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 pkcRAISTLIN there are refutations all over the internet, how bout you go look for them yourself?

I've already made my position clear after hearing for years AND BELIEVING the official story of 911. Now I am a skeptic. Now if you want to argue against my skepticism, the burden is not on me to provide evidence for YOUR arguments. I've made my stance and provided sources. You disagree, I ask for a refutation, and you have a tantrum? Come on now..

Forget about the Zeitgeist, I guess there's too much of an argument to refute in a short period of time in its entirety. But find me a refutation of the NORAD stand down, as I have found none. Can you refute the timeline as described in the videos I posted?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Who has the admin blamed for 911? Tell me PLEASE IM DYING TO KNOW..

Al Queera.

you just posted the answer to your own question.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Al Queera. you just posted the answer to your own question.

And by default, Osama is blamed!!

I knew the answer to my damn question.. But you keep trying to argue that the official stance of the Bush admin is that Osama is not the guy responsible for 911..when they do hold him responsible. So what if they havn't made the indictment, that just shows how weak their case is against him in regards to 911. Which is why there is so much skepticism from 1/3 of Americans about who really is to blame for 911.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I've already made my position clear after hearing for years AND BELIEVING the official story of 911. Now I am a skeptic. Now if you want to argue against my skepticism, the burden is not on me to provide evidence for YOUR arguments. I've made my stance and provided sources. You disagree, I ask for a refutation, and you have a tantrum? Come on now.. Forget about the Zeitgeist, I guess there's too much of an argument to refute in a short period of time in its entirety. But find me a refutation of the NORAD stand down, as I have found none. Can you refute the timeline as described in the videos I posted?

look, its just me being a little bit over the whole CT stuff. not your fault, and i apologise. its just that nobody actually ever listens to the voice of reason or logic, and favour the most crazy and illogical notions because they have failed (or refused) to look at the counter evidence. the fact that you keep referencing zeitgeist, which is full of lies, hardly makes me want to bother, you know?

and actually, it IS your burden to provide yourself with information, that's what research is all about. but, in one last attempt to provide sanity to these threads

vanity fair article

never EVER underestimate the capacity for government incompetence.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton And by default, Osama is blamed!!

LMAO! Awww poor Bin Laden. By default? He confessed on tv. He took responsibility, or do you think that was staged too?
Maybe he's not hiding in a cave? Maybe you prefer to believe he's hiding in one of the toilet's in the white house?

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles LMAO! Awww poor Bin Laden. By default? He confessed on tv. He took responsibility, or do you think that was staged too? Maybe he's not hiding in a cave? Maybe you prefer to believe he's hiding in one of the toilet's in the white house?

Dude, do you even know the fucking context I said that in? Stop taking me out of context. Q5echo is trying to say OBL is not responsible because we havn't indicted him for 911, which is true.

And if you watch the video, whereby the CIA or FBI claim its bin Laden taking responsibility for 911, its not Bin laden..This argument is made in Zeitgeist, which you need to watch..[[ LINK REMOVED ]]


Bin Laden has never accepted responsibility for 911. And the US case for saying he did is all based ONE faulty video supposedly found in an abandoned cave..

zeitgeist is a piece of shit, stop referencing it like its the second coming

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN zeitgeist is a piece of shit, stop referencing it like its the second coming

Refutation refutation refutation. Are you seriously going to think I'm going to just take your word for it? I'm giving you the floor. Refute it. If you can't then I have nothing more to say to you..

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Refutation refutation refutation. Are you seriously going to think I'm going to just take your word for it? I'm giving you the floor. Refute it. If you can't then I have nothing more to say to you..

where would you like me to start?

molten metal?
thermite found at ground zero?
sound of explosions?

the NORAD stuff is out of what ive researched, which is why i gave you the vanity fair examination.

point is child, that it is YOUR job to refute it, you cant give any reasons why you should accept zeitgeist at face value until you've actually gone off and looked at some of its claims.

the 911 stuff referenced in that film has been explained numerous times by numerous people over numerous websites. go look for yourself, or you can ask me a particular question and ill do my best to answer it, assuming i have researched that part. honestly, there are a million red-herrings and lies and i dont see the point in researching all of them given the people that believe this shit dont listen to reason in the first place.

Ok, as I said before, we can take off the table Zeitgeist, as it has too much in it for us to pick apart and argue over.

Then I asked, let's talk about NORAD.

Why did they stand-down? Can you refute that? The burden of my argument rested in the two videos I posted about the NORAD stand-down. So, now I give you the floor....child....

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Ok, as I said before, we can take off the table Zeitgeist, as it has too much in it for us to pick apart and argue over. Then I asked, let's talk about NORAD. Why did they stand-down? Can you refute that? The burden of my argument rested in the two videos I posted about the NORAD stand-down. So, now I give you the floor....child....

no, they didnt stand down. did you read the article i posted?

pkc, I don't think this guy believes in anything in regards to the US. He prolly thinks Albania is wealthier then the US, and that the government of Zimbawe is a lot less corrupt. He'll even ask you for proof to show him that Los Angeles is in California and that Hobart is in Australia.

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles pkc, I don't think this guy believes in anything in regards to the US. He prolly thinks Albania is wealthier then the US, and that the government of Zimbawe is a lot less corrupt. He'll even ask you for proof to show him that Los Angeles is in California and that Hobart is in Australia.

I believe in truth and integrity. And when I don't see it I point it out. Not my fault your too blinded to see it.

quote:

no, they didnt stand down. did you read the article i posted?

no, post it again..

