Why 911 Lies are easire to believe than 911 TRUTH

[n0spam4me]

WOW, where to begin on this ...... (?)
First of all, if the floor overload theory is to be accepted, then that leaves the central core and outer wall separate and these items are expected to simply collapse of their own weight after the floor trusses are gone? what? given that scenario the lower third of the tower should have most certainly remained standing because the vertical columns were strong enough to be free standing for at least 15 stories, quite possibly much more than that. The ever increasing mass of the pile driver is dependent on the rubble pile being tall enough to justify the large mass having accumulated on the way down, however if the mass of ejected stuff was such that the pile driver did not accumulate, the rubble pile post "collapse" would be smaller. So given a significant bit of important data such as this, where are the pix of ground zero right after the collapse?

May I suggest that you ask your friendly local physics professor about your application of
"F=MA" ... You may want to revise your explanation.....

Note that in any given event, there are a multitude of possibilities as to what may have happened, in the case of the twin towers, the possibilities that would result in incomplete destruction, rather than ( as the NIST put it ) total collapse..... are many and rather much more probable than a scenario that leads to total destruction of not one but two skyscrapers on the same day and in the same manner of destruction.

 

[Skylar]

given that scenario the lower third of the tower should have most certainly remained standing because the vertical columns were strong enough to be free standing for at least 15 stories, quite possibly much more than that.

Who says that the vertical columns were strong enough to be free standing for at least 15 stories.

That would be you. Citing you. And your source sucks.

May I suggest that you ask your friendly local physics professor about your application of
"F=MA" ... You may want to revise your explanation.....

Oh, I'm quite happy with my explanation. Just because you ignore the acceleration of gravity and the increase in the mass of the debris field with each floor it consumed doesn't mean that I'm similarly obligated to do so.

Alas, the laws of physics don't change just because they're inconvenient to your argument.

Note that in any given event, there are a multitude of possibilities as to what may have happened, in the case of the twin towers, the possibilities that would result in incomplete destruction, rather than ( as the NIST put it ) total collapse..... are many and rather much more probable than a scenario that leads to total destruction of not one but two skyscrapers on the same day and in the same manner of destruction.

Note that in any given event the probability of the each of the 'multitude of possibilities isn't equal. You're working under the assumption that anything you can possibly make up is just as probable as the explanation give by the experts in structural engineering at the NIST.

Given your spectacular record of inaccuracy and failure on even simple issues of physics (ie. acceleration requires no resistance), along with the NIST's literal centuries of collective experience and direct access to materials from the site for testing, your assumption is invalid.

 

[n0spam4me]

While we are on the subject of what is probable ( or not )
When buildings are demolished on purpose, teams of experts examine the structure and plan the operation very carefully and if something doesn't work just right like say an explosive going off out of sequence or failing to go off at all, the result of a controlled demolition gone wrong, is incomplete demolition, however in the case of WTC1,2 & 7 the buildings were subjected to chaotic fires, and still "Collapsed" in a manner that looked very much like a controlled demolition and had exactly the same result, that is the demolition of WTC1,2 & 7 ..... So why not look into the possibility that the destruction of these buildings very well may have been an engineered event(?)

 

[pinqy]

While we are on the subject of what is probable ( or not )
When buildings are demolished on purpose, teams of experts examine the structure and plan the operation very carefully and if something doesn't work just right like say an explosive going off out of sequence or failing to go off at all, the result of a controlled demolition gone wrong, is incomplete demolition, however in the case of WTC1,2 & 7 the buildings were subjected to chaotic fires, and still "Collapsed" in a manner that looked very much like a controlled demolition and had exactly the same result, that is the demolition of WTC1,2 & 7 ..... So why not look into the possibility that the destruction of these buildings very well may have been an engineered event(?)

Because it would make zero sense. There is no reason for it to have been an engineered event.

