives down inside the tube. Remember now that several entire floors were empty and several people who worked in the towers claim to have heard what the called "heavy work" some claimed to have heard loud hammering and drilling, now i admit it could be nothing but renovations but it just sound odd. So back to cutting a verticle beam. To get back to the thermite one might say if the explosion were to go inside the beam the energy would just run up and down through the beam and not cut through it.. ok well , you would lower a form of packing (imagine a pillow) down to just below where you want the cut, then with the padding inplace you as a cement or concrete (can't remember the exact name) alow it to set and then place your explosive along the inside walls of the beam. now lower more packing and cover with the cement.. then repeat how ever many times needed..

I do not think they would need to place explosives on every single joint and beam unless they really wanted it to look like a demo.. its easy for them to hide flashes and keep noises to a minimum but to say they would have had to place explosive everywhere is a little uneducated. Once you really get the buildings core and basement/foundation weakened near the point of collapse a few well place explosives above would start a chain reaction and there you have it everything in a nice neat pile sunken right through the basement..

Ok I'm going back to the debunking site again to try and convince myself we actually live in a world where governments are honest.. but no matter where I look

 

[Toro]

On that day , we must all forget about logic and physic laws.

And what a great job you've done Logic!

 

[Toro]

Ok I'm going back to the debunking site again to try and convince myself we actually live in a world where governments are honest.. but no matter where I look

There can be no other option.

Prove that Hitler wasn't a Jew. After all, Hitler was the head of government, and governments always lie.

It is important that we must suspend any and all critical judgment and always believe the most asinine assertions, no matter how ridiculous and bizarre, under the pretext that "governments always lie!"

 

[Toro]

It has been proven that both the 9/11 commision report "pancake" theory and Popular Mechanics article have serious issues and questions.

That's right.

Instead, what we're supposed to believe are a bunch of 22 year-old, unemployed college drop-outs who pieced together this "mystery" with publicly available information on the Internet.

Oh, but the conspiracists don't have serious issues and questions. None at all.

 

[Toro]

Actually I have seen several buildings demolished by explosives that collapsed identically. I have yet to see a building collapse like that from fire. I use to be a volunteer fireman and have seen several large wood buildings burn to the ground and they don't even collapse in 10 seconds. I understand this is no comparision to the size of WTC or the fact a jet hit the buildings but the video footage alone has me baffled.

I'm not sure of your points.. because in a controlled demolition the people who plan it (or place the explosives) would know where the deris would go, when the collapse would start, and would be able to control when the explosives go off. As far as knowing exactly which floor was going to be hit why would that make much of a difference? As long as a plane did hit the towers than theres a possibility of covering up the controlled demolition, if the public is in shock and gulible enough. And from what I can tell by watching the video the explosives didn't have to be timed to cause the pancake theory, the pancake theory doesn't even exist in any of the collapses. When you watch the videos do you see any of the floors falling onto one another causing walls to buckle below the falling floors or shifting in the direction of the collapse? Especially in WTC 7 you see the entire building collapse at once? For the pancake theory to work the first floor to would have to hit the next floor near level and flat and the following floors to do the same all they way to the basement. Does this not sound even slightly odd to you? And you think fire caused this? Wouldn't you think the weakest section would be where the plane hit and that any downward force would cause the buildings floors to collapse in the direction of least resistance? I would imagine then that the floors would have shifted and fallen to the side of least resistance, or at least one of the three buildings to have some sign of a weak point. But you find it easier to believe that the plane hit caused severe damage and then the fires became so hot that they heated almost every beam evenly to cause a sudden collapse of the entire structure? Doesn't any of this strike you as odd? Would you not like to see a real investigation into these alegations?

Except, of course, that when you wire up a building for explosives, or put in explosives, or whatever, in two buildings 110 stories that are populated by 50,000 people, you would have thought that someone, somewhere, would have actually seen explosive experts do their thing. If you've seen explosive experts get a building ready, you know that it ain't a dozen guys stealthily sneaking about a building getting everything ready in an hour or two.

 

[flipside]

There can be no other option.

Prove that Hitler wasn't a Jew. After all, Hitler was the head of government, and governments always lie.

It is important that we must suspend any and all critical judgment and always believe the most asinine assertions, no matter how ridiculous and bizarre, under the pretext that "governments always lie!"

You lost me on the Hitler thing? actually you lost me on the "There can be no other option"? governments always lie?

Is this what they call double talk? double think? mmm i'm hungry double cheeseburger

 

[Toro]

but the debunkers do not prove in the least bit that there was a plane.

Here ya go!

Pictures of the wreckage.

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

 

[Toro]

You lost me on the Hitler thing? actually you lost me on the "There can be no other option"? governments always lie?

Is this what they call double talk? double think? mmm i'm hungry double cheeseburger

First of all, in all due respect, you'd have to be a right moron to think that governments "always" lie. Sometimes governments lie. But then again, sometimes all institutions lie. Sometimes people lie. But all people don't always lie. All institutions do not always lie. And all governments don't always lie. As someone who has worked for the government, I can assure you this is the case.

Second, even if you assume the premise that the government is lying, the default position isn't that there is some bizarre, whack-job conspiracy. Of course, government isn't going to tell you the entire truth, and of course parts of the government are going to obscure their responsibility for 9/11. Since it was the biggest foreign attack on US soil in the countries 231 year history, do you honestly believe that someone in government isn't going to try to cover his ass? You'd have to live in a dream world to believe this.

 

[flipside]

Except, of course, that when you wire up a building for explosives, or put in explosives, or whatever, in two buildings 110 stories that are populated by 50,000 people, you would have thought that someone, somewhere, would have actually seen explosive experts do their thing. If you've seen explosive experts get a building ready, you know that it ain't a dozen guys stealthily sneaking about a building getting everything ready in an hour or two.

Come on?!?!?! I've heard and read ...the dam building have several strange evacuations, power outages, more than the average number of empty floors, bomb sniffing dogs called off 3 weeks prior, security changes (unussually high # of days off for certain security gaurds), and what do explosives experts who are involved in something like this look like? Do they wear DEMO-MAN on thier jackets and open rolls of detonation wire hanging off thier arms??? Pull up in special trucks?? Be serious you think the difficult part would be getting experts or supplies into the building?? Look at the people in charge of who can control who gets in and out... What topped it off for me were the three people (two from same floor)talking about work on an empty floor above them hearing all kinds of noises.. hammering , drilling, something rolling around... I doubt the hard part would be getting them in.. if any of this is true than they could have been dressed like cops, milkman, photocopier repair man, itt wireless modulator expert......

and how many guys would be needed?