# The End of the 9/11 CT Movement



## SAYIT (Oct 16, 2014)

Yale educated author and former 9/11 CT Jonathan Kay admits Alex Jones, who once claimed to have predicted 9/11, rarely speaks on the subject anymore and that Richard Gage has been reduced to preaching "to a dying breed." All that's left are a few Internet diehards who absolutely refuse to let go of that silliness.

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


----------



## Penelope (Oct 16, 2014)

I don't even really know who they are, and it doesn't matter. Most of  us know who was behind 911 and many more are realizing it. Israel and the neocons in the US, to kick off the war on terror.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 16, 2014)

wow man
its dim jed ......

REALLY?  This has become very much like a family in denial,
your 18 year old brat is pimpin' & dealin' and you really don't want to know about it because the facts are too ugly for you to bear.  but the TRUTH will surface sooner or later.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We didn't inherit this earth from our ancestors, we have it on loan from our children.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 16, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> wow man
> its dim jed ......
> 
> REALLY?  This has become very much like a family in denial,
> ...


 the above is an excellent example of denial in action...


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 19, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> All that's left are a few Internet diehards who absolutely refuse to let go of that silliness.



If that statement could be supported with real evidence,
it would clearly signal that the human race is in deep do-do!

the alleged "silliness" is based on good science and examination of the facts about 9/11/2001.  all too often people attempt to counter the arguments, that is INSIDE JOB scenarios with claims that there would have had to be TOO MANY PEOPLE involved and therefore it would have been impossible to pull off, however speculation about how many people would have been required, does not negate the hard evidence that is available and constitutes total show-stopper sorts of info, note the alleged airliner crash "FLT175" and also "FLT77" ( not to mention "FLT11" & "FLT93" ) in all cases the quantity of aircraft wreckage is not sufficient to justify having alleged that an airliner crashed at that location and the authorities have NOT documented the crime scene.

Where is the hard evidence that any of the 4 alleged hijacked airliners existed at all?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Oct 20, 2014)

Penelope said:


> I don't even really know who they are, and it doesn't matter. Most of  us know who was behind 911 and many more are realizing it. Israel and the neocons in the US, to kick off the war on terror.


I love watching crazy people foam at the mouth.  Especially jew-haters. 

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Penelope (Oct 20, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > I don't even really know who they are, and it doesn't matter. Most of  us know who was behind 911 and many more are realizing it. Israel and the neocons in the US, to kick off the war on terror.
> ...



Well then I guess you could careless about 9-11 and the people who died there.

I love you jew hater name calling, JUST stating facts. Yous are getting so pathetic in your recourse, name calling is all you have.


----------



## Truman123 (Oct 20, 2014)

Looks like all the internet diehards ended up here


----------



## Politico (Oct 20, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Yale educated author and former 9/11 CT Jonathan Kay admits Alex Jones, who once claimed to have predicted 9/11, rarely speaks on the subject anymore and that Richard Gage has been reduced to preaching "to a dying breed." All that's left are a few Internet diehards who absolutely refuse to let go of that silliness.
> 
> Jonathan Kay 9 11 truther Richard Gage is a preacher to a dying breed National Post


The only thing Alex Jones has ever accurately predicted are the sucker dollars entering his bank accounts.


----------



## Toro (Oct 20, 2014)

Twoofers will always be with us.

But its mostly the crazies now.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 20, 2014)

Toro said:


> Twoofers will always be with us.
> 
> But its mostly the crazies now.



and you have absolute proof that 19 suicidal fanatics took control of 4 airliners and crashed 3 of them into buildings? if so, where is it?


----------



## Toro (Oct 20, 2014)

Yes.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 20, 2014)

Toro said:


> Twoofers will always be with us.
> But its mostly the crazies now.


 
I believe that was the thrust of the article, written by a disillusioned 9/11 CT. Only a few t-shirt and DVD hawkers and their suckers remain. We can see the truth in Jon Kay's lament right here on this board.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 20, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Twoofers will always be with us.
> ...


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 20, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> and you have absolute proof that 19 suicidal fanatics took control of 4 airliners and crashed 3 of them into buildings? if so, where is it?



I post this again to see if anyone actually wants to address the issue rather than simply insist that anyone seeking truth about 9/11/2001 must be crazy...... 

or?


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 20, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > and you have absolute proof that 19 suicidal fanatics took control of 4 airliners and crashed 3 of them into buildings? if so, where is it?
> ...



But as you and the rest of the 9/11 CT diehards prove by your continued existence and rejection of the facts, what is left of the dying "Truther" Movement isn't at all a truth movement (if ever it was) but is rather a belief movement.

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


----------



## wihosa (Oct 20, 2014)

I don't know who was behind 911 but it's obvious it wasn't 19 hijackers.
Richard Gage now has 2200 architects and engineers who have put there careers and their good names on the line by signing the petition at AE911 Truth. The 911 Truth Movement only gets stronger. Many people still haven't heard about Building Seven. When I show people they often say "why didn't I ever hear about this?!?!"

Good question!

Not one of the believers of the Official Conspiracy Theory can explain why on 911 two planes knocked down three skyscrapers. That the official reason was fire when no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire even though there have been thousands of high rise fires, many which burned hotter and longer.
In fact the only thing that has ever caused a high rise building to collapse like the WTC 1,2 & 7 is controlled demolition.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 20, 2014)

wihosa said:


> I don't know who was behind 911 but it's obvious it wasn't 19 hijackers.
> Richard Gage now has 2200 architects and engineers who have put there careers and their good names on the line by signing the petition at AE911 Truth. The 911 Truth Movement only gets stronger. Many people still haven't heard about Building Seven. When I show people they often say "why didn't I ever hear about this?!?!"
> 
> Good question!
> ...



Your final claim is patently false (they fell on 9/11) as there is - 13 years after the attack - still no evidence of a CD. In fact, NoSpammy's scenario is that "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" and the "fires were staged and controlled" (foil helmets required). So what is yours?


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 20, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know who was behind 911 but it's obvious it wasn't 19 hijackers.
> ...



Do you understand that something "collapsing" at 64% of the acceleration of gravity is only expressing 36% of its weight against whatever is under it?  Just FYI ......


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 20, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



You are aware that the towers collapsed following fires caused after by the large passenger jets which rammed them, loaded with thousands of gallons of fuel, at high speed?


----------



## wihosa (Oct 20, 2014)

The only time a modern steel framed high rise building has ever collapsed because of fire was on 911 when it happened 3 times!

The planes did not cause the buildings to fall. No plane even hit Building 7.

The only thing that has ever made skyscrapers collapse like WTC 1, 2 & 7 is controlled demolition.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 20, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



obviously an attempt to justify a violation of the laws of physics.
No amount of making excuses, can account for the violation of the laws of physics.  If the official explanation is to be accepted, then WTC 1, 2 & 7 violated the laws of physics by "collapsing" as they did.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 20, 2014)

Again...if twoofers want anyone to believe them... they have to come up with a plausible alternative scenario.

In 13 years not one has.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 21, 2014)

candycorn said:


> Again...if twoofers want anyone to believe them... they have to come up with a plausible alternative scenario.
> 
> In 13 years not one has.



So let me get this straight, YOU do not see the violations of the law of physics inherent in the "collapse" of WTC1, 2 & 7 ?  that is if the OFFICIAL story is taken at face value.  obviously there is something very wrong with this picture, and that is a starting point.  The fact that the "truthers" can't explain in detail HOW something was done, when in fact it is obvious that it was NOT done in the way that the mainstream media described it.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Again...if twoofers want anyone to believe them... they have to come up with a plausible alternative scenario.
> ...



The media reported what they were seeing on 9/11 and the NIST explained it later. In order for rational peeps to reject mainstream beliefs there must be a plausible alternative based on facts.
You have failed miserably to do so.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 21, 2014)

So it appears to be that some people do not get the fact that in order for the official story to be true, the laws of physics would have had to be suspended for 9/11/2001.....


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> So it appears to be that some people do not get the fact that in order for the official story to be true, the laws of physics would have had to be suspended for 9/11/2001.....


 
Oh well ... I suppose you didn't understand this the first time:
In order for rational peeps to reject the official explanation (and its warts)
there must be a plausible alternative based on facts.
You have failed miserably to provide one.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 21, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > So it appears to be that some people do not get the fact that in order for the official story to be true, the laws of physics would have had to be suspended for 9/11/2001.....
> ...



so you do not understand that it is possible to KNOW
that there is something very wrong with the official story,
without having a detailed alternate explanation.

so a cheep trick way of dismissing "truthers" is to demand
an explanation of exactly what was done as an alternative to
the official explanation.  + you apparently fail to see the violations
of the laws of physics inherent in the official explanation.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



The cheap trick is perpetrated by those who post half-truths and outright fabrications, cherry-pick or distort facts, and reject the official explanation based on their Internet "research."
The only way to move rational peeps off the official story is for you to provide a better one. Your mission Jim, should you decide to accept...


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 21, 2014)

can anybody here give me a straight answer,
do you or do you not see the violations of the laws of physics
inherent in the official explanation of 9/11/2001?


