9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927:2293]

[Chanda]

re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

Yes, since I said it was ACTUALLY HOVERING up there. Reading is FUNduhmental.

Nothing was "hovering."

NOOOOOOOOO!

Structural engineers disagree with you.

Imagination is not your strong suit is it?

Apparently, it's yours.

Watch the vids of the first collapse, and pay attention to what happens at that critical moment where the building goes from standing to collapsing. Watch how the top chunk FALLS into what is below it.

I've watched it plenty. You never see the top floors falling onto anything below them, because the dust cloud obscures everything. You can see the top floors tilting over, tilting, tilting, then the tilting stops (in defiance of the laws of physics) and the block of floors seems to disintegrate in mid-air.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/docs/st_mont.jpg

 

[BmanMcfly]

re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

They are built so that if and when they collapse, they collapse in on themselves, lessening the damage to the buildings and individuals in the surrounding area. Why you choose to ignore this is beyond my understanding.

More specifically, they are designed to handle their own weight + stress testing+ wind testing + (if necessary) for earthquakes. Constructing a building anything more than 4 stories is a multimillion dollar venture... it's not incredibly uncommon for a building to have million dollar screw-ups during construction that must be fixed to be permitted for occupancy.

Look, based on the damage apparent, there was half the structure on the proper floors that would have been directly damaged from the planes + burning jet fuel... not to mention that the building is supported mainly by the CORE of the building, NOT the skin as NIST would like to assume. The core of the building beiing a fortified concrete staircase, which is surrounding by the structural steel, which is encased in concrete itself.

What would be expected if fire really did weaken the structure would be a local collapse in the area of the fire, but if the... not to mention that in office buildings the majority of exposed steel is water/gas pipes, and electrical channel, (ductwork too, but that's a relativelely light guage steel that wouldn't be surprised to see warped)

Structures get built so that even in a worst case scenario imagined that the building would hold. Look at other steel frame structures that have been fully engulfed in flames for much longer and once the fire is out you still have the core of the buidling intact :shock:

Not that you guys will accept this, nor look any further than 'www,911myths' and use that to 'debunk' but cheers to the outside chance that you might take a second glance at some of the videos presented.

 

[Bodi]

re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

Mkay I did not say that. I quoted someone else who did. Dynamic, in fact. Go look. But we've been over this before. You're misquoting. A typical troll tactic.

Oh yeah... right. :roll:

Is this what you really think constitutes a debate? In post #110 I thought you were talking about yourself in the first person.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...-fall-free-fall-speeds-11.html#post1057872726

I didn't know that you were quoting Dynamic because you did not use her name for the quote, in fact, I did not even know Dynamic was a woman. Yes, I misquoted, but it was an accident. I am trolling nothing, and if you think that you're more a waste of time than I thought.

Anyway, that is irrelevant. THE POINT IS, you were talking about us going to war for profit and indicating that you thought that the US Government conspired to destroy the WTC as a method of sending the USA into another War for Profit, just like you said that WWI, WII, and Vietnam were. You even tried to supply evidence, the McCullough Memo, that naval officers little memo that you seemed to think was proof of something.

I can do that too. Now, does it make it true? Maybe in your case, I don't know.

I will let that go and not report that, for it is an obvious infraction, since we were sadly miscommuncating. Cool?



I'm

sure they had other alternatives. They just chose war.

so, we didn't force them into war. Thanks, that is all that there is to it.
They CHOSE to attack the USA, thus negating your entire premise. :2razz:

But it's obvious to me now that you're a no good troll type.

Show actual evidence of Trolling please. I think that you will find that we are both simply passionate about our positions. If anybody is a Troll, my dear, it would be you though. I argue with evidence and open mindedness. That is not troll like in any way... you get all pissy when challenged, and the most Troll like behavior is that you make claims, ignore counter arguments, get called on it, and then create tangents and further ignore/run from the argument, or you start name calling! :rofl

Misquotes and plain illogical assumptions lead me to this.

Interpretation.. we already know you are extremely weak in this skill.

So you can carry on this conversation, but it will be one sided. I meant to ignore you long before.

Ignore away... not everybody is ready to debate in a rational and mature manner.
I don't blame you... you have essentially been sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "na na na" anyway.
This is just the next step in de-evolution!



