I'd enjoy an intellectual discussion-

[LA RAM FAN]

Oh and there is one more fact I forgot to mention in my last post on this thread. Two common themes 9/11 and the virus hoax have with each other is this.problem,reaction,solution so that the government can take away your freedoms and civil libertys and imprison you with their fascist laws.

9/11 started it all of course,create a problem,engineering 9/11,get a reaction,get the people all scared in panic mode asking the government to protect them,then have the government offer them the solution which was people were so scared of another terrorist attack they got Americans to accept the patriot act which needs to be called the UNpatriot act because what people did not realise was in the fine small print,it stated the NSA was illegally allowed to spy on its citizens with illegal survaliance.even some members of congress admitted they regretted signing it unaware of its evil implications that they they were so scared at the time,they eagerly signed it not taking the entire time to read it all.

same thing with the virus hoax.problem,reaction,solution.In the case of the virus,create a problem by scaring the population that we have a deadLy virus wiping out entire populations by inflating the numbers astronomically,second,get a reaction of panic.it worked beautifully getting the reaction,people were scared shitless in mass hysteria that they would get the virus that they were eager to stay home and go nowhere thinking if they touched money or a person or anything like that they would die,heck I was one of them.I bought into it at first washing my hands when I came home and wearing gloves everywhere I went. Then they offer the solution,a vaccine fir a virus that is no more dangerous than the common cold,the sheep too stupid to understand it is the vaccine that is dangerous not the virus,all for their agenda the elite have had planned for decades now to depopulate the world.

same old story same as 9/11 was,create a problem,get a reaction of panic,offer a solution,the sheep fall for it everytime. I am no longer afraid of the virus hoax anymore and I go into large crowds all the time and give my friends hugs as everybody should be doing.

jc456 You are the only one on here who I discussed this with who has logic and common sense that is sensible and reasonable in the fact you have not fallen for the virus hoax,I am hoping that what I said well at least register with YOU and you at the least will come to reality thst 9/11 was an inside job and WHY it was pulled off.again If you read griffins book,you will understand eveything I Been saying to be true and get it all. The others I discussed this with are all too brainwashed and in denial mode obviously too far gone to be reasoned with so there is no hope for them obviously,they will never read that book of griffins,that’s a given.

again,see you on the virus threads,I am happy you at LEAST have not bought into the lies from the CIA media on THAT one and don’t plan on taking the deadly vaccine. That is the IMPORTANT lie you don’t fall for.

 

[Gdjjr]

Could it have contained written evidence of a conspiracy between the perpetrators of 911 and the government that needed to be destroyed?

It could have- and I've seen that discussed- it could also be insurance- who knows what the motive(s) were/are.
What we have to study are results. Follow the money, see the agenda.

 

[Gdjjr]

Experts still say the stress of the buildings from the fires and missing supports added weight and stressed the steel below to collapse.

You question credential and use a word like expert (un named no less = no credentials)- yes, I asked for the discussion and I WILL dictate the rules of engagement- don't like it- go play in your own sand box.

The twin towers collapsed in near identical fashion even though they were hit in different locations, at near free fall speed - free fall, means no resistance- near free fall means a little resistance, as in some- the fires were not of high enough sustained temperature which is what it would take to weaken 5in flanged I beams, which were the center (core) supports- sustained temps. Not ignition temps which are really hot for a short period of time- the fires were temporary and lasted only as long as there was fuel available- as in burned off, meaning not sustained, and as fuel burns it loses heat/temp. The offices have fire resistant mat'l and resist flaming, then melt or disintegrate- voila!, no more fuel. There are images (in the videos) of explosions and there are interviews with Firemen who heard explosions.

The weight of the structure above where the planes hit started the collapse, and should have toppled, not collapsed- the rest was rigged- the mass below the tops was strong enough to support the weight from above, but didn't. How is that possible given the over engineering of steel structures? Yes, over engineering. It's common practice to build with a fudge factor of at least 20%- common practice. Why? Public safety and law suits. Why no law suits if there was structural weakness? Why no investigation(s) to determine if that was really the cause?