----------



## Toro (Oct 21, 2014)

It's over, twoofer.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 21, 2014)

candycorn said:


> Again...if twoofers want anyone to believe them... they have to come up with a plausible alternative scenario.
> 
> In 13 years not one has.


That's both arrogant and ignorant. Sorry miss, but you don't write the rules regarding how other people have to think. If someone wants to doubt or question the "official theory" (which is itself a conspiracy) because of any one or more of the numerous inconsistencies, improbabilities or impossibilities, that is their choice.

If you or some other miffer want to believe, or pretend to believe, that 2 + 2 = 5 , that is your choice.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > and you have absolute proof that 19 suicidal fanatics took control of 4 airliners and crashed 3 of them into buildings? if so, where is it?
> ...


since you are not seeking the truth or the facts about 911 there is no issue..


----------



## daws101 (Oct 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


meaningless minutia


----------



## daws101 (Oct 21, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Again...if twoofers want anyone to believe them... they have to come up with a plausible alternative scenario.
> ...


you can doubt it all you want but proving those doubts are anything more than a paranoid misperception of reality is  insurmountable


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 21, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Again...if twoofers want anyone to believe them... they have to come up with a plausible alternative scenario.
> ...



Thing is, you can speculate to your heart's content but the only way to dislodge the official explanation is to provide a plausible alternative based on reliable facts. Simply stating that "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" or "the fires were staged and controlled" or "it was a space beam" just doesn't cut it and 13 years later we are stuck with the NIST report because so much of what has emanated from the "Truther" World is 2+2=5.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 21, 2014)

Toro said:


> It's over, twoofer.



Its DIM 
JED ......


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 21, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


You don't set the requirements on what I or anyone else needs to do. I don't give a fuck what you, daws or anyone else thinks needs to be proven.
It would be pretty asinine on your part to be arguing 13 years later with someone that says "it was a space beam", no??
Your motivation is clearly something other than the truth, and you demonstrate your treachery by obstructing those that seek it.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 21, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...



You have every right to live in your foil-hat fantasy world. I thought your presence here denoted some intent to converse intelligently on the thread's subject. I understand why you are unwilling or unable to support anything you say. Hopefully you understand that the adults here may continue to rain on your silly little parade. Enjoy, !


----------



## daws101 (Oct 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > It's over, twoofer.
> ...


why yes you are dim ...


----------



## Mad Scientist (Oct 21, 2014)

Once again, the commenters at the link aren't buying it.

#1 Up Voted comment:


> "Preacher to a dying breed"?
> 
> Actually, more Americans than ever, a majority in fact, don't believe the government-sponsored 'official' theory (which alleges a conspiracy between the hijackers and Khaleid Mohamed . . . ) . . .



(Article is 7 months old too)


----------



## daws101 (Oct 21, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


 the space beam line comes from  one of your own..Star Wars Energy Weapons 1


----------



## daws101 (Oct 21, 2014)

Mad Scientist said:


> Once again, the commenters at the link aren't buying it.
> 
> #1 Up Voted comment:
> 
> ...


that is also one of the steamiest of conspiracy steaming piles..


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 21, 2014)

Mad Scientist said:


> Once again, the commenters at the link aren't buying it.
> 
> #1 Up Voted comment:
> 
> ...


 
It's a popular 9/11 conspiracy theory website. You expect they would simply look themselves in the mirror, cop a mea culpa, and slink off with their idiot tails between their legs? Nah ... not one of those who remain in the dying "Truther" Movement is bright enough to see the truth. Not one.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Oct 21, 2014)

First Americans get the "Ever Changing We Killed Osama" story.

Then they get the "Fast And Furious" Scandal.

Now they get the "Ebola Purposely Let Into The Country" idiocy.

Along with "ISIS isn't Islamic" B.S.

The Gov't has really overplayed it's hand and Americans are really starting to wake up.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 21, 2014)

Mad Scientist said:


> First Americans get the "Ever Changing We Killed Osama" story.
> 
> Then they get the "Fast And Furious" Scandal.
> 
> ...


 
You don't speak for Americans but if you really hate this place why not have the courage of your convictions and find yourself some workers paradise?


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 21, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


lol The "twoof" hurts, eh?


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 21, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> You don't speak for Americans but if you really hate this place why not have the courage of your convictions and find yourself some workers paradise?



Its called loving your country so much as to stay and help improve matters.  anybody can run off to live in Argentina ..... or?  But those who stay & work for justice, they are the true AMERICANS.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 21, 2014)

Repent, the end is near!


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > You don't speak for Americans but if you really hate this place why not have the courage of your convictions and find yourself some workers paradise?
> ...


 
I'm not certain why you feel compelled to answer for MS ... I've never read anything of yours which could be construed as hate for this country and the freedom, justice and opportunity it offers so many, but I'll respond anyway:
Life is short and even MS must know he has precious little chance of seeing things swing his way. In the meantime he subjects his family - those present and future - to life in what he seems to see as an evil, evil place. I just want him to face the fact - something he probably already knows - that we are fortunate to be here and he needs to grow a pair and stop acting like a petulant little girl.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Repent, the end is near!



While the end of the 9/11 CT Movement is indeed near, repentance is unnecessary and while a mea culpa is the noble thing to do, most have quietly accepted reality and moved on to a new hobby. These boys fell on their swords:

The 9 11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind - Telegraph

Confessions of an Ex-Truther Letter of Resignation Scroll Down for Newer Posts


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 21, 2014)

for at least one of the stated goals of the public school system, they have proven to be a dismal failure.  When I was in the public school system, the people who ran the place made it a point to at least attempt to give everyone a "well rounded" education, such that the technology geeks needed to be at least exposed to Biology & Chemistry ( etc ... ad nausum) HOWEVER in terms of this "well rounded" education, I can no more quote Shakespeare than my arts & letters educated neighbor can wrench on diesels.... oh my!   What I'm getting at here is that there are some things, by virtue of the sort of education that I have chosen for myself, that qualifies me to see, upon viewing the video of the South & then North tower "collapsing" that there is something VERY wrong with this picture.  now other people who maybe majored in music appreciation or fine art in school .... may not see it straight away, but I submit that given anyone of reasonable intelligence (  freshman UC Berkeley student .... or? ) they can be shown the applied physics and the reason why there is something VERY wrong with the picture of the towers "collapsing"  and I believe most people can get it.  The problem here is much deeper than simply the physical facts of the matter.  It has now progressed into serious psychological warfare.  and since at present the dark-side has command of the most powerful propaganda machine ever invented ..... its an up-hill battle at best.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> for at least one of the stated goals of the public school system, they have proven to be a dismal failure.  When I was in the public school system, the people who ran the place made it a point to at least attempt to give everyone a "well rounded" education, such that the technology geeks needed to be at least exposed to Biology & Chemistry ( etc ... ad nausum) HOWEVER in terms of this "well rounded" education, I can no more quote Shakespeare than my arts & letters educated neighbor can wrench on diesels.... oh my!   What I'm getting at here is that there are some things, by virtue of the sort of education that I have chosen for myself, that qualifies me to see, upon viewing the video of the South & then North tower "collapsing" that there is something VERY wrong with this picture.  now other people who maybe majored in music appreciation or fine art in school .... may not see it straight away, but I submit that given anyone of reasonable intelligence (  freshman UC Berkeley student .... or? ) they can be shown the applied physics and the reason why there is something VERY wrong with the picture of the towers "collapsing"  and I believe most people can get it.  The problem here is much deeper than simply the physical facts of the matter.  It has now progressed into serious psychological warfare.  and since at present the dark-side has command of the most powerful propaganda machine ever invented ..... its an up-hill battle at best.





n0spam4me said:


> for at least one of the stated goals of the public school system, they have proven to be a dismal failure.  When I was in the public school system, the people who ran the place made it a point to at least attempt to give everyone a "well rounded" education, such that the technology geeks needed to be at least exposed to Biology & Chemistry ( etc ... ad nausum) HOWEVER in terms of this "well rounded" education, I can no more quote Shakespeare than my arts & letters educated neighbor can wrench on diesels.... oh my!   What I'm getting at here is that there are some things, by virtue of the sort of education that I have chosen for myself, that qualifies me to see, upon viewing the video of the South & then North tower "collapsing" that there is something VERY wrong with this picture.  now other people who maybe majored in music appreciation or fine art in school .... may not see it straight away, but I submit that given anyone of reasonable intelligence (  freshman UC Berkeley student .... or? ) they can be shown the applied physics and the reason why there is something VERY wrong with the picture of the towers "collapsing"  and I believe most people can get it.  The problem here is much deeper than simply the physical facts of the matter.  It has now progressed into serious psychological warfare.  and since at present the dark-side has command of the most powerful propaganda machine ever invented ..... its an up-hill battle at best.



