Kiddie crew? sure buddy, how about you go screw yourself. I have yet to see any solid evidence brought forth on your ridiculous claims. Pasting garbage from other disinformation websites on what other trolls think about other people it not justifying your cause. Remember in the real world you need evidence supporting fantasy beliefs.
Start reading things properly and placing them in the correct context, for one the guy (Dylan Avery) who made loose change stated exactly that the documentary was not perfect, you just posted it up yourself moron, he said it in his own words. No where do they state what they claim happened with 100% accuracy and no one can because the official story is full of holes and lies exactly like the "Weapons of Mass Destruction". :rolleyes:
THE SOLE REASON(S) FOR A NEW CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO 9/11.
No one can answer why the towers collapsed exactly because the evidence was shipped away and melted down ever so quickly. You have professionals with credentials and even the trade towers designer saying that the planes could not have caused the towers to collapse in the fashion that they did. They where built to withstand much more. If you choose to ignore their credentials and real facts even after being proven wrong it is solely your problem.
No one can say it was Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon because none of planes have ever been matched to any parts. The only video released does not show Flight 77 and the flight data records released via the freedom of information act after many years from this same flight tells a different story. (flight path, speed, altitude, etc.)
The amount of G forces would of knocked out who ever was flying this airliner (and the others which crashed into the towers) well before it got close to the Pentagon. The supposed hijacker could barely fly a Cessna but they would like for you to blindly believe he became a super human pilot on 9/11 and defied G forces? Of course fairy tale stories can only explain this one, hence the official story.
World Trade 7 came down like a ing sand castle and the official reports could only make what the "official" story claimed happened with tests well beyond what really occurred to the building in terms of stress loads. The penthouse on the top of WTC7 caved in first, how did these super fires take out the supports at the top? This ones easy, fires did not take out the supports. Demolition charges did, they blew it up.
Fires have never in HISTORY caused steel structures to be demolished in this fashion. If this is the case then demolition companies should stop spending their money on all the research, equipment and manpower and go buy a box of matchsticks instead, they would have saved hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions by already. :eyes:
United 93 which was shot down ended up in a billion pieces and again none of the parts where ever matched up. Random pieces of junk scattered all over the place exactly like at the Pentagon. The only difference is this plane did not have any layers of concrete walls to slam against yet the hole it created in the grass field was practically empty? Crashed or vaporised, which one is it? You cannot have both.
There are absolutely unanswered questions and everything is not 100% accurate regarding 9/11, you cannot be helped any further but to read and research on your own subjectively. These questions are just a fraction of questions raised if you are to look at the official story at face value. If you can live with them then so be it.
If you cannot then why not ask the government or the hired agencies why there are so many holes and unanswered questions, THEY are the ones who told you this incredible fairy tale story in the first place. Have millions of people read the wrong 9/11 Commission Report. Last time I checked there exists only one 568 page long fiction book ever released bearing the same name.
I do not buy the official story and I never will, with or without a new investigation. There is absolutely no reason at all to believe what proven liars and war mongers are telling the public about the events of 9/11. If anything they are to be placed under the eye of every last person for this fact alone, be my guest if you feel otherwise....
You can always keep on eating popcorn while they feed you their faux news through their very owned faux news and media channels.
:eyespop:
Krypton
I'm all for an independent 9/11 commission.
culorut
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
I'm all for an independent 9/11 commission.
I am in also, but if there is not those ******s did it anyway.
culorut
9/11 Truth: Why Won't The Media Show World Trade Center 7?
{b.s.e.}
i can't believe you people think that fire caused that. utterly ing jokes.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
i can't believe you people think that fire caused that. utterly ing jokes.
I cant believe people like you consider themselves such experts on what a building should look like after being hit by falling debris burning for over 5 hours.
I also cant believe that you think the government has some super-secret demolition explosives that make absolutely no sound whatsoever. Idiot.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
I do not buy the official story and I never will, with or without a new investigation.
so, since you've already ruled out several thousand people - who exactly would you get to conduct this new investigation? obviously all the world-renowned experts in their field aren't good enough for you.
perhaps someone could investigate it right now with the help of youtube? i mean its been good enough for people like you for 7 years.
oh, and anyone that repeatedly uses the term "disinformation" the way you do needs to grow the up.
{b.s.e.}
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
I cant believe people like you consider themselves such experts on what a building should look like after being hit by falling debris burning for over 5 hours.
I also cant believe that you think the government has some super-secret demolition explosives that make absolutely no sound whatsoever. Idiot.
i really don't care what you think, or believe. i'm not an idiot, clearly. you're ing naive, sir.
the official story is pure, unadulterated bull. if you can't see that the thermate sparks flowing out windows -floors and floors below the impact site- or the squibs knocking glass and dust out into the air horizontally, or even the clear dispute with the conservation of motion; or the buildings falling into their footprints, or the molten steel weeks into debris removal; or the puts on airline stock days before, or the mysterious transactions; the closed door commission (with no transcript, bush and cheney lying together in harmony) as suspicious and grounds for deeper research then you're as stupid as i think you are.