As for how all this was rigged- that's the reason there should have been a thorough investigation. The 9/11 commission's job was to try to figure out how to prevent it from happening again- not investigate what failed in the structures- also, there was evidence of thermite in the rubble- also the rubble was immediately removed (well as immediately as possible) and kept under a secure location and I doubt you could find it now with a map- I saw pictures of cut steel that didn't come from a torch- there are just too many odd events that point to gov't lies- call it whatever disparaging word you choose- lie is lie- the US gov't has a long, long history of lying- whose fault is that? Mine? Your's? LARAM's? No, it is its fault. How can I be persuaded otherwise? Prove I'm wrong. They can't. There will never be a thorough, unbiased (gov't influenced) investigation just like there will never be any trials for the POW's in Gtimo, just like there was never a thorough, unbiased (lack of gov't influence/prejudice) about JFK- and our gov't representatives are just people. They are not saints, though they pretend to be and many believe them to be and are willing to accept "expert" analysis - the expertise is selling, as you call it, bullshit.

So, was/is it a "conspiracy"? Maybe, maybe not. But, one thing is for sure- complicit is abundant. Lies are the history of the fed gov't. The CIA is probably the most corrupt crime organization on the planet, in history, and to this day it refuses to cooperate with people (outside the gov't, sometimes within the gov't) with the JFK assassination "experts" not employed by the fed gov't. And the experts, not employed by the fed gov't have credentials that are credible- not gov't sourced (though in some instances in the 9/11 debacle there are some gov't employees who have told their story) who have spent years researching/investigating his assassination- and now the same can be said about 9/11- the fed gov't is the one with the lack of credibility- not the civilians.

 

[sartre play]

I would be a lot more interested in how they were able to get the planes that flew into the buildings.

 

[Gdjjr]

I would be a lot more interested in how they were able to get the planes that flew into the buildings.

Which could be determined with an unbiased (non-gov't influenced) investigation-

 

[Donald H]

Experts still say the stress of the buildings from the fires and missing supports added weight and stressed the steel below to collapse.

You question credential and use a word like expert (un named no less = no credentials)- yes, I asked for the discussion and I WILL dictate the rules of engagement- don't like it- go play in your own sand box.

The twin towers collapsed in near identical fashion even though they were hit in different locations, at near free fall speed - free fall, means no resistance- near free fall means a little resistance, as in some- the fires were not of high enough sustained temperature which is what it would take to weaken 5in flanged I beams, which were the center (core) supports- sustained temps. Not ignition temps which are really hot for a short period of time- the fires were temporary and lasted only as long as there was fuel available- as in burned off, meaning not sustained, and as fuel burns it loses heat/temp. The offices have fire resistant mat'l and resist flaming, then melt or disintegrate- voila!, no more fuel. There are images (in the videos) of explosions and there are interviews with Firemen who heard explosions.

The weight of the structure above where the planes hit started the collapse, and should have toppled, not collapsed- the rest was rigged- the mass below the tops was strong enough to support the weight from above, but didn't. How is that possible given the over engineering of steel structures? Yes, over engineering. It's common practice to build with a fudge factor of at least 20%- common practice. Why? Public safety and law suits. Why no law suits if there was structural weakness? Why no investigation(s) to determine if that was really the cause?

As for how all this was rigged- that's the reason there should have been a thorough investigation. The 9/11 commission's job was to try to figure out how to prevent it from happening again- not investigate what failed in the structures- also, there was evidence of thermite in the rubble- also the rubble was immediately removed (well as immediately as possible) and kept under a secure location and I doubt you could find it now with a map- I saw pictures of cut steel that didn't come from a torch- there are just too many odd events that point to gov't lies- call it whatever disparaging word you choose- lie is lie- the US gov't has a long, long history of lying- whose fault is that? Mine? Your's? LARAM's? No, it is its fault. How can I be persuaded otherwise? Prove I'm wrong. They can't. There will never be a thorough, unbiased (gov't influenced) investigation just like there will never be any trials for the POW's in Gtimo, just like there was never a thorough, unbiased (lack of gov't influence/prejudice) about JFK- and our gov't representatives are just people. They are not saints, though they pretend to be and many believe them to be and are willing to accept "expert" analysis - the expertise is selling, as you call it, bullshit.