:2wave:

 

[Southern Man]

re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

OK I'm new to this board and this is a long thread, so just tell me now who the kooks are so I can go onto the next one.

 

[Jessica]

re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

Oh yeah... right. :roll:

Is this what you really think constitutes a debate? In post #110 I thought you were talking about yourself in the first person.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...-fall-free-fall-speeds-11.html#post1057872726

I didn't know that you were quoting Dynamic because you did not use her name for the quote, in fact, I did not even know Dynamic was a woman. Yes, I misquoted, but it was an accident. I am trolling nothing, and if you think that you're more a waste of time than I thought.

That's because you jump in the middle of something and think you know the whole story. Just ONE WHOLE post above yours, you can see CLEARLY that there is Dynamic's name there. (SEE PICTURE BELOW)

So, you know, you can apologize anytime. After all, all this hostility was your fault, as you just admitted. So, you know, be a big man. Do the right thing. Then I'll go back to paying attention to whatever it is you have to say. A real apology too. Not a condescending one.

I will let that go and not report that, for it is an obvious infraction, since we were sadly miscommuncating. Cool?

You were sadly miscommunicating. Just apologize and we can go back to being friends again. Cool?

And I never start with name calling. Ever. Go back through it. All I said was your misquoted and I did not appreciate it and you got "pissy" (to use your words).

Nothing else seems worthy of response, since it's all based on your misquote.

 

[Bodi]

re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

That's because you jump in the middle of something and think you know the whole story. Just ONE WHOLE post above yours, you can see CLEARLY that there is Dynamic's name there. (SEE PICTURE BELOW)

huh? I didn't jump in the middle of anything... Dynamic did.
Where you get this stuff, I have no idea.
You and I were talking, And along came Dynamic with her opinion.

So, you know, you can apologize anytime. After all, all this hostility was your fault, as you just admitted. So, you know, be a big man. Do the right thing. Then I'll go back to paying attention to whatever it is you have to say. A real apology too. Not a condescending one.

I accidentally misquoted you, and acknowledged my mistake,
You then insulted me by calling me a Troll that engages in this tactic...
You then went further , and made a completely ridiculous analogy
By making up a comment that I like child porn and you want ME to apologize? :rofl

You were sadly miscommunicating. Just apologize and we can go back to being friends again. Cool?

I say "we" were, for WE were, and you get all grade-school and point the finger only at me... okee dokee.

http://www.wdfnews.com/UserFiles/BodIdiot.jpg?

BodIdiot? Yep... looks like I should be apologizing alright! :rofl
Ya kow, I make a mistake and you start acting like I ditched you at the prom...

And I never start with name calling. Ever. Go back through it. All I said was your misquoted and I did not appreciate it and you got "pissy" (to use your words).

What is calling me a No Good Troll Type? Illogical? Trolling tactics?
Even taking those out, you said that you were done with my "stupidity" long ago.
You have been insultive since the beginning...
I just let it go and consider this our, "getting to know each other" phase.

Nothing else seems worthy of response, since it's all based on your misquote.

Except for the part where you admitted that your War For Profit analogy was incorrect,
That is?


Jessica,

For my part in our latest misunderstanding, I apologize.
It was NEVER my intention to misquote you, and if in doing so,
I hurt you, in any way, shape or form... I would beg you to please
Accept this apology so that we can begin anew. From the deepest
Recesses of my soul, I promise to never intentionally misquote you and
Pray that you take me at my word, so that our relationship will be
Based off of Trust and Sincerity.

Humbly,

Bodi



That is completely sincere. I will goof and pick at people, but you seem genuinely upset, and that is something that I don't really play at, unless you were ToT in disguise, or Truth Detector perhaps.

The only way for you to get away with your style in real life, is if you are some smoking hot chickita... so let me know if you also would like a foot massage.

 

[Jessica]

re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

I accidentally misquoted you, and acknowledged my mistake,
You then insulted me by calling me a Troll that engages in this tactic...
You then went further , and made a completely ridiculous analogy
By making up a comment that I like child porn and you want ME to apologize? :rofl

What is calling me a No Good Troll Type? Illogical? Trolling tactics?
Even taking those out, you said that you were done with my "stupidity" long ago.
You have been insultive since the beginning...
I just let it go and consider this our, "getting to know each other" phase.