UAlbany's 9/11 Truth's co-founder was deeply immersed in the 9/11 "Truther" Movement and the truth caused him to feel sick to his stomach. Sounds like classic a classic withdrawal symptom. I hope he is feeling better:

9/11 Mysteries ends very tragically with a phone call from one of the victims inside the WTC. You may have seen it, it's the guy who's frantically describing the situation to a loved one, but then suddenly, the building starts to collapse and all you hear are his last words, agonizing screams. The creators of this propaganda movie did this intentionally, to play on your emotions right after feeding you all their bullshit theories.
But as I watched this film again, this time with the annotations, I knew that the creators of this movie used that poor guy's dying moments for their own selfish gains of selling dvds and perpetuating myths that do nothing but denigrate the lives lost on 9/11/01.
Change of heart? My heart's always been in the right place. I was just cheating myself of making an informed judgment on all the information available.
I'm done, thanks.

Confessions of an Ex-Truther Letter of Resignation Scroll Down for Newer Posts


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 21, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> an informed judgment on all the information available.



Please do, INFORMED .... please!
look at the "collapse" events for WTC1, 2 & 7 
look at the crash scene at the PENTAGON
look at the video that is allegedly of an airliner crashing into the wall of the South tower.

OPEN YOUR EYES!


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > an informed judgment on all the information available.
> ...


 
I have looked and I'm satisfied the MS version of events is far more rational, factual and PLAUSIBLE than anything the 9/11 "Truther" Movement has produced in 13 years of trying.
In fact, I agree with former "Truther" Mike Metzger's feelings on the agenda shared by most in the Movement:
And what is their agenda, you ask? Money, in the words of Shaggy 2 Dope, "mutha fuckin bitch ass money." Not only are they desecrating 3,000 graves, but they are profiting off of it. That, my friends, makes me sick to my fuckin stomach.

Confessions of an Ex-Truther Letter of Resignation Scroll Down for Newer Posts


----------



## Freewill (Oct 22, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > All that's left are a few Internet diehards who absolutely refuse to let go of that silliness.
> ...









What is that if not a jet airliner?  This is what real people saw that day.  This is what traumatized people who saw the airliner slam into the building.


----------



## Freewill (Oct 22, 2014)

wihosa said:


> I don't know who was behind 911 but it's obvious it wasn't 19 hijackers.
> Richard Gage now has 2200 architects and engineers who have put there careers and their good names on the line by signing the petition at AE911 Truth. The 911 Truth Movement only gets stronger. Many people still haven't heard about Building Seven. When I show people they often say "why didn't I ever hear about this?!?!"
> 
> Good question!
> ...



Could you please connect us to a link about a story about another 767 striking another large skyscraper?  Because I have evidence of TWO that were struck and collapsed and one that collapsed after 7 hours of burning.  Another thing you can do is go to a story about the fire at the 911 site at Shanksville.  Notice the warped and twisted steel beams.

Could you then explain how charges were set exactly where the planes struck the building?  Or are we going under the assumption that no planes, civilian or otherwise, actually struck the buildings?  If so then what is it that is on video and burned into MANY people's memory?

If you can't at least attempt to answer the above very simple questions then I suggest you do not have sufficient evidence for the accusations you are making.


----------



## Freewill (Oct 22, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > an informed judgment on all the information available.
> ...



Now for you to look at the video:


Now answer these simple questions.  How would in less then an hour would this video be faked?

Why would the South tower, which as struck last, be the one demolished first? 

If you watch the video, truthfully, note where the collaspe starts.  It starts exactly where the planes "struck" the building.

Notice also no real puffs of smoke where other demolition charges would have been set.  Why not?

WTC7 was engulfed by flames which the fire department had no way of fighting, lack of water.  So what difference would it have made if a building burning out of control for 7 hours collapsed or not, it was totally destroyed?


----------



## Freewill (Oct 22, 2014)

Now, truthfully, watch this video of how a high rise is demolished and tell us the similarities.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 22, 2014)

Freewill said:


> Now answer these simple questions. How would in less then an hour would this video be faked?



and clearly there was greater advance planning than that.
all of your arguments above are from incredulity, just as 
the opposition claims that the truthers argue.  What is real
here, is the fact that in the descent this total collapse event
came down at 64% of the acceleration of gravity and that is
VERY significant in that the upper "pile driver" could only be
exerting 36% of its weight against the bit below it.
so the total pulverization of mass quantities of material, + 
the total destruction of the tower, floor by floor, and this
is alleged to be the product of this "pile driver" that is only
exerting 36% of its weight against the lower part.


----------



## Freewill (Oct 22, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Now answer these simple questions. How would in less then an hour would this video be faked?
> ...



Sigh, once again very easy questions ask and you go off into some sort tangent.  YOU said look at the video, YOU look at the video.  If you think that somehow the one provided was fake then provide the ONE you think we should look at that wasn't fake.  Do you realize how idiotitic it sounds for you to keep claiming all evidence counter to your theory is fake?  Then you expect us to look at that evidence and you then call it fake.  Wow.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 22, 2014)

it is a fact, that is the alleged crash of "FLT175" is FAKE!
what was presented to the public as a video of the alleged crash, is really B movie special effects.  I'm shocked that more people have as yet not seen the facts of this.  The other bit that is obvious in the videos is the fact that WTC1,2 & 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 22, 2014)

Toro said:


> Twoofers will always be with us.
> 
> But its mostly the crazies now.



You are correct. For example, we still have the JFK Truthers.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 22, 2014)

Here is the rub.  A lot of twoofers love to play the victim and part of that is claiming they dont get a forum to broadcast their views.

When I give them the forum and promise to read every word of the narrative (no vids)...everyone backs down.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 22, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > an informed judgment on all the information available.
> ...


the award for the best use of needless melodrama in a thread goes to......."n0spam4me


----------



## daws101 (Oct 22, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Now answer these simple questions. How would in less then an hour would this video be faked?
> ...


another fine example of  deflection and meaningless minutia..


----------



## Freewill (Oct 22, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> it is a fact, that is the alleged crash of "FLT175" is FAKE!
> what was presented to the public as a video of the alleged crash, is really B movie special effects.  I'm shocked that more people have as yet not seen the facts of this.  The other bit that is obvious in the videos is the fact that WTC1,2 & 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition.



OK, I think enough people have responded to you to satisfy your need for attention.  You have answered nothing.  Tell us how TV live feeds are faked.  Is the whole country in on the conspiracy?


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 22, 2014)

candycorn said:


> When I give them the forum and promise to read every word of the narrative (no vids)...everyone backs down.



Have you read what I have posted?  do you have any questions?


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 22, 2014)

daws101 said:


> minutia


and exactly WHY is the descent rate ( acceleration ) "minutia"


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 22, 2014)

Freewill said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > it is a fact, that is the alleged crash of "FLT175" is FAKE!
> ...



you demand to know HOW it was done when very clearly we can all see what was done and, KNOW that the official story = fraud!


----------



## Freewill (Oct 23, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



It is really easy for you to convert a whole lot of folks.  Produce the video/picture that is in opposition to what we see in the live news feeds.  That is all.  Certainly there would be many of the South Tower.  If you can't then tell us how you can say with any certainty, other then your desire for attention, that any of them were fake since they all show the same thing.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 23, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



We can all see?  
So what virtually all of us see  - including the vast majority of 9/11 CT "Truthers" - is passenger jets slamming into the WTC towers. How is it one who _claims_ to want to expose the truth can't see them? Claiming (or hoping or praying) that the OS is fraudulent does not make it so ... no matter how much you wish reality to be that way.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 23, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > minutia
> ...


if you had any idea of what minutia was ..you'd understand


----------



## daws101 (Oct 23, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


dodge! you have no clue as to how your fantasy version of 911 could have been done.
what you claim to see is not the same as what happened..


----------



## Freewill (Oct 23, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



We know what minutia is, it is what you try and use to promote your CTs.  You will take the smallest of minutia and make it seem predominate.  Such as your argument of 35%, WTF?

Let me make it clear for you, and simple.  Look at the videos.  What you see is 15 floors falling onto ONE floor.  That ONE floor could not sustain the wait of the 15 floors so it too collapsed, the next floor had 16 floors falling on it.  That went on for 95 floors and is easily explains what we saw in the videos.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 23, 2014)

Freewill said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



That was 36% and now that you mention it, yes the floors would have been broken by massive overloads, HOWEVER, please think about this, what caused the destruction of the outer wall columns & what caused the destruction of the core?  not only that, but what magic kept the whole thing stable for a uniform acceleration downward of 50>60 stories? ( at least that is as much of it as could be properly seen ) The fact is that in any system where stuff is breaking loose, you can NOT depend on all of the bits to fail exactly on-time in sequence to produce any sort of result at all, the complete & total destruction of a skyscraper takes an engineered effort to make it happen just like clockwork. to expect asymmetrical damage & fires to produce such a result is madness!


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 23, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



It's all over, Princess ... O-V-E-R.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 23, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> It's all over, Princess ... O-V-E-R.



and you have a rebuttal to my last? ...... or?


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 23, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > It's all over, Princess ... O-V-E-R.
> ...