So, was/is it a "conspiracy"? Maybe, maybe not. But, one thing is for sure- complicit is abundant. Lies are the history of the fed gov't. The CIA is probably the most corrupt crime organization on the planet, in history, and to this day it refuses to cooperate with people (outside the gov't, sometimes within the gov't) with the JFK assassination "experts" not employed by the fed gov't. And the experts, not employed by the fed gov't have credentials that are credible- not gov't sourced (though in some instances in the 9/11 debacle there are some gov't employees who have told their story) who have spent years researching/investigating his assassination- and now the same can be said about 9/11- the fed gov't is the one with the lack of credibility- not the civilians.

You haven't even framed the debate you intend to have yet. It started out with a yes/no/maybe it was going to be about building 7, and now you're into a full blown conspiracy theory on the twin towers coming down in a suspicious way.

The only issue I've found in all that is the suggestion that thermite was found in the rubble. There's no proof for any of it, and there was no thermite found in the rubble. That's a myth.

In any case, it's time to frame the debate. Twin towers? Buiilding7 The Pentagon? Missing airplane? Missing airplane engines at the Pentagon.

So, was/is it a "conspiracy"? Maybe, maybe not. But, one thing is for sure- complicit is abundant.

Complicity was not abundant and furthermore, a wild suggestion of complicity on somebody's part isnt' a submission that can be debated. If you're trying to suggest somebody was complicit in a conspiracy, you could at least try to be specific.

A little early in the debate to be running from your conspiracy theory don't you think? Stay your course because you're of no use in a debate in which you have no reasonably sound position. If you're choosing at this point to abandon your position then make that clear!

My position is: It happened exactly as it was explained. There was no conspiracy!

 

[Donald H]

I would be a lot more interested in how they were able to get the planes that flew into the buildings.

Which could be determined with an unbiased (non-gov't influenced) investigation-

There's no need to investigate any further the method 'they' used to 'get' the planes. 'They' hijacked them!

If there's any further explanation needed on that, just ask appropriate questions.

 

[Gdjjr]

You haven't even framed the debate you intend to have yet.

Where did I say I wanted a debate? To discuss is not a debate- it's a back and forth of ideas- right, wrong, or indifferent. A debate is an attempt to justify something. I don't have to justify anything.

 

[Gdjjr]

It started out with a yes/no/maybe it was going to be about building 7, and now you're into a full blown conspiracy theory on the twin towers coming down in a suspicious way.

No, bldg 7 was mentioned only because it collapsed- and the Twin Towers did come down in a suspicious way.
There is no theory involved- only some misinformed opinions- mine ain't one of 'em. As far as a conspiracy, that's your word in this dialogue. Not mine, I addressed it appropriately- and BTW, long before I was here, I said the gov't was complicit, which I reiterated when I addressed your word. A word, btw, the CIA started using long before 9/11, for media lackey use to speak disparagingly of people who ain't sheeple- me, for one.

 

[Gdjjr]

My position is: It happened exactly as it was explained. There was no conspiracy!

My position is as stated- you have yet to explain how you've arrived at your position, on anything, other than one little blurb about an "expert" whom you didn't name- my position is backed by experts who are named- well, that and my knowledge-

You said you were going to take apart what I believe (know to be true)- all you've done so far is try to back handedly insult anyone who disagrees with you- that's called killing the messenger- it doesn't affect the message at all-

You don't want to debate, or even discuss, never mind be intellectual about it- what you're doing is trying to demagogue a conversation-

Have fun talking to yourself and patting yourself on the back until/unless you come to grips with you can't out think me, never mind prove my beliefs inaccurate- all you have is one little blurb to validate what you want to believe- with no name, therefore no credibility.

 

[Slade3200]

9/11 Controlled Demolition Debate! Niels Harrit (Chemist) vs. Denis Rancourt (Physicist)


I am neither a Chemist, or a Physicist- but, I do know that 2+2 = 4. I also know the US gov't and it's lackey presstitutes are the lyingest entities on the planet-

There is a pod cast in the link, and no, I didn't listen to it- I did read the accompanying article though, and I have followed this 9/11 stuff for years-

From the article- if anyone cares- which I doubt- the size of a gnat attention span is what liars depend on.


As I wrote then:


On my November 6 (2010) show physics professor/activist Denis Rancourt and I spent the first hour amicably discussing 9/11, and mostly agreeing with each other. During the second hour, we had a heated debate (temperatures almost high enough to vaporize steel!) about what happened to the Twin Towers: I argued that the controlled demolition hypothesis best explains the facts, while Denis, who admits that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition, claimed that the Towers could have collapsed due to plane crashes and fires as the government says.