Jessica,

For my part in our latest misunderstanding, I apologize.
It was NEVER my intention to misquote you, and if in doing so,
I hurt you, in any way, shape or form... I would beg you to please
Accept this apology so that we can begin anew. From the deepest
Recesses of my soul, I promise to never intentionally misquote you and
Pray that you take me at my word, so that our relationship will be
Based off of Trust and Sincerity.

Humbly,

Bodi



That is completely sincere. I will goof and pick at people, but you seem genuinely upset, and that is something that I don't really play at, unless you were ToT in disguise, or Truth Detector perhaps.

The only way for you to get away with your style in real life, is if you are some smoking hot chickita... so let me know if you also would like a foot massage.

Well, see, this is not what you are understanding. It wasn't just the misquote. It was you misquoting, me saying something mildly, then you misquoting me again and adding hostility to it. Which, yes, does seem very much like a troll tactic.

Now, this is on the bottom of page 11 and then your hostile post on page 12, so you can go back and check.

To make it easier, I have screenshots for you to consider. Timeline is your first misquote, which I then reply, and you can agree I am not hostile, but very civil:

So, again, you can see I answered your question and did so in a civil fashion, and did mention the misquote, and did so mildly as to not offend.
Your response, however, did not take the same approach, and disregarded my mention of a misquote and then did add trollish hostility. Yes?

So there you have it. Again, I was not the first to be hostile. If you can not read your post and see how I, or anyone else, may take it as hostility, then I don't know what to say about your character.

Again, I am not trying to be hostile, but I felt this last post had to be addressed so we could be clear as to what happened. So, yes, it did seem to me as you were being a troll, disregarded my claim of the misquote, which led to more flaming by you and so on and on... and well you get the idea.

However, I'll accept your apology and consider it all behind us. Thank you.


We can be friends again. I hope you had a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

 

[Bodi]

re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

Well, see, this is not what you are understanding. It wasn't just the misquote. It was you misquoting, me saying something mildly, then you misquoting me again and adding hostility to it. Which, yes, does seem very much like a troll tactic.

I understand everything that has transpired here PERFECTLY.
Nothing I did was even remotely like a Troll Tactic... not even close,
For you to have made that assertion... was ridiculous.

Now, this is on the bottom of page 11 and then your hostile post on page 12, so you can go back and check.

To make it easier, I have screenshots for you to consider. Timeline is your first misquote, which I then reply, and you can agree I am not hostile, but very civil:

I was not hostile in either of those screen shots, in fact, I am not sure that I have been anything other than matter of fact with you in our entire discussion here... sure, I goofed on you, but hostile? :lol:

You were close to hostile, if anybody was at the very beginning when you said that you were done with my stupidity, and all that.

So, again, you can see I answered your question and did so in a civil fashion, and did mention the misquote, and did so mildly as to not offend.
Your response, however, did not take the same approach, and disregarded my mention of a misquote and then did add trollish hostility. Yes?

I only misquoted you once, I have no idea what this "Timeline" thing is that you are talking about, in fact, that term is not even in our dialog at all... You mention the misquote, and once I realize what you are talking about, it is over, I acknowledge the mistake, no biggy... The reason that you think that I disregarded you, again, is more your fault than mine.

You did not use the proper quote procedure when quoting Dynamic.

It looked like you were talking about yourself in the first person after I quoted you, as if you were saying... "No Bodi, she (Jessica, me) actually was saying blah blah blah".

My mistake is ENTIRELY UNDERSTANDABLE, and for you to huff about it is foolish...

All in all, taking our the one misquote, I still completely annihilated your "going to war for profit" premise, and you are still ignoring that fact.

So there you have it. Again, I was not the first to be hostile. If you can not read your post and see how I, or anyone else, may take it as hostility, then I don't know what to say about your character.

My character is not in question here sweetie...
I took responsibility for my words. I owned up to what I said,
I even apologized... not for what I said, for in that I did nothing wrong,
But for upsetting you so severely. I have seen few get as upset as you
over a simple misunderstanding, and then to get all righteous about it
on top of that is astonishing, to be honest.