 
Yes I do: It's all O-V-E-R. Go home and find something relevant to do.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 23, 2014)

Nobody talks about the 1919 World Series "Black Sox" Scandal anymore either but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.  Nobody credible can ever convince anyone with a modicum of intelligence that Bldg. 7 imploded (a perfect implosion several hours after the twin towers went down) as a result of heat from the other buildings. Way too much evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Freewill (Oct 24, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Nobody talks about the 1919 World Series "Black Sox" Scandal anymore either but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.  Nobody credible can ever convince anyone with a modicum of intelligence that Bldg. 7 imploded (a perfect implosion several hours after the twin towers went down) as a result of heat from the other buildings. Way too much evidence to the contrary.



WTC7 was burning from within that is what everyone should know.

The question for me has always been, when were the explosives set?  Was it before the attack taking a risk that the WTC falling would damage the devices?  Or were there brave men who went into a burning building with explosives?

Footage that kills the conspiracy theories Rare footage shows WTC 7 consumed by fire Daily Mail Online


----------



## Freewill (Oct 24, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Here is how: 

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse Science Engineering and Speculation


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 24, 2014)

Freewill said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody talks about the 1919 World Series "Black Sox" Scandal anymore either but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.  Nobody credible can ever convince anyone with a modicum of intelligence that Bldg. 7 imploded (a perfect implosion several hours after the twin towers went down) as a result of heat from the other buildings. Way too much evidence to the contrary.
> ...



Buildings around the globe "burn from within" without producing a perfect implosion.  Office fires don't melt central, supporting I-beams. The explosives could have been set by a crew of workers over a period of months.  Most of the structural portion of the building is hidden from public view.

The owner of Bldg 7 literally gave the order to "pull" the building.  That's a term used by professional demolition crews.


----------



## Freewill (Oct 24, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9 11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics

The owner of the building is a demolition expert?

Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7 Building 7


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 24, 2014)

Freewill said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



Nobody has to be an "expert" in demolition to know that they use the term "pull" when it's time to detonate the explosives.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 24, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Nobody talks about the 1919 World Series "Black Sox" Scandal anymore either but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.  Nobody credible can ever convince anyone with a modicum of intelligence that Bldg. 7 imploded (a perfect implosion several hours after the twin towers went down) as a result of heat from the other buildings. Way too much evidence to the contrary.


 
People are still talking about 9/11 but fully 13 yrs after the attack the "Truther" Movement has been reduced to the DVD and t-shirt hawkers and their not-too-bright puppies. Even Alex Jones who rode to fame as a "Truther" rarely speaks on the subject these days.
Most of the intelligent, rational "Truthers" are long gone and the "evidence" they produced in those 13 years adds up to a steamy pile of half-truths and outright fabrications.
Many ex-"Truthers" simply tucked tail and slithered away but on his way out the door Charlie Veitch had this to say:
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong."


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 24, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



Except the demo experts deny that, no evidence of explosives was found, and none of the buildings collapsed when hit by planes but rather some time later as fires started by jet fuel weakened key supports.
What kind of CD explosives could have survived those fires, who planted them and how?
"I was a true believer of all this controlled demolition nonsense for a time." - Mike Metzger, co-founder of 9/11 Truth UAlbany.


----------



## Freewill (Oct 24, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



Prior to 9/11 did you know?  Pull did mean to literally pull down a building, a form of controlled demolition.  I don't know what was meant by "pull it" but logic dictates it meant to pull the firefighters and that is what the firefighers thought was meant that day.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 24, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> The owner of Bldg 7 literally gave the order to "pull" the building.  That's a term used by professional demolition crews.



But not to describe or initiate a CD.
That is the kind of patently false claim which de-neutered the "Truther" Movement. 
I thank you for your continuing efforts to discredit the Movement.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 24, 2014)

Freewill said:


> Pull did mean to literally pull down a building, a form of controlled demolition...



Literally, and the process requires attached cables. Did anyone report seeing cables attached to any of those buildings?


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 24, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> You are aware that the towers collapsed following fires caused after by the large passenger jets which rammed them, loaded with thousands of gallons of fuel, at high speed?



and so asymmetrical damage is responsible for the complete & total destruction of TWO skyscrapers ..... is that what you think?

I challenge anyone who cares to "run the numbers" look up the BTU value for jet fuel, and also the amount of heat required to raise the many tons of steel to a high 'nuff temperature to weaken said steel and see what you get..... fascinating .... no?


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 24, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> no evidence of explosives was found,



Documentation please


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 24, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > no evidence of explosives was found,
> ...



Just as soon as you document the existence of same and while you are at it, please provide proof of your ludicrous claims that "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" and "the fires were staged and controlled."
As already often mentioned, you have the right to make up your own mind ... not your own facts.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 24, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > You are aware that the towers collapsed following fires caused after by the large passenger jets which rammed them, loaded with thousands of gallons of fuel, at high speed?
> ...



"Many tons of steel" were not required to be weakened to cause the collapse so many witnessed on 9/11 but rather enough steel at critical locations was and clearly did reach its fail point.
Your post is the lame old "twisted truth method" (TTM) for which the "Truther" Movement was so infamous.
No one rushed into those buildings to plant demo charges after the planes hit and there was no way to predict exactly where the planes would hit. Furthermore the ensuing fires would have destroyed or detonated any which were pre-planted. End of story and of the "Truther" Movement.

"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Former "Truther" Charlie Veitch


----------



## daws101 (Oct 24, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...


oh shit! not this debunked bullshit again...


----------



## daws101 (Oct 24, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > You are aware that the towers collapsed following fires caused after by the large passenger jets which rammed them, loaded with thousands of gallons of fuel, at high speed?
> ...


 asymmetrical damage is an effect not a cause. Once again providng smoking gun proof  that you are reciting shit and have no clue to it's meaning..


----------



## daws101 (Oct 24, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > no evidence of explosives was found,
> ...


In the PBS documentary _America Rebuilds,_ which aired in September 2002, Larry Silverstein, the owner of 7 WTC and leaseholder and insurance policy holder for the remainder of the WTC complex, recalled a discussion with the fire department in which doubts about containing the fires were expressed. Silverstein recalled saying, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it". "They made that decision to pull", he recalled, "and we watched the building collapse." Silverstein issued a statement that it was the firefighting team, not the building, that was to be pulled.[66][71][72]
*NIST report[edit]*
In 2002, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) began a general investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center but soon made a decision to focus first on the collapse of the Twin Towers.[73] A draft version of its final report on the collapse of 7 WTC was released in August 2008. The agency has blamed the slowness of this investigation on the complexity of the computer model it used, which simulated the collapse from the moment it begins all the way to the ground; and NIST says the time taken on the investigation into 7 WTC is comparable to the time taken to investigate an aircraft crash.[73] The agency also says another 80 boxes of documents related to 7 WTC were found and had to be analyzed. These delays fueled suspicion[_who?_] the agency was struggling to come up with a plausible conclusion.[72]
NIST released its final report on the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on November 20, 2008.[74] Investigators used videos, photographs and building design documents to come to their conclusions. The investigation could not include physical evidence as the materials from the building lacked characteristics allowing them to be positively identified and were therefore disposed of prior to the initiation of the investigation.[73][75] The report concluded that the building's collapse was due to the effects of the fires which burned for almost seven hours. The fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure, and extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed. Also cited as a factor was the collapse of the nearby towers, which broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water.
NIST considered the possibility that 7 WTC was brought down with explosives and concluded that a blast event did not occur, that the "use of thermite [...] to sever columns in 7 WTC on 9/11/01 was unlikely".[73] The investigation cited as evidence the claim that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse and that no blast was reported by witnesses, stating that it would have been audible at a level of 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile. Demolition proponents say eyewitnesses repeatedly reported explosions happening before the collapse of the towers, and have published videos obtained from NIST, together with indications about when such explosions could be heard in support of the sounds of explosions before collapse.[52]