Let me assert- 2 planes hit 2 bldg's in 2 different locations, near the tops, and brought them down in near identical fashion- in an unprecedented manner at near free fall speed- really?

Airplane hits building, building falls down. What’s the issue you’re having?

 

[Donald H]

It started out with a yes/no/maybe it was going to be about building 7, and now you're into a full blown conspiracy theory on the twin towers coming down in a suspicious way.

No, bldg 7 was mentioned only because it collapsed- and the Twin Towers did come down in a suspicious way.
There is no theory involved- only some misinformed opinions- mine ain't one of 'em. As far as a conspiracy, that's your word in this dialogue. Not mine, I addressed it appropriately- and BTW, long before I was here, I said the gov't was complicit, which I reiterated when I addressed your word. A word, btw, the CIA started using long before 9/11, for media lackey use to speak disparagingly of people who ain't sheeple- me, for one.

You have to own the 'conspiracy theory'.
But maybe you haven't taken enough time to understand the meaning of the words.
Conspiracy theories are opinions of who don't accept the official story.

I've already warned you in my last message to you that you're useless to any debate if you can't stand your ground on what you believe. Are you going to stand behind your conspiracy theory?

First of all, you'll need to present it in clear language. You haven't done that yet. When you choose which theory you favour, I'll be waiting to deal with it completely.

Unfortunately, I have to suspect that this is going nowhere and that's because you're not willing to stand your ground on any specifics.

May I offer something tangible to debate? You seem to not be able to accept that any of the buildings fell at the rate dictated by physics. Can you present your case on that issue alone by making some clear claims on one of the buildings in question?

We're going to learn that all of the building fell at exactly the rate that physics said they must fall.
And that then draws into question your conspiracy theory on what was going on inside the buildings that caused them to fall.

 

[Gdjjr]

You have to own the 'conspiracy theory'.

No, I don't- that is your attempt to discredit. Enjoy talking to yourself but don't break your arm.

 

[Donald H]

Airplane hits building, building falls down. What’s the issue you’re having?

That's breaking it down to it's simplest of terms.
But unfortunately we can't even do that yet until gijjer decides on what particular conspiracy theory horse he wants to ride?

Right now he has a choice of choosing the twin towers, building 7, or the Pentagon missing airplane. I doubt that he's going to do that and allow himself to be cornered.

 

[jc456]

Experts still say the stress of the buildings from the fires and missing supports added weight and stressed the steel below to collapse.

You question credential and use a word like expert (un named no less = no credentials)- yes, I asked for the discussion and I WILL dictate the rules of engagement- don't like it- go play in your own sand box.

The twin towers collapsed in near identical fashion even though they were hit in different locations, at near free fall speed - free fall, means no resistance- near free fall means a little resistance, as in some- the fires were not of high enough sustained temperature which is what it would take to weaken 5in flanged I beams, which were the center (core) supports- sustained temps. Not ignition temps which are really hot for a short period of time- the fires were temporary and lasted only as long as there was fuel available- as in burned off, meaning not sustained, and as fuel burns it loses heat/temp. The offices have fire resistant mat'l and resist flaming, then melt or disintegrate- voila!, no more fuel. There are images (in the videos) of explosions and there are interviews with Firemen who heard explosions.

The weight of the structure above where the planes hit started the collapse, and should have toppled, not collapsed- the rest was rigged- the mass below the tops was strong enough to support the weight from above, but didn't. How is that possible given the over engineering of steel structures? Yes, over engineering. It's common practice to build with a fudge factor of at least 20%- common practice. Why? Public safety and law suits. Why no law suits if there was structural weakness? Why no investigation(s) to determine if that was really the cause?