YOU are the one that demands apologies for misunderstandings and then does not offer an apology of your own for saying that you were done with my stupidity when we were talking, or that I was illogical and other such things. To be honest, you're a hypocrite, from where most reasonable people would sit. *shrugs*

Again, I am not trying to be hostile, but I felt this last post had to be addressed so we could be clear as to what happened. So, yes, it did seem to me as you were being a troll, disregarded my claim of the misquote, which led to more flaming by you and so on and on... and well you get the idea.

No, I don't get the idea. I think that this idea is a fantasy of yours, in all honesty.
Victimization, or something, coupled with some righteous need to feel that you are the one displaying integrity while I am some bumpkin kid that doesn't get it, and I can tell you flatly that you simply have no concept as to the depths of my awareness and understanding...

However, I'll accept your apology and consider it all behind us. Thank you.

So you accept my apology and feel vindicated... good for you. However, there is a slight discrepancy.

We can be friends again. I hope you had a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

I am not sure that we were ever even close to friends... Within two posts or so you were insulting me and my intelligence for simply challenging your conclusions with regards to the evidence at hand.

Sure, we can be friends now, that is all good and dandy, but please stop acting as if you were wronged in some fashion and that I am some student on an emotional discovery. It doesn't bode well for your interpretation skills, or for your character assessment skills either.

Sorry, this is just how I roll. I call a spade a spade. If you want to talk the talk, then you had better back it up by walking the walk. Comprenda?

 

[Jessica]

re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

I understand everything that has transpired here PERFECTLY.
Nothing I did was even remotely like a Troll Tactic... not even close,
For you to have made that assertion... was ridiculous.




I was not hostile in either of those screen shots, in fact, I am not sure that I have been anything other than matter of fact with you in our entire discussion here... sure, I goofed on you, but hostile? :lol:

You were close to hostile, if anybody was at the very beginning when you said that you were done with my stupidity, and all that.




I only misquoted you once, I have no idea what this "Timeline" thing is that you are talking about, in fact, that term is not even in our dialog at all... You mention the misquote, and once I realize what you are talking about, it is over, I acknowledge the mistake, no biggy... The reason that you think that I disregarded you, again, is more your fault than mine.

You did not use the proper quote procedure when quoting Dynamic.

It looked like you were talking about yourself in the first person after I quoted you, as if you were saying... "No Bodi, she (Jessica, me) actually was saying blah blah blah".

My mistake is ENTIRELY UNDERSTANDABLE, and for you to huff about it is foolish...

All in all, taking our the one misquote, I still completely annihilated your "going to war for profit" premise, and you are still ignoring that fact.




My character is not in question here sweetie...
I took responsibility for my words. I owned up to what I said,
I even apologized... not for what I said, for in that I did nothing wrong,
But for upsetting you so severely. I have seen few get as upset as you
over a simple misunderstanding, and then to get all righteous about it
on top of that is astonishing, to be honest.

YOU are the one that demands apologies for misunderstandings and then does not offer an apology of your own for saying that you were done with my stupidity when we were talking, or that I was illogical and other such things. To be honest, you're a hypocrite, from where most reasonable people would sit. *shrugs*




No, I don't get the idea. I think that this idea is a fantasy of yours, in all honesty.
Victimization, or something, coupled with some righteous need to feel that you are the one displaying integrity while I am some bumpkin kid that doesn't get it, and I can tell you flatly that you simply have no concept as to the depths of my awareness and understanding...




So you accept my apology and feel vindicated... good for you. However, there is a slight discrepancy.




I am not sure that we were ever even close to friends... Within two posts or so you were insulting me and my intelligence for simply challenging your conclusions with regards to the evidence at hand.

Sure, we can be friends now, that is all good and dandy, but please stop acting as if you were wronged in some fashion and that I am some student on an emotional discovery. It doesn't bode well for your interpretation skills, or for your character assessment skills either.

Sorry, this is just how I roll. I call a spade a spade. If you want to talk the talk, then you had better back it up by walking the walk. Comprenda?

Proper quote - what? It says "Originally posted by Dynamic". Forget it.

We were enemies? That would not be close to friends.

I didn't get upset. I just replied with the same type of response I got to something I never said. I thought you were upset? You seemed downright hostile over it. Okay so then you're okay by it? Good :2razz:

Well, me too. I call a troll a -- err I mean a spade a spade.

But never mind. This is really off topic. So I'll just let it end here, if you will.
Mmkay new-friend-who-was-not close-to-being-a-friend-but-never-an enemy-type-of-friend friend?