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
NIST also concluded that it is unlikely that the quantities of thermite needed could have been carried into the building undetected. Demolition advocates have responded that they do not claim that thermite was used, but rather that nano-thermite, far more powerful than thermite, was used. Finally, the theory that fires from the large amount of diesel fuel stored in the building caused the collapse was also investigated and ruled out.[73]
*Reactions[edit]*
The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.[2][76][_page needed_]
The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations,[77] and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting that the report expressed similar views to those held by its group of professionals.[78]
Following the publication of Jones' paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?"[6] Brigham Young University responded to Jones' "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave, and thereby stripping him of two classes, in September 2006, pending a review of his statements and research. Six weeks later, Jones retired from the university.[21] The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones".[3][22] On September 22, 2005, Jones gave a seminar on his hypotheses to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU. According to Jones, all but one of his colleagues agreed after the seminar that an investigation was in order and the lone dissenter came to agreement with Jones' suggestions the next day.[22]
Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was the first to offer a published peer-reviewed theory of the collapses, wrote "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception.[79] Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Indeed, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not two separate modes of failure (as the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory assumes).[2]
Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory.[3] Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."[80]
Regarding Jones' theory that nanothermite was used to bring down the towers, and the assertion that thermite and nanothermite composites were found in the dust and debris were found following the collapse of the three buildings, which was concluded to be proof that explosives brought down the buildings,[6][7][8][12] Brent Blanchard, author of "A History of Explosive Demolition in America",[81] states that questions about the viability of Jones' theories remain unanswered, such as the fact that no demolition personnel noticed any telltale signs of thermite during the eight months of debris removal following the towers' collapse. Blanchard also stated that a verifiable chain of possession needs to be established for the tested beams, which did not occur with the beams Jones tested, raising questions of whether the metal pieces tested could have been cut away from the debris pile with acetylene torches, shears, or other potentially contaminated equipment while on site, or exposed to trace amounts of thermite or other compounds while being handled, while in storage, or while being transferred from Ground Zero to memorial sites.[82] Dave Thomas of _Skeptical Inquirer_ magazine, noting that the residue in question was claimed to be thermitic because of its iron oxide and aluminum composition, pointed out that these substances are found in many items common to the towers. Thomas stated that in order to cut through a vertical steel beam, special high-temperature containment must be added to prevent the molten iron from dropping down, and that the thermite reaction is too slow for it to be practically used in building demolition. Thomas pointed out that when Jesse Ventura hired New Mexico Tech to conduct a demonstration showing nanothermite slicing through a large steel beam, the nanothermite produced copious flame and smoke but no damage to the beam, even though it was in a horizontal, and therefore optimal position.[83]
Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort.[84] The tower walls would have had to be opened on dozens of floors.[6] Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be sneaked past security and placed in the towers[6][85] without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing.[1][49][84][85][86][87] Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the _Hartford Advocate_ asks, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?"[88]
World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein said, "Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day." Upon presentation of the NIST's detailed report on the failure of Bldg. 7, Richard Gage, leader of the group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth said, "How much longer do we have to endure the coverup of how Building 7 was destroyed?" in which Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, the lead NIST investigator said he could not explain why the skepticism would not die. “I am really not a psychologist,” he said. “Our job was to come up with the best science.”[35] James Quintiere, professor of fire protection engineering at the University of Maryland, who does not believe explosives brought down the towers, questioned how the agency came to its conclusions, remarking, "They don't have the expertise on explosives," though he adds that NIST wasted time employing outside experts to consider it.[89]
*See also[edit]*


----------



## Freewill (Oct 24, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



I always thought they yelled, "fire in the hole.."


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 24, 2014)

Mark my words 
If the real perpetrators manage to effectively marginalize the TRUTH MOVEMENT,  Your children and their children after, will experience a dark age that will make the previous "dark ages" pale by comparison.
You may not get what is at stake here, it is nothing less than the very nature of COMMON SENSE, and humanities connection to physical phenomenon with insight into what is happening and why.
The plot is nothing short of satanic, in that the perpetrators seek to strip the rank&file citizens of any vestige of autonomy by destroying COMMON SENSE.

It is NOT an "argument from incredulity" to question the events of 9/11/2001 ( that is the official explanation for said events ) it is truly ... COMMON SENSE.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 24, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Mark my words
> If the real perpetrators manage to effectively marginalize the TRUTH MOVEMENT,  Your children and their children after, will experience a dark age that will make the previous "dark ages" pale by comparison.
> You may not get what is at stake here, it is nothing less than the very nature of COMMON SENSE, and humanities connection to physical phenomenon with insight into what is happening and why.
> The plot is nothing short of satanic, in that the perpetrators seek to strip the rank&file citizens of any vestige of autonomy by destroying COMMON SENSE.
> ...


 
Satanic! Whoa! Paranoia @ the next level. Somebody get me a foil helmet ... quick.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 24, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Satanic! Whoa! Paranoia @ the next level. Somebody get me a foil helmet ... quick.



one of Satan's greatest achievements
was to convince most people that he doesn't exist.

and really, Prince of Darkness, or simply the Dark Side of the Force, whatever label gets applied, its still real most certainly something to be reckoned with.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 24, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Do you understand that something "collapsing" at 64% of the acceleration of gravity is only expressing 36% of its weight against whatever is under it?  Just FYI ......


Please provide the link to the information you are using to come up with the above numbers. Where are you getting this from?

Also, how would I test your numbers above to see if you're are correct? Example, if I wanted to see if an object weighing 100lbs, traveling at 6.3 m/s2 will express 36lbs upon an object below it, how would I set up an experiment?


----------



## daws101 (Oct 24, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Mark my words
> If the real perpetrators manage to effectively marginalize the TRUTH MOVEMENT,  Your children and their children after, will experience a dark age that will make the previous "dark ages" pale by comparison.
> You may not get what is at stake here, it is nothing less than the very nature of COMMON SENSE, and humanities connection to physical phenomenon with insight into what is happening and why.
> The plot is nothing short of satanic, in that the perpetrators seek to strip the rank&file citizens of any vestige of autonomy by destroying COMMON SENSE.
> ...


the classic getting your ass handed mia culpa..


----------



## daws101 (Oct 24, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Satanic! Whoa! Paranoia @ the next level. Somebody get me a foil helmet ... quick.
> ...


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 24, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Do you understand that something "collapsing" at 64% of the acceleration of gravity is only expressing 36% of its weight against whatever is under it?  Just FYI ......
> ...


 
Spammy is going to jump from a 5th floor window and land on a scale.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 24, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Spammy is going to jump from a 5th floor window and land on a scale.



Funny(!) ..... its not the fall, its the sudden stop, and there in defines the issue.  To define what is going on, the mass that is observed falling at 64% of g, doesn't slow down, or jolt, or anything of the sort it simply keeps accelerating.

Now picture this, if you had a precision manufactured part, that was shelf that would support say 35 lbs as a static load, but would break at 36 lbs, and arrange a number of these shelves in a vertical array such as the floors of the WTC tower had been and then drop a 100 lb weight on the topmost shelf, the result would be that the weight would descend at aprox 64% of g.

Now may I also point out that in an ideal model sort of "simulation" of the "collapse" event one could envision a tower with the damaged upper section behaving as if it were a load of gravel, and the dumping of said gravel was uniform in nature so as to guarantee the breakage of all of the connections on a given floor, however this is NOT the case, the broken upper section of the tower would drop rubble composed of random size & composition bits that may have been anything from sand sized to multi-ton chunks of steel from the structure, how then can anyone account for the fact that what is observed is the total destruction of each and every level all the way down the tower ( that is including the outer wall columns & core )?


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 24, 2014)

daws101 said:


> the classic getting your ass handed mia culpa..



and YOU have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that 19 fanatics hijacked 4 airliners and scored hits on 3 buildings? 
..... or?


----------



## daws101 (Oct 25, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > the classic getting your ass handed mia culpa..
> ...


yes ....


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 25, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



wow, a one word answer, care to share with this forum what your evidence is?


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 25, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


 
If he doesn't I will ... just as soon as you provide your evidence of your oft repeated claims that "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" and that "the fires were staged and controlled."


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 26, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



They will never stop because they are


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 26, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



Some exhibit a reality disconnect but many are just so heavily invested in terms of time and effort that they just can't let it go. It can't be easy admitting one has spent years barking up the wrong tree but ... well ... there it is.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 26, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> They will never stop because they are



What?  Not in my right mind?  can any of the supporters of the official story point to absolute proof that there ever was any of the 4 alleged airliners flown in to the target locations alleged to have been hit by airliners?  How many kilos ( or? ) of actual aircraft bits were recovered and by what means were they certified & documented to have been from the aircraft in question?


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 26, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > They will never stop because they are
> ...



Sorry.  I avoid the insane because it's like arguing with a drunk.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 26, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Bottom line here, you have a belief that 19 fanatics hijacked airliners and crashed said airliners however when pressed for the actual reasons for your belief, you opt out of the discussion. 

Have a nice day

: )


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Now picture this, if you had a precision manufactured part, that was shelf that would support say 35 lbs as a static load, but would break at 36 lbs, and arrange a number of these shelves in a vertical array such as the floors of the WTC tower had been and then drop a 100 lb weight on the topmost shelf, the result would be that the weight would descend at aprox 64% of g.


n0spam.

What are you using to define that a percentage of g results in the inverse percentage of weight of an object to be applied to an object beneath? Is it a formula? Where is this information?

Does your "formula" or "information" work as follows?
An object falling at 70% of g will apply 30% of its weight to an object below
An object falling at 30% of g will apply 70% of its weight to an object below
An object falling at 53% of g will apply 47% of its weight to an object below

Using your example above, explain to me the following.
1. When the 100lb weight is dropped, what rate of descent is it falling at?
2. When the 100lb weight impacts the shelf, what is the amount of force exerted? Show me the formula you used so we can see if you are understanding this process correctly
3. If I dropped a 100,000lb weight on the same shelf, what would the rate of descent be and would you visibly see a jolt the moment said weight impacted the shelf?

Here's another question. If your shelf in the above example was designed to support a STATIC load of 35lbs and I dropped a 35lb weight from 50 feet above said shelf, would it resist or would the weight break it? What is the impact force generated? How does this fit into your percentage of g = the inverse percentage of weight applied to an object below?