 

[n0spam4me]

While we are on the subject of what is probable ( or not )
When buildings are demolished on purpose, teams of experts examine the structure and plan the operation very carefully and if something doesn't work just right like say an explosive going off out of sequence or failing to go off at all, the result of a controlled demolition gone wrong, is incomplete demolition, however in the case of WTC1,2 & 7 the buildings were subjected to chaotic fires, and still "Collapsed" in a manner that looked very much like a controlled demolition and had exactly the same result, that is the demolition of WTC1,2 & 7 ..... So why not look into the possibility that the destruction of these buildings very well may have been an engineered event(?)

Because it would make zero sense. There is no reason for it to have been an engineered event.

and your logic for the assumption that there was no reason for it to have been an engineered event is..... (?)

 

[pinqy]

While we are on the subject of what is probable ( or not )
When buildings are demolished on purpose, teams of experts examine the structure and plan the operation very carefully and if something doesn't work just right like say an explosive going off out of sequence or failing to go off at all, the result of a controlled demolition gone wrong, is incomplete demolition, however in the case of WTC1,2 & 7 the buildings were subjected to chaotic fires, and still "Collapsed" in a manner that looked very much like a controlled demolition and had exactly the same result, that is the demolition of WTC1,2 & 7 ..... So why not look into the possibility that the destruction of these buildings very well may have been an engineered event(?)

Because it would make zero sense. There is no reason for it to have been an engineered event.

and your logic for the assumption that there was no reason for it to have been an engineered event is..... (?)

Why on Earth would it be necessary to both crash planes and set demolitions? And that's not even considering the Pentagon and Shanksville

 

[n0spam4me]

While we are on the subject of what is probable ( or not )
When buildings are demolished on purpose, teams of experts examine the structure and plan the operation very carefully and if something doesn't work just right like say an explosive going off out of sequence or failing to go off at all, the result of a controlled demolition gone wrong, is incomplete demolition, however in the case of WTC1,2 & 7 the buildings were subjected to chaotic fires, and still "Collapsed" in a manner that looked very much like a controlled demolition and had exactly the same result, that is the demolition of WTC1,2 & 7 ..... So why not look into the possibility that the destruction of these buildings very well may have been an engineered event(?)

Because it would make zero sense. There is no reason for it to have been an engineered event.

You really don't get the magnitude of the scam do you, the hijackings & airliners used as weapons was FAKE, I'm not going to speculate as to HOW it was done, but the crash of "FLT11" & "FLT175" definitely not commercial airliners! The aircraft crashes ( all 4 of them ) defy the laws of physics. In the case of any one of the 4 airliner crashes, WHERE IS THE AIRCRAFT? Who has the INFORMATION as to how much of any given aircraft or alleged airliner was recovered and inventoried?
is 9/11/2001 the most poorly documented disaster in all history?
what?

and your logic for the assumption that there was no reason for it to have been an engineered event is..... (?)

Why on Earth would it be necessary to both crash planes and set demolitions? And that's not even considering the Pentagon and Shanksville

 

[SAYIT]

While we are on the subject of what is probable ( or not )
When buildings are demolished on purpose, teams of experts examine the structure and plan the operation very carefully and if something doesn't work just right like say an explosive going off out of sequence or failing to go off at all, the result of a controlled demolition gone wrong, is incomplete demolition, however in the case of WTC1,2 & 7 the buildings were subjected to chaotic fires, and still "Collapsed" in a manner that looked very much like a controlled demolition and had exactly the same result, that is the demolition of WTC1,2 & 7 ..... So why not look into the possibility that the destruction of these buildings very well may have been an engineered event(?)

You just busted you own argument and either don't recognize it or just can't admit it. The fact that the buildings suffered what you now admit were hours-long "chaotic fires" would tell an honest, intelligent person that demo materials would have either melted or would have tripped chaotically causing a chaotic demo but instead we have the sudden collapse without explosions or evidence of same. It is time to decide if you want to continue barking up the wrong tree or step into the light, Princess. Your choice.

Jonathan Kay 9 11 truther Richard Gage is a preacher to a dying breed National Post

Ask Richard Gage how he came to become obsessed with what he calls the “truth” about 9/11, and you hear what sounds an awful lot like a story of religious conversion.

...Richard Gage quit his job and moved out of his family home. His non-Truther friends thought he was acting weird, but it didn’t bother him: Gage now had a new life, traveling around the world as a sort of itinerant 9/11 Truther Extraordinaire...