Happy day!

 

[Bodi]

re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

Proper quote - what? It says "Originally posted by Dynamic". Forget it.

No... You will not admit to starting this whole pile of **** :lol:
And since this is a debate site, I am gonna prove that you are wrong.
Admit it or not, I don't care, but this just goes against your whole debating style...
It is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest, that is all.

I actually did quote Dynamic in post #109

http://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1057880901

Here it is:

Originally Posted by Bodi

Originally Posted by Dynamic
Countries do go to war for profit. There's really no other reason to go. They make up some bull**** reason and then off they go.
The only time I think countries don't go to war for profit is when they are having civil wars. Then it's all political. But really, profit can be seen in more ways than monetary gain, can't it?

She said that they "went to war FOR profit".
That is not saying that a by-product of going to war making a profit

When you responded, you DID NOT quote Dynamic in post #110
I am telling her what YOU said... you then respond with this:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1057880901

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
She said that they "went to war FOR profit". (about Jessica to Dynamic)
That is not saying that a by-product of going to war making a profit.

Originally Posted by Jessica
When it came to the Civil War part that I highlighted in BOLD, no she didn't say that.
She said : "The only time I think countries don't go to war for profit is when they are having civil wars."

You. in fact EVERYBODY, can CLEARLY SEE that YOU DID NOT USE THE QUOTE BUTTON, or properly quote Dynamic by name in any way, shape or form. I did, you did not.

I then misquote you, ACCIDENTALLY, in post #119 since you did not properly quote Dynamic.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...-fall-free-fall-speeds-12.html#post1057873920

Originally Posted by Jessica
When it came to the Civil War part that I highlighted in BOLD, no she didn't say that.
She said : "The only time I think countries don't go to war for profit is when they are having civil wars."

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
She said that they "went to war FOR profit".

Originally Posted by Jessica (should be a Dynamic quote)
"The only time I think countries don't go to war for profit is when they are having civil wars."

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
If the only time that they DON’T go to war for profit is for a Civil War, the that means that the DO go to war for profit during other wars, and you even listed WWI, WWII and Vietnam as examples.

THEN... here we go, you start getting all idiotic and casting aspersions against me in some completely stupid and illogical analogy. Shows your character too...

Originally Posted by Jessica
Mkay I did not say that. I quoted someone else who did. Dynamic, in fact. Go look. But we've been over this before. You're misquoting. A typical troll tactic.

I can do that too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
I like child porn. Especially of young boys. (Jessica's made up and Rule Breaking Ad Hom filled tripe that is also borderline illegal [Libel - 1. Law. a. defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures. libel definition | Dictionary.com ])

Originally Posted by Jessica
Now, does it make it true? Maybe in your case, I don't know.

I respond appropriately with:

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
I didn't know that you were quoting Dynamic because you did not use her name for the quote, in fact, I did not even know Dynamic was a woman. Yes, I misquoted, but it was an accident. I am trolling nothing...

I will let that go and not report that, for it is an obvious infraction, since we were sadly miscommuncating. Cool?

Yeah... sounds like I am really hostile, as you say below.

And then you get into all this high-school "my boy friend broke my heart" drama quenn ****.

Originally Posted by Jessica
So, you know, you can apologize anytime. After all, all this hostility was your fault, as you just admitted. So, you know, be a big man. Do the right thing. Then I'll go back to paying attention to whatever it is you have to say. A real apology too. Not a condescending one.

You were sadly miscommunicating. Just apologize and we can go back to being friends again. Cool?

You have the Bodidiot, the Trolling... look, I have completely and utterly owned your sorry butt here, and you and your smack simply sucks... LOL!

We were enemies? That would not be close to friends.

No... again, your interpretation skills SUCK. I said:

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
I am not sure that we were ever even close to friends...

Not close to friends can be acquaintances or any number of other things, but nope, you want to be the drama queen!

ac·quain·tance (ə-kwān'təns) Pronunciation Key
n.

