TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Willie Nelson: Twin Towers Were Imploded On 9/11
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »
LOL!
You just couldn't resist another vintage, LONG-ass Trancer post of video clips, links and other people's "troffer" website drivel, could you Trancer?
For someone who is in to conspiracy theories, you sure haven't learned a thing about covering up your real identity. 
But hey, I'm not mad. Not at all. In fact, I find it all entertaining as hell! lol. 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN already done, a few days ago when willie first advertised his rampant stupidity. so, answer my question. why do you troofers think the opinion of some shitty singer-songwriter means anything but jack shit? edit: oh, and FYI, there are absolutely NO similarities between towers 1&2 and ANY implosion ever done in the history of demolitions. |
Can anybody post a link to some site debunking the theories about WTC7 and the towers. The collapse (especially WTC7) seems higly strange to me, but I haven't really done much research yet.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by donnybrasco LOL! You just couldn't resist another vintage, LONG-ass Trancer post of video clips, links and other people's "troffer" website drivel, could you Trancer? For someone who is in to conspiracy theories, you sure haven't learned a thing about covering up your real identity. But hey, I'm not mad. Not at all. In fact, I find it all entertaining as hell! lol. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by WayWord No, I didn't know you were caling me by somebody else's handle. I've never posted on this forum before. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Meat187 Can anybody post a link to some site debunking the theories about WTC7 and the towers. The collapse (especially WTC7) seems higly strange to me, but I haven't really done much research yet. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by donnybrasco For someone who's never posted in this forum before (or on this site), you've certainly got the way to format your content down, with all the quotes, integrated links and video embeds. VEEEERY smooth and jitter-free. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by donnybrasco LOL! You just couldn't resist another vintage, LONG-ass Trancer post of video clips, links and other people's "troffer" website drivel, could you Trancer? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by WayWord I've been posting on these kind of forums since 2003. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Meat187 Can anybody post a link to some site debunking the theories about WTC7 and the towers. The collapse (especially WTC7) seems higly strange to me, but I haven't really done much research yet. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by donnybrasco ^^^It's ok dude. I guess in your mind, countering a conspiracy (9-11) with a conspiracy (pretending to be at least one, if not more than one individual posting "the truth" about 9-11) is a justifiable counter-measure against the "trolls". That's why I find it funny. Humor is irony, after-all. And there are BOATLOADS of irony in this thread, lol. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by WayWord Hey, all I'm doing is trying to pass around some information. This sort of thing should make national news, but the corporate-controlled mainstream media decided to start black-balling these kinds of stories after trying to smear Charlie Sheen blew up in their face. That's why not too many people heard about his father questioning the official story last year (or a former Italian president for that matter). It's just too bad that certain people find this sort of information offensive. Anyway, it's all over the news when Oprah supports Obama or when Britney goes to rehab, why not when country-western icon Willie Nelson questions the government's 9/11 BS? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by WayWord Hey, all I'm doing is trying to pass around some information. This sort of thing should make national news, but the corporate-controlled mainstream media decided to start black-balling these kinds of stories |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by WayWord (or a former Italian president for that matter). |
^^^Didn't Trancer already bring up the "Italian President" argument in another one of the 9-11 threads recently?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by donnybrasco ^^^Didn't Trancer already bring up the "Italian President" argument in another one of the 9-11 threads recently? |
You know what annoys me about conspiracies is the fact that governments never have to answer any of the concerns or issues raised by the conspiracies. They are almost self destructing as people automatically insist that the official government line is obviously correct, and any attempts to deviate from the "consensus" is the work of tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiraloons, and is dismissed, crucially, not by the government or the accused, but ordinary members of the public who become sick and tired of these theories!
Nobody can deny there are some unanswered questions surrounding the events of 9/11. Some of them are valid, some not so. Some, like the topic of this thread, and other issues involving "evidence" of an inside job, for me, fall into the "not so valid" category. For a start, lets think about this logically - everybody in the world saw two planes hit the Twin Towers, some live while it was happening. That's all that was needed for America to pursue the neoconservative foreign policy it did after 9/11. The Towers did not need to fall and the Pentagon did not need to be hit. Those two planes were all that were needed. Sure they might have had more information about the attacks than they let on, but it simply was not necessary for the Towers to crumble.
But what pisses me off is that these unnecessary conspiracy theories distract from what I consider crucial questions that need to be answered surrounding 9/11. One key issue for me is the role of Saudi Arabia. We know there is a connection but certain details were blacked out and remain classified. The obvious conclusion is that the information would alter people's perception of the country and put American business interests there in jepordy. But more than that, it gives us a crucial insite into the war on terror. My country suffered at the hands of Islamist terrorists and if the US has any information that might help us defend against this threat in future, they should share it with their allies.
But there is no pressure on the US government to open up about these valid questions surrounding 9/11 because they all get thrown into the same category as "troofer conspiracy theories" and simply ignored by the government who's position is bolstered by people who immediately attack anyone who continues to question these events.