The 9/11 “Truth” movement has hatched plenty of stars, of course — including hysterical radio host and internet sensation Alex Jones...
Jones and other hotheads supplied the late-night AM Radio call-in-show rhetoric about George W. Bush and Dick Cheney engineering 9/11 as a pretext to steal the world’s oil supply on orders from the Illuminati and the Rothschilds or what not...

Gage’s audience was the usual mix of graying hippies, student radicals and unclassifiable oddballs...

A man wearing a fedora and mismatched clothes told the same reporter he’d spent “5,000 to 6,000” hours investigating 9/11, and that the FBI had followed him and his friend while they were in the United States. (His two friends declined the opportunity to be interviewed, on the claim that the National Post is funded by “the CIA.” If only.)

Comment: The 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Movement (CTM) is now a Certified Freak Show (CFS).

 

[Skylar]

While we are on the subject of what is probable ( or not )
When buildings are demolished on purpose, teams of experts examine the structure and plan the operation very carefully and if something doesn't work just right like say an explosive going off out of sequence or failing to go off at all, the result of a controlled demolition gone wrong, is incomplete demolition, however in the case of WTC1,2 & 7 the buildings were subjected to chaotic fires, and still "Collapsed" in a manner that looked very much like a controlled demolition and had exactly the same result, that is the demolition of WTC1,2 & 7 ..... So why not look into the possibility that the destruction of these buildings very well may have been an engineered event(?)

Because it would make zero sense. There is no reason for it to have been an engineered event.

and your logic for the assumption that there was no reason for it to have been an engineered event is..... (?)

Occam's Razor.

Take...the Pentagon crash. Per you, there was no plane. That means...

1) All the dozens of witnesses from I-385 who were in a traffic jam when the plane few low over the interstate would have to be plants.
2) And all the dozens of witnesses from nearby buildings would have to be plants.
3) And all the flight records would have to have been forged.
4) You'd have to buy off all the emergency response crews who came to the scene. Who all, without exception, choose to become spontaneous co-conspirators in the murder of nearly 200 people.
5) You'd have to scattered debris from the plane all about the Pentagon lawn.
6) You'd have to somehow prevent any witness, camera or video showing you scattering the debris on Pentagon lawn.
7) You'd have to plant every wheel well and every engine part.
8) You'd have to fake the secondary radar records of airports across the most busily traveled air corridor on earth
9) You'd have to fake both both black boxes.
10) You'd need to fake the FAA radar records
11) You'd need to pay off or intimidate dozens of people at the FAA.
12) Youd' need to fake all the Reagan International radar records.
13) You'd need to pay off or intimidate dozens of people at the Reagan International airport, and any other airport that had picked up Flight 77.
14) You'd have to fake the ASCE report
15) You'd need to, buy off every one of the engineers involved in the ASCE report.
16) You'd have to fake every of 64 autopsies
17) You'd have to fake every picture of every body
18) You'd have to fake all the genetic tests
19) You'd have to fake all the personal effects that were returned to the families.
20) You'd have to somehow plant massive explosives in the Pentagon unnoticed.
21) You'd have to cover up all evidence of said explosives.
22) And you'd still have to get rid of Flight 77. So you'd have to somehow get rid of the plane
23) You'd have to get rid of all 64 bodies.
24) You'd have to hide any record at the location where the plane landed and the bodies were disposed of.
25) Despite a veritable army of co-conspirators, you'd have to maintain absolute and perfect secrecy for 13 years. Despite many of the 'co-conspirators' being added to the mix on the fly.

Or.....

1) You can crash Flight 77 into the Pentagon.


Logic has nothing to do with your insanely elaborate, fantastically complex and utterly fact free conspiracy theory.

 

[Skylar]

While we are on the subject of what is probable ( or not )
When buildings are demolished on purpose, teams of experts examine the structure and plan the operation very carefully and if something doesn't work just right like say an explosive going off out of sequence or failing to go off at all, the result of a controlled demolition gone wrong, is incomplete demolition, however in the case of WTC1,2 & 7 the buildings were subjected to chaotic fires, and still "Collapsed" in a manner that looked very much like a controlled demolition and had exactly the same result, that is the demolition of WTC1,2 & 7 ..... So why not look into the possibility that the destruction of these buildings very well may have been an engineered event(?)