Knowledge of a person acquired by a relationship less intimate than friendship.

acquaintances definition | Dictionary.com

I didn't get upset. I just replied with the same type of response I got to something I never said. I thought you were upset? You seemed downright hostile over it. Okay so then you're okay by it? Good :2razz:

Like I said, since neither of us were angry, and you thought that I was "hostile" then your interpretation skills suck. Hostile is saying "**** off dude", or "I'm gonna hurt you" and NOT, "I will let that go and not report that, since we were sadly miscommuncating. Cool?" - Bodi

I think that you have no understanding of what the real world is like sweetie...

Well, me too. I call a troll a -- err I mean a spade a spade.

Boring... Also, you must surely know that my apology to you was a joke?
Are you crazy? I did nothing wrong, certainly not intentionally... it was a mistake. LOL!

My apology was to show how ridiculous you are acting, that is, unless you really are twelve years-old. :roll:

"I would beg you to please Accept this apology so that we can begin anew. From the deepest Recesses of my soul, I promise to never intentionally misquote you and Pray that you take me at my word, " ?? LOL! :rofl

But never mind. This is really off topic. So I'll just let it end here, if you will.
Mmkay new-friend-who-was-not close-to-being-a-friend-but-never-an enemy-type-of-friend friend?

Happy day!

Sure. Ended. You have been smoked outa your hole. Have a nice day Friendy-wendy!! :2wave:

 

[Phatton13]

re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

People,we know the truth but, people are in such denial that they refuse to look farther than what the media say.You can add all you want about people being interviewed saying they heard "explosions" but, they just witnessed the most catostrophic event in American history. Do you think they were in the best shape emotionally and mentally to be giving a interview?

 

[creativedreams]

re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

But it's been shown over and over and over and over again. There have been many videos posted over and over and over again. Many clippings posted over and ov-- well you sort of asked nice. A little accusatory, but, well I'll forget that for now.

Molten Metal WTC Thermite

What is that? Liquid fire? Liquid paper? Liquid ... people? Eww.

YouTube - WTC Ground Zero Molten Steel (Part One)

"The ground continued to burn". Eight weeks later?!? 1100 degrees?!?

I just want to know how. What is that? I hear thermite/thermate can keep metal hot like that.

Why didn't the ground at the pentagon continue to thermite react.....oops I mean't....continue to burn eight weeks later?

 

[GOP Socialist Soldier]

re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

You would think if the 9-11 wasn't a inside job, the non-truthers would've debunked the Truthers--come on non-Truthers, help defend our corporate mainstream history; your not looking good and not showing your True colors?

YouTube - Cyndi Lauper "True Colors"

Do you think they were in the best shape emotionally and mentally to be giving a interview?

With that logic we must deny the witnesses of OKC, Pearl Harbor, any combat war vet; are you sure you want to go down that road...:3oops:
Please don't support Conspiracy Theories with this logic.

 

[Phatton13]

re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

You would think if the 9-11 wasn't a inside job, the non-truthers would've debunked the Truthers--come on non-Truthers, help defend our corporate mainstream history; your not looking good and not showing your True colors?

YouTube - Cyndi Lauper "True Colors"



With that logic we must deny the witnesses of OKC, Pearl Harbor, any combat war vet; are you sure you want to go down that road...:3oops:
Please don't support Conspiracy Theories with this logic.

It was the worst event on American Soil. War is much different than a terror attack. So what does Pearl Harbor have to do with it?They weren't interviewing people on the vessels. They were interviewed after not during.Do you see my point now?People are never going to believe the truth, therefore they come up with theories about bombs and whatnot. We as a country need to face it. We were attacked.

 

[BmanMcfly]

re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

People,we know the truth but, people are in such denial that they refuse to look farther than what the media say.You can add all you want about people being interviewed saying they heard "explosions" but, they just witnessed the most catostrophic event in American history. Do you think they were in the best shape emotionally and mentally to be giving a interview?

If it wasn't people coming from the basement area, as well as the last survivor to escape the building before collapse, the firefighters, etc... all with a tale of explosives where there should not have been explosives.

here's the difference : I walk up to you and punch you in the face. Even if you end up completely knocked out, you'll still wake up and know you got punched in the face... you wouldn't get up and think "damn, another batch of TNT must've blew up around me."

Yes, people can still be shocked, at the scene... but especially with the people being interviewed they had enough sense in them while they were talking that you could tell they were not delerious(sp?).

It was the worst event on American Soil.

With my previous analogy... it could have been the worst punch in the face ever on american soil. You still wake up knowing you took a shot in the mouth.