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN vanity fair article never EVER underestimate the capacity for government incompetence.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN quote: Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN vanity fair article never EVER underestimate the capacity for government incompetence.

I thought you were a Socialist?

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I thought you were a Socialist?

im an ex-socialist that works for the government

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im an ex-socialist that works for the government

so you're almost like a Neo-con?

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X so you're almost like a Neo-con?

LOL. nothing of the sort. im a centrist, by and large. i dont believe in rudimentary and simplistic labels.

how you think a socialist could EVER become a neo-con though is beyond me. im sure you'd be quite surprised at my libertarian leanings as well

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN LOL. nothing of the sort. im a centrist, by and large. i dont believe in rudimentary and simplistic labels. how you think a socialist could EVER become a neo-con though is beyond me. im sure you'd be quite surprised at my libertarian leanings as well

How about a former Trotskyist like Irving Kristol?

Open Letter to Popular Mechanics - Prove Your Ludicrous 911 Theories in Public

quote:

Saturday, 06 October 2007 Direct challenge to Popular Mechanics - Show us the Physics & Math to back up your ludicrous & �physically impossible� 911 gravity collapse assertions Here are the clear facts of the ~ 417 m tower destruction: Physics Proof showing 9/11 was a Demolition. by J A Blacker MSc IMI (Physical Systems) (Lancaster England) First we must identify what we already know as FACT: - Twin towers 1 & 2 were 1,368 ft and 1362 ft respectively. Let us take the taller to be conservative. We know near the surface of the earth at sea level we can use g = 9.81 m/s2 (metres per second per second), which is a scientifically accepted approximation. We know the towers fell in 10 Seconds due to the siesmic records and the copiouse video evidence. Secondly we must convert to SI units: g is measured in metres per second per second, d must be measured in metres, t in seconds. Distance fallen d = 416.97 Metres. g = 9.81 m/s2 . t = 10 Seconds Let us find out how much time it would take to fall the actual hight 417 m in an ideal vacuum. We know that air resistance always slows a falling body, we will disregard air resistance & other slowing effects so as to keep the maths simple whilst at the same time giving a realistic accurate conservative value. It is physically impossible for the strongest, heaviest and (3 times working design load) bottom 80+ floors to offer near zero resistance to the falling floors except when there is a controlled demolition. Period! Popular mechanics claims in public literature that on 911 it is perfectly acceptable for a falling body to take, what is, the path of greatest resistance. Physical Systems (Lancaster England) openly and publicly challenges �Popular Mechanics� magazine New York, to demonstrate one single experiment, which shows a falling body taking the path of greatest resistance (Reproducibly), or they remove and recant their ludicrous & physically impossible gravity destruction scenario from the public record. If 6 months from the date of this formal public challenge (Saturday, 06 October 2007) �Popular Mechanics� Magazine can not reproducibly demonstrate a falling body taking the path of greatest resistance as a result of Gravity alone, then it is Ample evidence to everyone that the Popular Mechanics Magazine assertion that Gravity alone could destroy the twin towers and building 007 at near freefall speed IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE �Popular Myth� & deliberate �Popular Mechanics� DECEPTION or indeed honest misunderstanding Re the laws of Physics. Physical Systems (Lancaster England) can demonstrate that a falling body ALWAYS, without exception, takes the path of least resistance (Reproducibly). In the case of controlled demolition the path of least resistance is often within the building footprint as seen with the destruction of WTC001, WTC002 & WTC007 on Sep 11 2001 and many other such demolitions. Kind regards, J. A. Blacker MSc IMI (Physical Systems)(Lancaster England) http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/...in-public/1451/

9/11 Survivor Anthony Saltalamacia Speaks Out - Confirms Explosions



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzpaZE5XSfg

Re: Open Letter to Popular Mechanics - Prove Your Ludicrous 911 Theories in Public

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X

o if only grade 10 physics equations could explain everything in the world................ i'm glad that you posted this cunning use of arithmetic. Everything is so much clearer now.....


full structural failure (collapse) is most often a very sudden and catastrophic failure. note recent bridge collapses (the one in the US and the one two years ago in Laval quebec) both of these failed in a matter of a second....

Re: Re: Open Letter to Popular Mechanics - Prove Your Ludicrous 911 Theories in Publi

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp o if only grade 10 physics equations could explain everything in the world................ i'm glad that you posted this cunning use of arithmetic. Everything is so much clearer now..... full structural failure (collapse) is most often a very sudden and catastrophic failure. note recent bridge collapses (the one in the US and the one two years ago in Laval quebec) both of these failed in a matter of a second....

So you're now saying that it wasn't a progressive collapse at all but rather a simultaneous one?

Isn't that contradictory to Popular Mechanics' pancake theory?

Re: Re: Re: Open Letter to Popular Mechanics - Prove Your Ludicrous 911 Theories in P

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X So you're now saying that it wasn't a progressive collapse at all but rather a simultaneous one? Isn't that contradictory to Popular Mechanics' pancake theory?

on the contrary, the progressive collapse would not involve significant time delays from floor to floor.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Open Letter to Popular Mechanics - Prove Your Ludicrous 911 Theories

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp on the contrary, the progressive collapse would not involve significant time delays from floor to floor.

Those 47 box columns had to offer some resistance, though. Much more so than just the air between the floors (the very same air that Mr. Blacker's computations left unaccounted for.)

Anyway, why don't you put your mind where your mouth is and show this guy up on his challenge to Popular Mechanics? I'd definitely have a lot of respect for you if you did that and although I almost hate to say it, I think that it would actually be kind of cool

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