Let's see if you REALLY understand physics and if you can site your sources for your information.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 27, 2014)

How did the engine, landing gear and fuselage "supposedly" from UA175 exit the north face of WTC2??


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Oct 27, 2014)

Of course there were no planes.

Dr. Tracy Blevins explained it years ago. She proved the buildings were shot with dustification beams.


----------



## chikenwing (Oct 27, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Ahh NO!! LOL


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 27, 2014)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Of course there were no planes.
> 
> Dr. Tracy Blevins explained it years ago. She proved the buildings were shot with dustification beams.



With large ta-tas.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 28, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Now picture this, if you had a precision manufactured part, that was shelf that would support say 35 lbs as a static load, but would break at 36 lbs, and arrange a number of these shelves in a vertical array such as the floors of the WTC tower had been and then drop a 100 lb weight on the topmost shelf, the result would be that the weight would descend at aprox 64% of g.
> ...



Any answers n0spam?


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 28, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...




I am shocked ... shocked I tell you. Spammy usually hits this thread pretty regularly and he was here when you posted this "bump." As much as he likes to play "pretend physicists" I am truly shocked he slithered away without showing you his scientific "prowess."


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 29, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


As am I.

The problem is this. n0spam knows that if he answer my questions, it will bring about the fact that he has no clue about what he is talking about. He's probably trying to figure out the best possible way to answer and save as much face as he can.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 29, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Of course there were no planes.
> ...


Planes or no planes, hijackers or 19 little green men from Mars --- How did the 3 parts of UA175 each of substantial size, exit the north face of WTC2??


----------



## daws101 (Oct 29, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...


kinetic energy  and not hitting anything that significantly slowed or altered the trajectory..


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 29, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...


You do realize that the corner columns that made up the angled edge were 6'-11" apart right? And that measurement is on the leg portion of the triangle created by the perimeter columns on the corner. That would make the face of each of the corners almost 9 1/2' wide right? How much space from floor to ceiling?

And you don't think any of the "substantial sized" objects could fit through that?


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 29, 2014)

daws101 said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


Uhh yeah, it would take kinetic energy to have the engine land some 6 blocks away.

The windows are less than 19 inches wide, how does an engine piece 2 to 3 times that size (already damaged) not hit "anything that significantly slowed or altered the trajectory" (which would need to include the exterior wall of the building) -- without ripping a large hole in it?  Same thing with the landing gear and the section of fuselage?
Where is the the damage to the building??


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 29, 2014)

The vertical columns on the exterior wall panels were about 17 3/4" wide and spaced 3' 4" on center - the gaps were about 22 1/4" wide


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 29, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> The vertical columns on the exterior wall panels were about 17 3/4" wide and spaced 3' 4" on center - the gaps were about 22 1/4" wide



I can't believe anyone is still arguing what the definition of "is" is. This is so done to death ... in fact, it's been done to the death of the "Truther" Movement [R.I.P.].
If you have a problem with any of the substantive facts in the 9/11 OS, please don't beat around the bush. Just come out and say it for cryin' out loud so you can quickly be put out of your misery. Poor Spammy is going to need years of therapy following his complete and utter destruction and I don't think he is the only "Truther" in trouble these days.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 30, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


Did you even read what I posted above CAPTCHATHIS?

The four corners of each tower was a "beveled" corner at 45 degrees. The distance between the two columns that made up this "beveled" corner when looking perpendicular at any face of the towers was 6'-11" center to center.

The angle of the plane lines up with these corners in that some debris would have smashed through this 6'-11" opening.





Here are the holes created by debris smashing through the opening between the columns on 6'-11" centers.




The red boxes in the photo below outline holes.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 30, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Uhh yeah, it would take kinetic energy to have the engine land some 6 blocks away


Are you saying there was no KE involved in that engine?

Good grief!

How much KE do you think was generated by an engine weighing 4341 kg and traveling at approximately 590 mph? Can you figure that out? Do you honestly think cubicle walls, walls made of drywall, chairs, people, computers, etc. is going to slow down something like this?

I mean, figure it out and come back and tell us if you think it's possible. The engine landed approximately 1,725 feet away from the corner it exited from. It weighed 4341 kg and was traveling about, I'd guess, 550 mph. It's trajectory started at approximately the 77th floor, estimated 910 feet up.

Go do the math.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 30, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > Uhh yeah, it would take kinetic energy to have the engine land some 6 blocks away
> ...


Hey Charlie Brown, my "Uhh yeah, it would take kinetic energy ..."  was in response to the ridiculously obvious nature of "Sayit's" response that it would require kinetic energy for a massive object to be propelled more than 6 city blocks. Don't try and twist things.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 30, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


Hey Pigpen, are you going to address the 6' hole in the corner of the tower that I showed you as the exit point of the debris?


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 30, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...



Are you suggesting someone picked up that engine (unseen) 2 blocks from the WTC and dropped it off another 4 blocks away? And you think my response is ridiculous?
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Former "Truther" Charlie Veitch


----------



## daws101 (Oct 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


lol! no he will submit that after the fake planes did not hit the towers that an army of black ops agents planted or pre planted exact replica smashed broken and burned plane parts of the alleged crash planes while no one was looking..
or it'll be the hackneyed exotic silent explosives story!


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 30, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



For starters the vertical column in the top hole is intact, splitting in half ..minus the width of the column itself leaves a hole substantially less than than 3 feet wide. I think the corner verticals are on alternating floors so I'll need to check for the bottom hole which is much less clean anyway.






PS. Can ya lend Sayit a nickel??


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 30, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> For starters the vertical column in the top hole is intact, splitting in half ..minus the width of the column itself leaves a hole substantially less than than 3 feet wide. I think the corner verticals are on alternating floors so I'll need to check for the bottom hole which is much less clean anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can't say (and neither can you) what is in that picture but I can see a large exit wound in that building. How do you know it's a column? It could be an air duct or something from the floor above just dangling. Obviously something large came out of there in a hurry. Can you say kinetic energy, Princess?


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 30, 2014)

No, I CAN say it's an intact structural member and you can deny it.  Now go have your daddy apply some kinetic energy to your bottom, 'kay darling?


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 30, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> No, I CAN say it's an intact structural member and you can deny it.  Now go have your daddy apply some kinetic energy to your bottom, 'kay darling?



Uh-huh, but I didn't deny it but rather said I can't tell from that picture what it is. So it's an intact structural member because you say so. No wonder the "Truther" movement died ... it was populated by ignorant yet pompous jackasses.
Any idea what left that gaping hole, Pompous One?


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 30, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


That middle column IS every other floor. Maybe you should research a little more before opening your mouth.


----------



## Gamolon (Oct 31, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> For starters the vertical column in the top hole is intact, splitting in half ..minus the width of the column itself leaves a hole substantially less than than 3 feet wide. I think the corner verticals are on alternating floors so I'll need to check for the bottom hole which is much less clean anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The floor below the intermediate column in the corner is floor 81.

That logically matches with the hole created by engine on the impact side of things as that shows to be in between floor 81 and 82.




Here is a photo of the smoke streamer produced by the engine after leaving the tower.




Oh look! Damage to a building (circled by the red oval) from the engine hitting it.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 31, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > For starters the vertical column in the top hole is intact, splitting in half ..minus the width of the column itself leaves a hole substantially less than than 3 feet wide. I think the corner verticals are on alternating floors so I'll need to check for the bottom hole which is much less clean anyway.
> ...



I can't say for sure that hole was created by the engine but certainly something (or some things) tore into the towers with enough force to rip out the other side and damage other buildings. Was any evidence of  missiles found?
No?
Then I'm gonna go out on a limb and declare unequivocally that it must have been part (or parts) of the aircraft so many of us saw slam into the towers on 9/11.
BTW ... has anyone seen or heard from Spammy? I'm getting kinda worried.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 31, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> No, I CAN say it's an intact structural member and you can deny it.  Now go have your daddy apply some kinetic energy to your bottom, 'kay darling?


you can say that but it is . most of the hanging stuff is cladding  there is no visual evidence that disproves that kinetic energy is responsible.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 31, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


Learn to read. I am the one who brought attention to the corner columns being on alternating floors, even though it works against the point I'm proposing.
You on the other hand tried to suggest there are 2 nine foot holes.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 31, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


what you're proposing is ridiculous


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 31, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > For starters the vertical column in the top hole is intact, splitting in half ..minus the width of the column itself leaves a hole substantially less than than 3 feet wide. I think the corner verticals are on alternating floors so I'll need to check for the bottom hole which is much less clean anyway.
> ...


OK, let's assume that damage is from the engine. It continues up Church St along the face of the building to the corner of Murray St. still within just the sidewalks distance of the building.
 If the engine as pictured, is where it truly came to rest how did it get under the scaffolding?

Note :46 second mark especially, the scaffolding runs over sidewalk at base of the building struck (with the brick-red colored squares)

Pick up at the 2:15 mark of the Naudet 9/11 documentary, it's of the pedestrian reaction to the first plane strike.  Note the police tape is already out around garbage can before the first plane strike.



