TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 [129] 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »

quote:

Originally posted by culorut I guess you must be having a hard time trying to accept that the eyewitness accounts blow everything the official story has to say out of the water with that stupid excuse of a remark. But nice try.

Eye witness testimony is one of the most unreliable aspects of any criminal trial. In fact, without circumstantial evidence, an eye witness is useless. CLICK

Additionally, you have taken upon yourself the role of a prosecutor. In the court of law, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution. The prosecution presents a suit of charges with which to accuse another party. You have no one to accuse. You have no circumstantial evidence. Your conspiracy theory is moot. Case dismissed...

Sure looks like a structural failure at the fire/impact zone to me. But I guess to some, bombs caused this...

Fire falls now? New physics being discovered daily! Scientists must be shitting in their socks.

Let alone take into consideration that that portion of the building should have been the only piece to fall in that situation. How does the Pancake Theory explain that collapse at all?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Sure looks like a structural failure at the fire/impact zone to me. But I guess to some, bombs caused this...

Structural failure? LMFAO

That looks like one hell of a demo job to me, actually more like fucking explosions with the way 30 ton steel beams are being ejected outward from the building.

Add to the fact the towers fell at practically free fall speed and it's pretty much unconceivable how you can look at it any other way.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Fire falls now? New physics being discovered daily! Scientists must be shitting in their socks. Let alone take into consideration that that portion of the building should have been the only piece to fall in that situation. How does the Pancake Theory explain that collapse at all?

LOL, wow, so the explosives team set their explosives right at the impact zone. Wow. You don't even know who set the explosives, let alone, provide any evidence of explosives apart from subjective evidence.

Additionally, the trusses supporting each floor could easily have been destroyed in the fact that each truss was secured by TWO, yes TWO, bolts for each truss. With thousands of ton of avalanching pressure on two measily bolts, it's no wonder the entire building fell.

Collapsed buildings look like this,




They don't blow up and pulverize, it does not happen and has never in history.

You must like believing in fairy tales.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Collapsed buildings look like this, They don't blow up and pulverize, it does not happen and has never in history. You must like believing in fairy tales.

Are those high rise steel structures burned from the inside out by fire, and pulverized by jet airliners? Didn't think so...

You're paranoid conspiracies are far worse than even the most childish fairy tale...idiot...

quote:

Are those high rise steel structures burned from the inside out by fire, and pulverized by jet airliners? Didn't think so...

Burned inside out from fires? Pulverized from airliners?

You are so far out of whack it's not even funny. The firefighters themselves said the fires where practically out and if you think the impact of airliners pulverized the buildings you are the biggest fucking idiot in the world.

This is an demo/explosion not a collapse.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Burned inside out from fires? Pulverized from airliners? You are so far out of whack it's not even funny. The firefighters themselves said the fires where practically out and if you think the impact of airliners pulverized the buildings you are the biggest fucking idiot in the world. This is an demo/explosion not a collapse.

Now, you're just making stuff up, and we call that lying. You'de probably be good at writing children's books...



Sure looks like a fire to me, on several floors. Oh, let's not forget the massive damage from the jet liner impact itself, which destroyed key supports for the building. Your sad attempt to compare buildings, which we don't even know are steel, nor had a huge jet fueled fire on multiple floors, and a devastating collision, to the WTC collapse is LAUGHABLE...

And once again, all of you fail to make a coherent case. No suspects, no circumstantial evidence, no nothing. All you do is repeat the same thing, over and over and over and over...again and again. I guess you guys take to heart, "If you repeat a lie enough times, people believe it."

7 years on, nobodies been prosecuted for treason.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Burned inside out from fires? Pulverized from airliners? You are so far out of whack it's not even funny. The firefighters themselves said the fires where practically out and if you think the impact of airliners pulverized the buildings you are the biggest fucking idiot in the world. This is an demo/explosion not a collapse.

I think that's much of the reason why I gave up on that kid ever figuring any of this out. He's so far gone that even if Dick Cheney himself came out and said the he in fact was behind it, Krypton would undoubtedly try to argue against him from every single angle. Well, either that or he'd just blow his own brains out as a result of his not being able to cope with his inadequately perceived reality becoming so thoroughly shattered.

