Why don't people want to know the truth about 9/11?

eots

no fly list
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Messages
28,995
Reaction score
2,096
Points
205
Location
IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
Oh, but along with many many others, I have debunked your failed efforts to contend that "some of us" did the 9/11 atrocities to ourselves.

Your failed efforts remain utterly laughable and you remain a lying simpleton fuckface fool.

Now explain why gravity bringing shit down in a more or less straight line surprises your simple little mind so very much, moron.

And while you're busy trying to puzzle that one out, you lying scum-sucking shit-brain motherfucker, hazard an educated guess for the rest of the class. How much demolition cord (wiring) was necessary to wire the World Trade Center Towers AND WTC7 to blow, you fucking asswipe.
You stupid SOB, gravity will always bring things DOWN, however what you can't seem to grasp in your diseased brain is that there normally is RESISTANCE and there were parts of 7 that would have provided such RESISTANCE, thereby causing the building to NOT come straight down, with 2.25 secs. of admitted freefall, you stupid ass troll.
Also how in the fuck do you expect anybody to tell you how much "wire" would be needed? Who knows...perhaps it was done like has been suggested already, by wireless remote detonators, and thermitic cutter charges to weaken the building.

Do you really think that this would have been done in a manner that would be so fucking obvious you stupid shit for brains SOB?

You haven't debunked shit pussy.

There is a "perhaps" or "maybe" in a shit-load of your posts. "Maybe this" "Maybe that" "What if this..." Like I've said. Innocent until proven guilty. We don't have to prove it was a conspiracy. You have to prove that it was an inside job. Something you've failed to do.
NIST failed to prove its theory
 

PhysicsExist

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
661
Reaction score
18
Points
16
You stupid SOB, gravity will always bring things DOWN, however what you can't seem to grasp in your diseased brain is that there normally is RESISTANCE and there were parts of 7 that would have provided such RESISTANCE, thereby causing the building to NOT come straight down, with 2.25 secs. of admitted freefall, you stupid ass troll.
Also how in the fuck do you expect anybody to tell you how much "wire" would be needed? Who knows...perhaps it was done like has been suggested already, by wireless remote detonators, and thermitic cutter charges to weaken the building.

Do you really think that this would have been done in a manner that would be so fucking obvious you stupid shit for brains SOB?

You haven't debunked shit pussy.

There is a "perhaps" or "maybe" in a shit-load of your posts. "Maybe this" "Maybe that" "What if this..." Like I've said. Innocent until proven guilty. We don't have to prove it was a conspiracy. You have to prove that it was an inside job. Something you've failed to do.
NIST failed to prove its theory
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw]YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)[/ame]

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.
-1,474+ Verified Architects and Engineers and counting.

Check their license numbers, degrees, names, and other information here:
Sign the Petition

The Truth Shall Prevail.
 

SFC Ollie

Still Marching
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
28,882
Reaction score
7,472
Points
255
Location
Extreme East Ohio
There is a "perhaps" or "maybe" in a shit-load of your posts. "Maybe this" "Maybe that" "What if this..." Like I've said. Innocent until proven guilty. We don't have to prove it was a conspiracy. You have to prove that it was an inside job. Something you've failed to do.
NIST failed to prove its theory
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw]YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)[/ame]

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.
-1,474+ Verified Architects and Engineers and counting.

Check their license numbers, degrees, names, and other information here:
Sign the Petition

The Truth Shall Prevail.
The building didn't. Only a part of the facade. You are another one who ignores the fact that the inside of the building had collapsed several seconds before the facade that you can see ever moved.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top