Embedded media from this media site is no longer available







Can confirm bearings with current Google street view: Starbucks now stands at corner where scaffolding with blue canopy and engine were. Note same building across Murray St as behind man in gray t-shirt.

Google Maps


----------



## daws101 (Nov 2, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


bahahahahahahahahah!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 2, 2014)

"The End of the 9/11 CT Movement"

That the 'movement' ever existed to begin with was idiocy.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 2, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "The End of the 9/11 CT Movement"
> 
> That the 'movement' ever existed to begin with was idiocy.


it was a bowel movement .....


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 2, 2014)

daws101 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > "The End of the 9/11 CT Movement"
> ...



It was a slush fund to pay for Dickie Gage's 'movement' around the world on lavish vacations to spread "The Truth" to the people of Thailand, Singapore, Japan, etc.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Nov 2, 2014)

daws101 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > "The End of the 9/11 CT Movement"
> ...


and you are the resultant turd..

bahahahahahahahahah! bahahahahahahahahah! bahahahahahahahahahbahahahahahahahahah!


----------



## daws101 (Nov 2, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


I'm not the one who just proved beyond doubt he doesn't know jack shit about trajectory..


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Nov 2, 2014)

Once again you know nothing and offer nothing of substance. The engine hit the building in the picture posted by Gamolon as it was clearing it. The east face of the Tower is set back roughly 425 ft from the basically parallel face of the building the engine struck. It was moving across the face but also from back to front- diagonally across the corner of the building.  It would have continued to move away from the building crossing into Church St.  _If_ by some chance it altered course and stayed tight to the face of the building it would have obliterated the scaffolding at the base of the building - yet somehow resides nicely under the intact scaffolding.

Perhaps it was a Titleist engine and had some crazy backspin.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 2, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Once again you know nothing and offer nothing of substance. The engine hit the building in the picture posted by Gamolon as it was clearing it. The east face of the Tower is set back roughly 425 ft from the basically parallel face of the building the engine struck. It was moving across the face but also from back to front- diagonally across the corner of the building.  It would have continued to move away from the building crossing into Church St.  _If_ by some chance it altered course and stayed tight to the face of the building it would have obliterated the scaffolding at the base of the building - yet somehow resides nicely under the intact scaffolding.
> 
> Perhaps it was a Titleist engine and had some crazy backspin.



Uh-huh. Moments after the plane hit that tower a flatbed truck which no one saw mysteriously appeared in the neighborhood and unloaded their precious cargo, again unseen, a few blocks from the 9/11 attacks.

Perhaps you would explain how you believe that jet engine got there?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 2, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > Once again you know nothing and offer nothing of substance. The engine hit the building in the picture posted by Gamolon as it was clearing it. The east face of the Tower is set back roughly 425 ft from the basically parallel face of the building the engine struck. It was moving across the face but also from back to front- diagonally across the corner of the building.  It would have continued to move away from the building crossing into Church St.  _If_ by some chance it altered course and stayed tight to the face of the building it would have obliterated the scaffolding at the base of the building - yet somehow resides nicely under the intact scaffolding.
> ...



Maybe the perps used a Romulan cloaking device to hide the truck and the engine until after they drove away.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Nov 2, 2014)

In other words, you have no explanation and choose to avoid trying to explain something you can not. Typical.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Nov 2, 2014)

No. In other words, I am not one of the Gage-Dupes who use appeals to magic to shore up their pathetic "theories".


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 2, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Uh-huh. Moments after the plane hit that tower a flatbed truck which no one saw mysteriously appeared in the neighborhood and unloaded their precious cargo, again unseen, a few blocks from the 9/11 attacks.
> 
> Perhaps you would explain how you believe that jet engine got there?





CAPTCHATHIS said:


> In other words, you have no explanation and choose to avoid trying to explain something you can not. Typical.



Evidently _you_ have no explanation and choose to avoid trying to explain something you can not. Typical.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Nov 2, 2014)

Rat in the Hat said:


> No. In other words, I am not one of the Gage-Dupes who use appeals to magic to shore up their pathetic "theories".


Sorry Rat, you and Sayit are the pathetic ones willing to accept magic as an explanation for all too many things


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Nov 2, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Uh-huh. Moments after the plane hit that tower a flatbed truck which no one saw mysteriously appeared in the neighborhood and unloaded their precious cargo, again unseen, a few blocks from the 9/11 attacks.
> ...


You're the one defending the inexplicable, not me. You can't do it. Case closed.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 2, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


Oh boy are YOU wrong CAPTCHATHIS!

The engine landed on the northeast corner of that intersection. Diagonally opposite from the now existing Starbucks. Pay close attention now. Below are two screen captures from you first video posted above. In this first one, look that the facing of the building to the left of the FBI guy.




Next, look at the red "pole" on the sidewalk on the right in relation to where the engine is on the left.




Now, below is a current screenshot from Google Earth, looking north down Church street, from the intersection of Murray and Church. The red oval on the left matches the facing of the building to the left of the FBU guy. The red oval on the right shows the red" pole in the second screenshot. The red star marks where the engine was BENEATH the scaffolding. The Starbucks on the corner YOU THINK the engine was on is to the left and behind in the Google Earth screenshot.




Here is a current photo of the Starbucks and its corener you THINK the engine was on. Where is the subway entrance shown in front of that Starbucks in the video you posted above? Shouldn't we see one near the engine if that was the correct corner? I wonder why we don't?


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 2, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Indeed it is as is the book on the now defunct 9/11 CT Movement (R.I.P.) ... put out of its pathetic misery by fools who make absurd claims yet can't support them. So how did that airplane engine get there? Magic Dust? Woohoo! 
Cheech and Chong - Santa and the Magic Dust - YouTube


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 2, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Are you saying CaptChat uses bogus "facts" to form her conclusions?
Say It Ain't So!


----------



## Rank Your Leader (Nov 3, 2014)

The 9/11 CT's are still resurfacing in Earth from time to time.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Nov 3, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


Yes, you are absolutely correct. I realized this last night, picking up on those same landmarks as well as the shadow direction of some of the pedestrians.
That the Starbucks corner at the same intersection is taped off (before any plane strikes as seen in the Naudet film) in the same manner, with a garbage pulled into the street being used, confused things. Appreciation and respect to you for actually putting forth the effort and demonstrating an understanding of the situation, as opposed to those that just react mindlessly like Pavlov's dogs.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 3, 2014)

hey agent gamolon,long time no troll here.Looks like your handlers were paying you to troll at other message boards for a while and decided it was time for you to come back here and troll again.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 3, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Yes, you are absolutely correct. I realized this last night, picking up on those same landmarks as well as the shadow direction of some of the pedestrians.
> That the Starbucks corner at the same intersection is taped off (before any plane strikes as seen in the Naudet film) in the same manner, with a garbage pulled into the street being used, confused things. Appreciation and respect to you for actually putting forth the effort and demonstrating an understanding of the situation, as opposed to those that just react mindlessly like Pavlov's dogs.



For the norms here arguing facts with "Truthers" is like banging your head against the wall. Most "Truthers" are so married to their CTs that they not only reject facts, they continue to spew their silliness long after it has been thoroughly refuted. In fact, your admission is the first time any "Truther" has had the courage (and integrity) to admit the "facts" supporting their CT were not facts at all. You get big creds for having both. As you may have noticed, when Spammy's scientific "facts" were proven bogus, also by Gamolon (and others), he simply packed up and disappeared. Poof! Gone! Not heard from since. Game-Set-Match. I would hope you will integrate your new knowledge into your bottom line and not turn out to be one of those "Truthers" who pop up elsewhere selling the same wrong-headed stuff you have been here for the past few weeks. Thanks again.
Many ex-"Truthers" simply tucked tail and slithered away but on his way out the door Charlie Veitch had this to say:
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong."


----------



## wihosa (Nov 4, 2014)

No modern steel framed high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire anywhere in the world, except of course on 9/11 when it happened three times!
Thousands of high rise fires before and since and no collapses?
But on 9/11 the laws of physics were suspended and fire caused three buildings to collapse -in mere seconds,  suddenly, symmetrically, at free fall speed into their own footprints! Even more amazing one building wasn't even hit by a plane!

So believable...

America living the LIE!


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 4, 2014)

wihosa said:


> No modern steel framed high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire anywhere in the world, except of course on 9/11 when it happened three times!
> Thousands of high rise fires before and since and no collapses?
> But on 9/11 the laws of physics were suspended and fire caused three buildings to collapse -in mere seconds,  suddenly, symmetrically, at free fall speed into their own footprints! Even more amazing one building wasn't even hit by a plane!
> 
> ...


 
Your "facts" have been so thoroughly refuted as to no longer deserve any response. As such all that is left is for you to explain why you continue down that silly wabbit hole? What are you trying to accomplish?
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." Charlie Veitch, ex-"Truther"


----------



## daws101 (Nov 4, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> In other words, you have no explanation and choose to avoid trying to explain something you can not. Typical.


it's self explanatory and it's a one word explanation..