..and i think you're pretty stupid, arguing skills aside, you've displayed a true knack for ignorance and close-mindedness. :)
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
i really don't care what you think, or believe. i'm not an idiot, clearly. you're ing naive, sir.
hahahahahaaha. someone who takes conspiracy sites at the word has the audacity to call ME naive? ha. let's look at your terrible terrible understanding shall we?
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
if you can't see that the thermate sparks flowing out windows -floors and floors below the impact site-
how do you know that these are thermate flows and not the flow of aluminium from the aircraft? do you have any idea just how much thermate would be required to produce that amount of molten metal? well, there's an analysis HERE for you
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
or the squibs knocking glass and dust out into the air horizontally
hahaha. if you knew anything about squibs or how explosives worked then you would know that there arent any seen on that day. next.
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
or even the clear dispute with the conservation of motion;
ahhhh, you really are someone that swallows things hook line and sinker (hows your zeitgeist research going btw? :haha: ) there is no conflict with the conservation of momentum, and why hasn't steven jones had that paper reviewed yet? what's taking so long? surely his science does more than fool gullible people like you?
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
or the buildings falling into their footprints,
yeah, if by "footprints" you mean "spewing forth all over the place for a radias of hundreds of yards".
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
or the molten steel weeks into debris removal;
explain why "molten steel" (which you can't prove was found anyway) would be present after a demolition. no other demolition in the history of demolitions has had molten steel afterwards. if you knew anything about thermite you would know that its impossible for this to have occurred from a thermite reaction. honestly, why are you so ignorant of the facts?
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
or the puts on airline stock days before,
i haven't looked into these areas, but occrider our renowned economics expert has already torn this argument to shreds in this thread (i believe its this thread), but you guys seem so reluctant to appreciate answers when presented with them.
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
the closed door commission (with no transcript, bush and cheney lying together in harmony) as suspicious and grounds for deeper research then you're as stupid as i think you are.
right, so they're really really stupid, yet somehow pulled off the biggest heist in human history. nice logic there, im really glad you and the other internet detectives are here to look out for us.
quote:
Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
..and i think you're pretty stupid, arguing skills aside, you've displayed a true knack for ignorance and close-mindedness. :)
yeah, well i think you're a gullible wit with little to no experience in proper academic discourse and/or research, yet with a profound sense of arrogance which leads leads you to believe your internet sleuthing has uncovered problems that thousands of experts didn't quite grasp.
You fit so many on the list its ridiculous :haha:
10 characteristics of {b.s.e.} and other juveniles without experience in the real world
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
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.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
mndeg
so can anybody refute why the WTC fell straight down and not just leaned over to the side where the jet fuel was burning?
btw stop attacking loose change, it's clearly a straw man argument.
"loose change is flawed, thus critical analysis of 9/11 is not needed"
that's
#1. straw man argument
#2. appeal to ignorance/non-sequitur
culorut
quote:
Originally posted by mndeg
so can anybody refute why the WTC fell straight down and not just leaned over to the side where the jet fuel was burning?
No one has, including the so called engineer in this thread and his troll sidekicks have definitely not done so. Straw man arguments are pretty much bang on around here.
Buildings WTC1 and WTC2 came straight down in exactly the same fashion but they both had completely different impact zones from the airliners.
One building which was already leaning and about to fall over (as you mentioned) suddenly decided to fall straight down instead. This is one of most obvious signs, the supports where taken out from below the impact zones for this to occur.
AKA Controlled Demolition
Most people will blindly believe that the laws of physics/momentum did not apply on 9/11 either, that is if you believe in fairy tales like these official story flakes.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by mndeg
so can anybody refute why the WTC fell straight down and not just leaned over to the side where the jet fuel was burning?
Originally posted by mndeg
btw stop attacking loose change, it's clearly a straw man argument.
"loose change is flawed, thus critical analysis of 9/11 is not needed"
that's
#1. straw man argument
#2. appeal to ignorance/non-sequitur
do you truthers even know what a "straw man" argument is? coz you don't use it in the correct context.
and i didn't say it was "flawed", i said it was full of lies. there are HUNDREDS of inaccuracies in the film. to call it merely "flawed" doesn't come close.
the only people that seem confused about the collapses are un-educated internet detectives or "truthers" as they are affectionately called.
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Most people will blindly believe that the laws of physics/momentum did not apply on 9/11 either, that is if you believe in fairy tales like these official story flakes.
hahahaha. i like how cretinrot likes to pretend he understands the physics when he barely graduated from highschool.