While we are on the subject of what is probable ( or not )

Speaking of the subject of what is probable and improbable, are you ever going to stop ignoring the truck sized holes in the bomb theory that render it virtually impossible?

When buildings are demolished on purpose, teams of experts examine the structure and plan the operation very carefully and if something doesn't work just right like say an explosive going off out of sequence or failing to go off at all, the result of a controlled demolition gone wrong, is incomplete demolition

You do realize that you don't actually know a thing about controlled demolition and completely talking out of your ass right now, don't you?

, however in the case of WTC1,2 & 7 the buildings were subjected to chaotic fires, and still "Collapsed" in a manner that looked very much like a controlled demolition

Once again, you just don't know what you're talking about.
WTC 1 and 2 looked nothing like controlled demolition. Controlled demolition is from bottom to top, with the charges set at the base and all the floors above falling at the same rate. The WTC 1 and 2 fell from top to bottom. With the collapse intitiating at the point of impact with the plane and proceeding downward, 1 floor at a time, all the way to the ground.

Exactly opposite of controlled demolition.

WTC 7 fell from the inside out. And there are numerous factors with the WTC 7 that make bombs nearly impossible. Chief among them, the building's collapse initiated in virtual silence. There are no such thing as 'silent explosives'. You deal with this theory killing problem by ignoring it. We don't.

The building was also on fire, meaning any system of explosives would have been on fire...and rendered inoperable at best. There was no residue of explosives in any dust sample, the NIST found no evidence of controlled demolition, there were no girders cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition, and not a single bomb or charge or inch of blasting wire was ever found...before, during or after the collapse.

Rendering bombs a virtual impossility. All of which you know. But really hope we don't.

and had exactly the same result, that is the demolition of WTC1,2 & 7 ..... So why not look into the possibility that the destruction of these buildings very well may have been an engineered event(?)

The NIST looked into the possibility of controlled demolition. They found no evidence of it. You just don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Politico]

While we are on the subject of what is probable ( or not )
When buildings are demolished on purpose, teams of experts examine the structure and plan the operation very carefully and if something doesn't work just right like say an explosive going off out of sequence or failing to go off at all, the result of a controlled demolition gone wrong, is incomplete demolition, however in the case of WTC1,2 & 7 the buildings were subjected to chaotic fires, and still "Collapsed" in a manner that looked very much like a controlled demolition and had exactly the same result, that is the demolition of WTC1,2 & 7 ..... So why not look into the possibility that the destruction of these buildings very well may have been an engineered event(?)

Because it would make zero sense. There is no reason for it to have been an engineered event.

and your logic for the assumption that there was no reason for it to have been an engineered event is..... (?)

Because no one has ever proved it was. Thus the term conspiracy.

 

[pinqy]

You really don't get the magnitude of the scam do you, the hijackings & airliners used as weapons was FAKE, I'm not going to speculate as to HOW it was done, but the crash of "FLT11" & "FLT175" definitely not commercial airliners! The aircraft crashes ( all 4 of them ) defy the laws of physics. In the case of any one of the 4 airliner crashes, WHERE IS THE AIRCRAFT? Who has the INFORMATION as to how much of any given aircraft or alleged airliner was recovered and inventoried?
is 9/11/2001 the most poorly documented disaster in all history?
what?

First answer why do it the way you're claiming. Why use whatever planes you're claiming, pretend they're commercial plane, but really use demolition? Planes or demolition would have done the job. It m a les no sense to have faked anything. What possible reason w would m as me using explosives and planes a good idea?

 

[Skylar]

You really don't get the magnitude of the scam do you, the hijackings & airliners used as weapons was FAKE, I'm not going to speculate as to HOW it was done, but the crash of "FLT11" & "FLT175" definitely not commercial airliners! The aircraft crashes ( all 4 of them ) defy the laws of physics. In the case of any one of the 4 airliner crashes, WHERE IS THE AIRCRAFT? Who has the INFORMATION as to how much of any given aircraft or alleged airliner was recovered and inventoried?
is 9/11/2001 the most poorly documented disaster in all history?
what?