The fact that these trolls categorically deny eyewitness accounts such as these (which I have no doubt were purposefully omitted from the official report) is telling enough as it is that these folks are either in an absolute state of denial or are in fact working in the effort to help extend the criminal coverup surrounding the events of that day.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I think that's much of the reason why I gave up on that kid ever figuring any of this out. He's so far gone that even if Dick Cheney himself came out and said the he in fact was behind it, Krypton would undoubtedly try to argue against him from every single angle. Well, either that or he'd just blow his own brains out as a result of his not being able to cope with his inadequately perceived reality becoming so thoroughly shattered. The fact that these trolls categorically deny eyewitness accounts such as these (which I have no doubt were purposefully omitted from the official report) is telling enough as it is that these folks are either in an absolute state of denial or are in fact working in the effort to help extend the criminal coverup surrounding the events of that day.

if its so fucking obvious why has no one in your beloved movement been able to explain the collapses with nice, cold numbers? not a single engineering paper with which to challenge reality.

i cant but help laughing at how much time you've wasted on this shit. priceless!

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X eyewitness accounts such as these (which I have no doubt were purposefully omitted from the official report)

seriously nutfucks, i used to have a view of the WTC from my front porch until the day several members of my family witnessed with their own eyes, from my front window, two planes slamming into those buildings. it's easy to drum up theories when your dumb ass is in texas or where ever the hell you're from.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Collapsed buildings look like this, They don't blow up and pulverize, it does not happen and has never in history. You must like believing in fairy tales.

did you happen to notice those buildings were concrete slab buildings? also, did you notice that not one of those buildings had a fucking 737 lodged near the top?

Wow, the trolls are making it easy for me today. lol

The 9/11 widows know what's up. They tenaciously fought to establish an investigation in the first place and when one was finally conducted they came to the painful realization that it didn't even seek to hold anyone accountable for the tragedies of that day.

IMO, it was simply another whitewash.

quote:

Group of 9/11 widows 'question the veracity of the entire Commission�s report' Ron Brynaert Published: Friday August 4, 2006 Four widows instrumental in getting Congress to push President Bush to create the 9/11 Independent Commission are insisting that it "failed in its duties" on the heels of two recent news reports which allege that some commissioners knew they were being "deceived" by NORAD officials, and the widows are now questioning "the veracity of the entire Commission�s report," RAW STORY has found. In a statement released today by Patty Casazza, Monica Gabrielle, Mindy Kleinberg, and Lorie Van Auken - 1/3 of the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission - the widows refer to the commission's mandate (Section 602 of Public Law 107-306). Two of the five "purposes of the Commission" were to "ascertain, evaluate, and report on the evidence developed by all relevant governmental agencies regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the attacks" and "make a full and complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding the attacks, and the extent of the United States' preparedness for, and immediate response to, the attacks." "Recent stories in the Washington Post, the New York Times, as well as the release of the transcripts of the NORAD tapes in Vanity Fair, clearly show that the 9/11 Commission failed in its duties," says the widows' statement. "Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate," reported Dan Eggan for The Washington Post. "As one of its last acts before disbanding, in July 2004, the 9/11 commission made referrals to the inspector general's offices of both the Department of Transportation (which includes the F.A.A.) and the Defense Department to further investigate whether witnesses had lied," wrote Michael Bronner for Vanity Fair. In light of these reports, the 9/11 widows "question the veracity of the entire Commission�s report." "The fact that the Commission did not see fit to tie up all loose ends in their final report or to hold those who came before them accountable for lying and/or making misleading statements puts into question the veracity of the entire Commission�s report," the widows write. "Furthermore, the lack of tenacity and curiosity, by the Commissioners themselves, to determine why NORAD had deceived them is unconscionable," the statement continues. "Knowing full well that the lack of military response was such a critical failure, begs the question of whether that same lack of tenacity and curiosity was applied to other critical areas of the 9/11 investigation." According to the widows' statement, "the failure to fully and properly investigate all areas, not follow all leads and not address the need for accountability, whether it be bureaucrats lying at a hearing or personnel with questionable performance of assigned duties, continues to leave this Nation and its citizens vulnerable and at risk." "The 9/11 Commission was derelict in its duties," the statement continues. "What we needed from them was a thorough investigation into the events of September 11th." "Inexcusably, five years later, we still do," the statement ends. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/G...ndent_0804.html

who gives a shit what the widows think?

quote:

The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the destruction of the Twin Towers Tony Szamboti Mechanical Engineer Feb. 17, 2008 Abstract: In the past two years there has been an exponential growth in the number of people questioning the explanations we have been given, by official U.S. government bodies, concerning the collapses of the three WTC buildings in NYC on 9/11/2001. It is probably safe to say that much of this growth can be attributed to the Internet publishing of a paper by Physics Professor Steven Jones in November 2005, which put forth the hypothesis that the Twin Towers and WTC7 were actually demolished with pre-positioned cutter charges. This hypothesis is in tension with the present government explanation of impact damage and fires being the causes for the complete collapses of the buildings. My intent here is to show that any honest and objective look at all of the theories, for the destruction of the twin towers, including the present government explanation, will cause one to realize that only the controlled demolition hypothesis is sustainable. I believe an honest look at the evidence will convince anyone that the controlled demolition hypothesis provides the best explanation for the complete collapses of the towers, as well as the damage to the buildings and objects surrounding them. The remarkable collapse of WTC7 seems to have had a separate cause in its own controlled demolition. Video of the collapse of WTC7 can be viewed quickly at http://www.journalof911studies.com/beginners.html before continuing, as it plays a part in understanding what probably occurred in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 << CONTINUED HERE >>

why hasn't it been published in an engineering journal huh? hahahahaha. you fucking fraud.

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad.
Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I think that's much of the reason why I gave up on that kid ever figuring any of this out. He's so far gone that even if Dick Cheney himself came out and said the he in fact was behind it, Krypton would undoubtedly try to argue against him from every single angle. Well, either that or he'd just blow his own brains out as a result of his not being able to cope with his inadequately perceived reality becoming so thoroughly shattered. The fact that these trolls categorically deny eyewitness accounts such as these (which I have no doubt were purposefully omitted from the official report) is telling enough as it is that these folks are either in an absolute state of denial or are in fact working in the effort to help extend the criminal coverup surrounding the events of that day.

Intolerance of criticism. Eyewitness accounts prove nothing by themselves in a court of law...idiot...

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Wow, the trolls are making it easy for me today. lol

this isn't much of a discussion board for you considering 1/2 of the contributors to the PDD are on your ignore list. All I did was state an absolute fact!

perhaps since there is no give and take between you and anyone you should just stop posting. what exactly do you get out of coming here?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN who gives a shit what the widows think?

no kidding. for the most part, it's just a bunch of stay-at-home mom's. that group had way too much influence based on sheer sympathy. they held up every forward movement with respect to rebuilding.

Only a pussy puts people on ignore. There is a lot to be learned from other people's ideas, points of view, ways of thinking, etc... especially from those you are at odds with or don't agree with. It helps to grow, learn, and mature.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild It helps to grow, learn, and mature.

but if you already know everything like trancer does, you dont need other people.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the destruction of the Twin Towers Tony Szamboti Mechanical Engineer Feb. 17, 2008 Abstract: In the past two years there has been an exponential growth in the number of people questioning the explanations we have been given, by official U.S. government bodies, concerning the collapses of the three WTC buildings in NYC on 9/11/2001. It is probably safe to say that much of this growth can be attributed to the Internet publishing of a paper by Physics Professor Steven Jones in November 2005, which put forth the hypothesis that the Twin Towers and WTC7 were actually demolished with pre-positioned cutter charges. This hypothesis is in tension with the present government explanation of impact damage and fires being the causes for the complete collapses of the buildings. My intent here is to show that any honest and objective look at all of the theories, for the destruction of the twin towers, including the present government explanation, will cause one to realize that only the controlled demolition hypothesis is sustainable. I believe an honest look at the evidence will convince anyone that the controlled demolition hypothesis provides the best explanation for the complete collapses of the towers, as well as the damage to the buildings and objects surrounding them. The remarkable collapse of WTC7 seems to have had a separate cause in its own controlled demolition. Video of the collapse of WTC7 can be viewed quickly at http://www.journalof911studies.com/beginners.html before continuing, as it plays a part in understanding what probably occurred in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 << CONTINUED HERE >>

That guy hasn't examined one piece of evidence from any collapse, let alone be able to definitively say what killed the towers. It's like a detective charging someone for murder, and never looking at the body, crime scene, etc. NOWHERE IN THE PAPER IS THERE ANY USE OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE...

Additionally, PKC, jez, and Lebez, get this... These are what he considered the more credible theories!!

And I quote..."So how then did the towers collapse?

The answer is that another mechanism must have caused the collapses. Over the last couple of years there have been several alternative collapse causation theories proposed, to supplant the insufficient fire and impact damage theory, some more serious than others, and they are:

1. The towers were destroyed via controlled demolition with the use of incendiaries and explosives.
2. A directed energy weapon was used to destroy the towers.
3. Mini-nukes were used to destroy the towers."

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but if you already know everything like trancer does, you dont need other people.

Knowing everything must be amazing. Kind of like being on LSD.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.