War is much different than a terror attack.

How so?? Other than the forewarning.

So what does Pearl Harbor have to do with it?

Now I know you're doing this on purpose....

When enough calm had returned to the area interviews could have taken place, while people were still shocked and whatever else, it's not like their mind was a complete mush that no longer functioned for anything more elaborate than breathing.

They weren't interviewing people on the vessels.

they weren't interviewing people in the buildings either.... what's your point?

They were interviewed after not during.

Preceisely AFTER they escaped the scene and got on a camera they told their tale about seeing the basement exploding with bombs. Not collapsing on their heads... exploding PRIOR to the collapse... seperate instances... do I have to dumb it down further?

Do you see my point now?

No, I see alot of nonsense that tries to pass itself off as a reasonable facsimily of a point, maybe if you clarify a bit better.

People are never going to believe the truth,

Bush said specifically to only believe the government sanctioned conspiracy theory, and the majority of people just shut off the critical thought section of their brain in terms of this issue.

therefore they come up with theories about bombs and whatnot.

we're not talking about people coming up with stories AFTER the fact... we are talking about surviving WITNESSES in the basement as well as the last witness to escapre the building alive.

Do you think someones going to make up a story about how the pressure wave from an explosion threw him into the air and across the room??

If I wasn't so sure you were playing dumb right now I'd go find some of those witness testimony tapes.

We as a country need to face it. We were attacked.

Yes, we were attacked, we were used to justify further actions into the middle east.... Just like PNAC NEEDED to avoid a long and drawn out attempt to justify regime change in Iraq, and it makes me sick how people can know these facts and still somehow pretend like this is something that only goes on in the other half of the world.

 

[Phatton13]

re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

If it wasn't people coming from the basement area, as well as the last survivor to escape the building before collapse, the firefighters, etc... all with a tale of explosives where there should not have been explosives.

here's the difference : I walk up to you and punch you in the face. Even if you end up completely knocked out, you'll still wake up and know you got punched in the face... you wouldn't get up and think "damn, another batch of TNT must've blew up around me."

Yes, people can still be shocked, at the scene... but especially with the people being interviewed they had enough sense in them while they were talking that you could tell they were not delerious(sp?).


With my previous analogy... it could have been the worst punch in the face ever on american soil. You still wake up knowing you took a shot in the mouth.



How so?? Other than the forewarning.

Now I know you're doing this on purpose....

When enough calm had returned to the area interviews could have taken place, while people were still shocked and whatever else, it's not like their mind was a complete mush that no longer functioned for anything more elaborate than breathing.



they weren't interviewing people in the buildings either.... what's your point?



Preceisely AFTER they escaped the scene and got on a camera they told their tale about seeing the basement exploding with bombs. Not collapsing on their heads... exploding PRIOR to the collapse... seperate instances... do I have to dumb it down further?


No, I see alot of nonsense that tries to pass itself off as a reasonable facsimily of a point, maybe if you clarify a bit better.



Bush said specifically to only believe the government sanctioned conspiracy theory, and the majority of people just shut off the critical thought section of their brain in terms of this issue.



we're not talking about people coming up with stories AFTER the fact... we are talking about surviving WITNESSES in the basement as well as the last witness to escapre the building alive.

Do you think someones going to make up a story about how the pressure wave from an explosion threw him into the air and across the room??

If I wasn't so sure you were playing dumb right now I'd go find some of those witness testimony tapes.



Yes, we were attacked, we were used to justify further actions into the middle east.... Just like PNAC NEEDED to avoid a long and drawn out attempt to justify regime change in Iraq, and it makes me sick how people can know these facts and still somehow pretend like this is something that only goes on in the other half of the world.

And you don't have any facts to back it up with. People are crazy in our world.There is ZERO factual evidence that there were bombs. While my "theory" as some people refer to the truth has EVIDENCE.You can blame whoever you want, you know as well as i do what happened.Question.If the government has to do harm to themselves,why do they not target our most crucial points such as our schools and hospitals?

 

[Jessica]

re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

And you don't have any facts to back it up with. People are crazy in our world.There is ZERO factual evidence that there were bombs. While my "theory" as some people refer to the truth has EVIDENCE.You can blame whoever you want, you know as well as i do what happened.Question.If the government has to do harm to themselves,why do they not target our most crucial points such as our schools and hospitals?