As for how all this was rigged- that's the reason there should have been a thorough investigation. The 9/11 commission's job was to try to figure out how to prevent it from happening again- not investigate what failed in the structures- also, there was evidence of thermite in the rubble- also the rubble was immediately removed (well as immediately as possible) and kept under a secure location and I doubt you could find it now with a map- I saw pictures of cut steel that didn't come from a torch- there are just too many odd events that point to gov't lies- call it whatever disparaging word you choose- lie is lie- the US gov't has a long, long history of lying- whose fault is that? Mine? Your's? LARAM's? No, it is its fault. How can I be persuaded otherwise? Prove I'm wrong. They can't. There will never be a thorough, unbiased (gov't influenced) investigation just like there will never be any trials for the POW's in Gtimo, just like there was never a thorough, unbiased (lack of gov't influence/prejudice) about JFK- and our gov't representatives are just people. They are not saints, though they pretend to be and many believe them to be and are willing to accept "expert" analysis - the expertise is selling, as you call it, bullshit.

So, was/is it a "conspiracy"? Maybe, maybe not. But, one thing is for sure- complicit is abundant. Lies are the history of the fed gov't. The CIA is probably the most corrupt crime organization on the planet, in history, and to this day it refuses to cooperate with people (outside the gov't, sometimes within the gov't) with the JFK assassination "experts" not employed by the fed gov't. And the experts, not employed by the fed gov't have credentials that are credible- not gov't sourced (though in some instances in the 9/11 debacle there are some gov't employees who have told their story) who have spent years researching/investigating his assassination- and now the same can be said about 9/11- the fed gov't is the one with the lack of credibility- not the civilians.

You haven't even framed the debate you intend to have yet. It started out with a yes/no/maybe it was going to be about building 7, and now you're into a full blown conspiracy theory on the twin towers coming down in a suspicious way.

The only issue I've found in all that is the suggestion that thermite was found in the rubble. There's no proof for any of it, and there was no thermite found in the rubble. That's a myth.

In any case, it's time to frame the debate. Twin towers? Buiilding7 The Pentagon? Missing airplane? Missing airplane engines at the Pentagon.

So, was/is it a "conspiracy"? Maybe, maybe not. But, one thing is for sure- complicit is abundant.

Complicity was not abundant and furthermore, a wild suggestion of complicity on somebody's part isnt' a submission that can be debated. If you're trying to suggest somebody was complicit in a conspiracy, you could at least try to be specific.

A little early in the debate to be running from your conspiracy theory don't you think? Stay your course because you're of no use in a debate in which you have no reasonably sound position. If you're choosing at this point to abandon your position then make that clear!

My position is: It happened exactly as it was explained. There was no conspiracy!

I want them to explain where all those wires were run! Hahaha. Ever see the platform for a fireworks display? And all of any wires in the buildings needed to come out! Hilarious these fks have no idea how explosions happen

 

[jc456]

Airplane hits building, building falls down. What’s the issue you’re having?

That's breaking it down to it's simplest of terms.
But unfortunately we can't even do that yet until gijjer decides on what particular conspiracy theory horse he wants to ride?

Right now he has a choice of choosing the twin towers, building 7, or the Pentagon missing airplane. I doubt that he's going to do that and allow himself to be cornered.

Flight 93 as well

 

[jc456]

You have to own the 'conspiracy theory'.

No, I don't- that is your attempt to discredit. Enjoy talking to yourself but don't break your arm.

Did they tell you where all the wires were run and how they got them out of the buildings? Hahaha . Do you even know a load has to go to a battery?

 

[jc456]

Still waiting for one of you conspiracy nuts to tell us where they ran the wires to the charges?

 

[Donald H]

Still waiting for one of you conspiracy nuts to tell us where they ran the wires to the charges?

It's only fair to mention that the detonations conspiracy theories could have been done by remote and without wires. In fact, a conspiracy theory at this level of 'crazy' would require that.
See my thread on conspiracy theories for the three main reasons why they do it.

I'm hoping it will have the effect of embarrassing some of the conspiracy theorists.

Or at least cause them to proclaim that their own conspiracy theory is the true story. Something like our own resident crackpot has already done with his 'free fall'/semi-free fall crap.

 

[Donald H]

The 911 conspiracy theory that had the best chance of being believed and accepted by Americans was the film showing building 7 coming down, just mere minutes before it came down.

How did America's government do that?

A government that is capable of pulling that one off is capable of anything!

Lazer images generated by Martians of airplanes hitting the twin towers included:

Or the one where one American proved airplanes couldn't have done it and he offered proof. Just take an aluminum Coke can and smash it into a steel building! What happens to the Coke can?

There are few limits on conspiracy theories in America these days! Be afraid, be very afraid.