I would like to see the government answer ALL questions surrounding 9/11 so we can out these theories and questions to bed once and for all, but while people automatically write off any attempt to investigate these questions they government doesn't need to deny accusations because there are enough members of the public doing that on their behalf anyway...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley You know what annoys me about conspiracies is the fact that governments never have to answer any of the concerns or issues raised by the conspiracies. They are almost self destructing as people automatically insist that the official government line is obviously correct, and any attempts to deviate from the "consensus" is the work of tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiraloons, and is dismissed, crucially, not by the government or the accused, but ordinary members of the public who become sick and tired of these theories! Nobody can deny there are some unanswered questions surrounding the events of 9/11. Some of them are valid, some not so. Some, like the topic of this thread, and other issues involving "evidence" of an inside job, for me, fall into the "not so valid" category. For a start, lets think about this logically - everybody in the world saw two planes hit the Twin Towers, some live while it was happening. That's all that was needed for America to pursue the neoconservative foreign policy it did after 9/11. The Towers did not need to fall and the Pentagon did not need to be hit. Those two planes were all that were needed. Sure they might have had more information about the attacks than they let on, but it simply was not necessary for the Towers to crumble. But what pisses me off is that these unnecessary conspiracy theories distract from what I consider crucial questions that need to be answered surrounding 9/11. One key issue for me is the role of Saudi Arabia. We know there is a connection but certain details were blacked out and remain classified. The obvious conclusion is that the information would alter people's perception of the country and put American business interests there in jepordy. But more than that, it gives us a crucial insite into the war on terror. My country suffered at the hands of Islamist terrorists and if the US has any information that might help us defend against this threat in future, they should share it with their allies. But there is no pressure on the US government to open up about these valid questions surrounding 9/11 because they all get thrown into the same category as "troofer conspiracy theories" and simply ignored by the government who's position is bolstered by people who immediately attack anyone who continues to question these events. I would like to see the government answer ALL questions surrounding 9/11 so we can out these theories and questions to bed once and for all, but while people automatically write off any attempt to investigate these questions they government doesn't need to deny accusations because there are enough members of the public doing that on their behalf anyway... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley That's all that was needed for America to pursue the neoconservative foreign policy it did after 9/11. The Towers did not need to fall and the Pentagon did not need to be hit. Those two planes were all that were needed. Sure they might have had more information about the attacks than they let on, but it simply was not necessary for the Towers to crumble. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo i'm in no way a troother but i think thats just your opinion based on how you actually feel about neoconservative foreign policy having watched it for the last 6 years. |
| quote: |
| if just one plane hit the towers and only 250 people died and somehow the tower managed to remain intact as opposed to what actually happened, Bush wouldn't have had the emotional capital in Congress to get what he wanted regarding Saddam. there's just no way. |
| quote: |
| public sentiment would have chalked it up to just our "periodic terrorist attack" that we had been witness to the prior decades i.e random hi-jackings and plane bombings, '93 WTC bombing, our embassies, the USS Cole except just a little more dramatic and closer to home. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Not sure I quite understand what you're getting at here? |
| quote: |
| I completely disagree. Even if it were only 250 people, that is still a huge amount and (crucially) the public would have demanded action (especially considering the means of the attack). |
| quote: |
| But on top of that, I think you fatality estimate is way too low. IIRC, most of the people below where the planes hit managed to get out of the building. The ones that lost their lives were trapped above the level of the strike, and would therefore more than likely have burned to death had the building not collapsed, resulting in similar levels of fatalities |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo what i'm saying is i think you're letting how you've felt about neoconservative foriegn policy all these years affect your reasoning. |
| quote: |
| "demand action"? like regime change in Iraq? c'mon dude be serious. |
| quote: |
| it's just a for instance. an example i made to make a point. |
In the matter of WTC7, i read a journal article a while ago which outlined the design fault that triggered the collapse, this building like many others was changed mid construction, as such some on site engineering was done to accomodate the new change, this change required some large load transfer trusses to be installed to carry the load from the penthouse which was now no longer centered on the building. these trusses were desinged to take a "cantilevered" load and transfer it to the core column structure. This truss failed causing the penthouse to collapse through the roof, which in turn, pulled the rest of the structure with it.
if you take a giant steel ball (lets say 1000000 tonnes just for dramatic effect) this ball is suspended from a frame with two connections. if one fails, the ball will most likely pull the other half of the frame down with it. Why? because strucutral connections are usually designed to be independant and redundant for most cases. ie if one joint fails, the other joint should be able to hold its load. The only problem with this is that when you have a failure that causes a large load shift or mass shift, the joints that remained intact are now subject to dynamic loads that they were not designed to carry.
The concept that it was imploded is not only impractical, but completely un founded.
-Im going to dig through my box full of CSCE and ASCE journals and ill find a source link..... this is all from memory right now.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Nobody can deny there are some unanswered questions surrounding the events of 9/11. Some of them are valid... |
HOW DID THE TOWERS FALL WHEN THERE WERE NO PLANES
I NEVER SAW A PLANE AND THEY BOTH FELL WITH 15 OTHER BUILDINGS
GOOD JOB MATHEMATICIANS, YOU DEBUNKED IT!
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.