First answer why do it the way you're claiming. Why use whatever planes you're claiming, pretend they're commercial plane, but really use demolition? Planes or demolition would have done the job. It m a les no sense to have faked anything. What possible reason w would m as me using explosives and planes a good idea?

Nodding...I've mentioend the same thing. The pentagon crash for example would require an absolutely enormous conspiracy involving thousands of people. While just crashing the plane into the pentagon would produce the same results. Why not just crash the plane?

Conspiracy theorists tend toward the most radically elaborate, hopelessly complex explanations first. And Occam's Razor just cuts them to shreds.

 

[pinqy]

You really don't get the magnitude of the scam do you, the hijackings & airliners used as weapons was FAKE, I'm not going to speculate as to HOW it was done, but the crash of "FLT11" & "FLT175" definitely not commercial airliners! The aircraft crashes ( all 4 of them ) defy the laws of physics. In the case of any one of the 4 airliner crashes, WHERE IS THE AIRCRAFT? Who has the INFORMATION as to how much of any given aircraft or alleged airliner was recovered and inventoried?
is 9/11/2001 the most poorly documented disaster in all history?
what?

First answer why do it the way you're claiming. Why use whatever planes you're claiming, pretend they're commercial plane, but really use demolition? Planes or demolition would have done the job. It m a les no sense to have faked anything. What possible reason w would m as me using explosives and planes a good idea?

Nodding...I've mentioend the same thing. The pentagon crash for example would require an absolutely enormous conspiracy involving thousands of people. While just crashing the plane into the pentagon would produce the same results. Why not just crash the plane?

Conspiracy theorists tend toward the most radically elaborate, hopelessly complex explanations first. And Occam's Razor just cuts them to shreds.

I once got an answer that "they" faked a plot a new at the Pentago because the type of middle used was one terrorists wouldn't have. I received no answer as to why not just use a middle they would have.

 

[n0spam4me]

"I once got an answer that "they" faked a plot a new at the Pentago because the type of middle used was one terrorists wouldn't have. I received no answer as to why not just use a middle they would have."

Forgive me for not knowing .... but what is "middle" used in this context?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What I worry about is that when problems are not addressed people will not know who is responsible, and when the problems get bad enough as they might do with another financial meltdown — some one person will come forward and say: ‘Give me total power and I will solve this problem.’
~ Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter

 

[pinqy]

"I once got an answer that "they" faked a plot a new at the Pentago because the type of middle used was one terrorists wouldn't have. I received no answer as to why not just use a middle they would have."

Forgive me for not knowing .... but what is "middle" used in this context?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What I worry about is that when problems are not addressed people will not know who is responsible, and when the problems get bad enough as they might do with another financial meltdown — some one person will come forward and say: ‘Give me total power and I will solve this problem.’
~ Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter

A typo. Misspelled missile and was auto-corrected to middle

 

[n0spam4me]

The very fact that the mainstream media reported that an airliner was allegedly crashed into the PENTAGON when the damage is consistent with a missile strike ...... oh well,

 

[pinqy]

The very fact that the mainstream media reported that an airliner was allegedly crashed into the PENTAGON when the damage is consistent with a missile strike ...... oh well,

You haven't answered my question:
Why shoot a missile and claim a plane? Why not just do one or the other?

 

[n0spam4me]

Missiles are designed to penetrate walls, airliners are NOT.
simple ..... no?

and the airliner story contributes to the whole hijacked airliners fiasco leading to the creation of TSA the unconstitutional MOLEST TRAVELERS bit.

 

[SAYIT]

Missiles are designed to penetrate walls, airliners are NOT.
simple ..... no?

and the airliner story contributes to the whole hijacked airliners fiasco leading to the creation of TSA the unconstitutional MOLEST TRAVELERS bit.

Whoa! So "they" slammed those planes into America on 9/11 just so the TSA peeps could grope us at airports? Well, now it all makes perfect sense!