Because that wouldn't do anything more than targeting WTC, practically a national monument, where people could profit from it. There are also a lot of government agencies in WTC.
There is a lot of evidence based in science and math and common sense. Those are facts. You can use those facts and compare it to the videos and other known facts to create a solution.
A lot of physical evidence was destroyed by the government -- I believe Giuliani directly -- when they sent it to be recycled in Asia before all the investigations could be complete, or a chance for rebuttal. Destroying evidence is a class "E" felony in New York and punishable by 1 year in prison per count. I bet there are a few hundred counts of that.
Not sure why anyone would break a law to cover up a crime, especially if it was suppose to be someone else that did it.

 

[BmanMcfly]

re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

And you don't have any facts to back it up with.

More accurately it is your OPINION that I don't have any facts to back it up. Which I don't really blame you for since you admittedly don't acknowledge information that you don't already agree with ahead of time.

There is ZERO factual evidence that there were bombs.

No, you are refusing to acknowledge the fact that there was evidence of demolition charges.

While my "theory" as some people refer to the truth has EVIDENCE.

No, it has a flawed report that only accepted the evidence which supported it's desired outcome.

You can blame whoever you want,

One thing I haven't done is placed specific blame.

you know as well as i do what happened.

Yes, we both know about the same, except you bought a lie, where I searched for truth and accountability...

Question.If the government has to do harm to themselves,why do they not target our most crucial points such as our schools and hospitals?

Not harm to themselves...call it a 'sacrifice for the greater good' (regime change in Iraq, according to PNAC). It was as much destroying the SYMBOL as it was about killing the people... people had to die for the catalyzing effect, that PNAC desired.

Schools or hospitals could very well have been targets, but by attacking the symbol of 'american financial freedom' Bush abbreviated by saying 'the terrorists hate our freedom'. I'm not suggesting that Bush was complicit in 9-11, but it wouldn't be a stretch to say that he knew it was going to happen (or at least that an attack was going to happen), ultimately, he's the president... it's not his job to get his hands dirty with little details like that, he's got a staff to take care of that.

At the end of the day tho, you're not interested in facts... you're interested in pushing NIST's version of events, and calling anyone who disagrees with you crazy. To hell with the laws of physics or your qualifications to determine a persons sanit, right?

 

[Jessica]

re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

Schools or hospitals could very well have been targets, but by attacking the symbol of 'american financial freedom' Bush abbreviated by saying 'the terrorists hate our freedom'.

Yeah good point.

 

[505]

re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

Since none of you hats will bring anything to the table other than loose change material, please watch this video that shreds nearly all of your arguments:

Not Freakin' Again edition

 

[505]

re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

Controlled demolition theorists, please comment on this video:

[youtube]kMr3ZSL6l-4[/youtube]

Especially you Jessica... since you love to spread the lie that there was no activity in the vicinity of #7 after 11am. :roll:

Tell me, are those witnesses just on the conspiracy payroll or what?

 

[creativedreams]

re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

:dohBuiding#7 takes up a full city block in floor space....never in the history of the planet:doh has a steel structured building collapsed from fire.
Do you realize even the wall studs are steel and inflamable?

Even if this was the first time fire made a steel structure building callapse....it would have been in areas as the fire progressed through Building#7... which takes up a full city block in floor space...not at precisely the same time at all four corners of the rectangular shaped :dohbuilding...let alone at almost the speed of gravity :doh

 

[Jessica]

re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

Controlled demolition theorists, please comment on this video:

[youtube]kMr3ZSL6l-4[/youtube]

Especially you Jessica... since you love to spread the lie that there was no activity in the vicinity of #7 after 11am. :roll:

Tell me, are those witnesses just on the conspiracy payroll or what?

I did already. You ignored it. Not my fault. Building #7 was purposely brought down. I proved that. Move on.

 

[creativedreams]

re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

I did already. You ignored it. Not my fault. Building #7 was purposely brought down. I proved that. Move on.

This is but one example why the "Dream Pool" can't piece together a whole event.:notlook:

 

[505]

re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

I did already. You ignored it. Not my fault. Building #7 was purposely brought down. I proved that. Move on.

You did not comment on that video. You did not prove anything.