----------



## daws101 (Nov 4, 2014)

wihosa said:


> No modern steel framed high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire anywhere in the world, except of course on 9/11 when it happened three times!
> Thousands of high rise fires before and since and no collapses?
> But on 9/11 the laws of physics were suspended and fire caused three buildings to collapse -in mere seconds,  suddenly, symmetrically, at free fall speed into their own footprints! Even more amazing one building wasn't even hit by a plane!
> 
> ...


false


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 4, 2014)

daws101 said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, you have no explanation and choose to avoid trying to explain something you can not. Typical.
> ...


 
To his credit, CaptChat admitted to having erred in viewing his evidence and had the courage to do it publically. Now contrast that to Spammy's not-so-mysterious disappearance when his balloon got popped.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Nov 5, 2014)

In light of my newly found integrity and courage, I am coming clean and admitting to what really happened on 9/11:


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 5, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> In light of my newly found integrity and courage, I am coming clean and admitting to what really happened on 9/11:


 
Right back down da wabbit hole (with your newly recognized courage and integrity) you go ... woohoo!


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Nov 5, 2014)

Sayit, I apologize that Charlie Veitch did not at the very least make a cameo appearance in that vid. You'll need to be satisfied with your CV inflatable doll.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 5, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Sayit, I apologize that Charlie Veitch did not at the very least make a cameo appearance in that vid. You'll need to be satisfied with your CV inflatable doll.



Thing is, you showed integrity when you admitted the point you had argued _for a week_ was based on incorrect (or bogus) info. Most "Truthers" just slither away (see: Spammy) when their silly loon balloon gets popped. Some ex-"Truthers" - unlike Spammy - do the right thing. That takes courage: 

Mike Metzger is the co-founder of 9/11 Truth UAlbany.
His mea culpa:

I was a true believer of all this controlled demolition nonsense for a time. I never cared about the physics or the claims of pseudo-"experts." What always did it for me was the fact that there was never a decent response to any of these questions by the government...

Or so it seemed. After watching Screw Loose Change, I delved into the world of 9/11 Truth debunking. Among my favorites are the Screw Loose Change Blog and 9/11 Myths. Finally, someone was answering all these pertinent questions with something that was a bit foreign to me... facts agreed upon by the experts.

There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just a lot of theories, which eventually break down to "hey, we're just asking questions" if someone questions the validity of such. No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers. Yet, most of my friends will try to explain the hard physics involved in structural collapses. None of these people are engineers, physicists, or even in a scientific field, for that matter.

The truthers will just tell you that all the experts are "in on it."
Yeah, sure.
Every engineer in the world is complicit in the government's murder of 3,000 people. And so are the firemen, who apparently ordered Larry Silverstein to "pull" Building 7... Yeah, every firefighter who was out there on 9/11 is going to be complicit in the MURDER OF 343 OF THEIR FALLEN BROTHERS! To quote Loose Change co-creator Jason Bermas, "the firefighters are paid off."

This is absolute horseshit, which brings me to why I've formally distanced myself from this sorry excuse for a movement. Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries, Alex Jones, and all the other kooks out there are fucking lying about, distorting, and misrepresenting the facts to further their personal agendas. And what is their agenda, you ask? Money, in the words of Shaggy 2 Dope, "mutha fuckin bitch ass money." Not only are they desecrating 3,000 graves, but they are profiting off of it. That, my friends, makes me sick to my fuckin stomach.

Confessions of an Ex-Truther Letter of Resignation Scroll Down for Newer Posts


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Nov 5, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > Sayit, I apologize that Charlie Veitch did not at the very least make a cameo appearance in that vid. You'll need to be satisfied with your CV inflatable doll.
> ...


"(T)he point you had argued _for a week_"

I guess stretching the truth _with emphasis_ is not quite the same thing as lying, eh?

Friday at 7:17 PM  -  The post where I first address the landing location of the engine
Monday at 2:35 PM -  The post where I agree with Gamolon in that is a different corner at the same intersection

That's less than 3 days and during that time *no one* put forth the notion that it was a different corner - If they had I would have acknowledged my error right then. No, there was nothing but the same old substance lacking childish comments.
There was a 16 inch softball sitting still, right over the plate and the "all-knowing" didn't even see it.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 5, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> I guess stretching the truth _with emphasis_ is not quite the same thing as lying, eh?
> 
> Friday at 7:17 PM  -  The post where I first address the landing location of the engine
> Monday at 2:35 PM -  The post where I agree with Gamolon in that is a different corner at the same intersection
> ...


Couple of questions for you CAPTCHATHIS.

When you were digesting the information that put forth the notion that something strange was going on with where the engine landed, did you just stop researching there because it fit your beliefs of a conspiracy? That is HAD to have been planted and not that the information was wrong?

When I read what was being proposed, I immediately thought something was wrong with the information presented and looked into it. Lo and behold, I was correct.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 5, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


nothing is more chicken shit than rationalizing..
..


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Nov 5, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > I guess stretching the truth _with emphasis_ is not quite the same thing as lying, eh?
> ...


Please send me an autographed 8 x 10 photo, as you are now officially my fucking hero.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 5, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


nothing is more chicken shit than rationalizing..
..


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Nov 5, 2014)

daws101 said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


umm well maybe lying, sound familiar dawbag?


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 5, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...



You mean like the raging liar who insisted _*for days*_ that engine had no business being on that Manhattan street?


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 5, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...



Now you're being childish. To have lied I would have to have had to have known it was only days. BFD. It seemed like a week to me. Get over yourself, Princess.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 6, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...



My post had nothing to do with me being a "fuckng hero" and everything to do with truther's explanations containing nothing but bullshit which lead certain people down a "conspiracy rabbit hole". The above debate is a perfect example of this.

Whether you like it or not, you read some conspiracy crap and believed the garbage within. Every time I read a conspiracy explanation, I look for, and always find, quote mining, half-truth-facts, mistakes, and a lack of research.

You questioned how the large parts of a plane could  have fit through the perimeter facade and thought they were probably planted by some government stooges based on garbage truther information. Then is was shown that it was possible that the parts in question could have gone through the corner which had an approximate 6'-11" opening on the same floor the engine was shown to have entered on the other side.

Then comes the engine and where it landed. Same thing as above. You read some truther garbage and believed it. Then it was shown to be completely wrong.

Don't be mad at me. You should be mad at the jokers who post this shit.


----------



## Penelope (Nov 6, 2014)

No its not the end. Most of us know our Neocons in our Gov and Israel did it. The writers of PNAC, who were mainly Zionist Jews.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 6, 2014)

Penelope said:


> No its not the end. Most of us know our Neocons in our Gov and Israel did it. The writers of PNAC, who were mainly Zionist Jews.


 
Most of who? You and the little voices inside your head? That's a whole lotta ignorant, Jew-hatin' camel crap.
For the record, the 9/11 Movement is deader than a door nail and this thread proved it. All that's left are the DVD & t-shirt hawkers, a few stragglers and some bitter Nazi types but thanks for playing.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 6, 2014)

Penelope said:


> No its not the end. Most of us know our Neocons in our Gov and Israel did it. The writers of PNAC, who were mainly Zionist Jews.


not the appeal to the group argument again..
*Argumentum ad populum*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Ad populum" redirects here. For the Catholic liturgical term, see Versus populum.
In argumentation theory, an _*argumentum ad populum*_ (Latin for "*appeal to the people*") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition is true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including *appeal to the masses*, *appeal to belief*, *appeal to the majority*, *appeal to democracy*, *appeal to popularity*, *argument by consensus*, *consensus fallacy*, *authority of the many*, and *bandwagon fallacy*, and in Latin as _*argumentum ad numerum*_ ("appeal to the number"), and _*consensus gentium*_ ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Nov 6, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...





SAYIT said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


lol Nice try, you deceitful, perfidious snake.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 6, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


now the denial. Or will you say it how it got there.?


----------



## wihosa (Nov 23, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > No modern steel framed high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire anywhere in the world, except of course on 9/11 when it happened three times!
> ...



In other words you got nothing.
What other modern steel framed high rise building has ever suffered accidental total collapse in seconds other than the three on 911. Name one. Oh you can't. Because it's never happened!

If you're simply a dupe you should hang it up because you're over your head.
If you're a debunker, you're really bad at your job.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 24, 2014)

wihosa said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



I'm no "debunker," Princess ... you and your "cause" haven't earned that kind of respect. Instead you get the kind of disdain and ridicule that you certainly have earned. All that's left of your "Truther" movement is the t-shirt and DVD hawkers and the ragtag mop-up crew ... YOU and Spammy.
“This is hard, you know, because I’ve hung on to these ideas for years now... I’ve always hung out with people who say, ‘Yeah, conspiracy! 9/11 demolition!’ But now I’ve spoken to a guy who’s explained it. And it makes sense.” - Charlie Veitch


----------



## wihosa (Nov 24, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Who the hell is Charlie Veitch, never mind no one cares who the hell Charlie Veitch is.
The ridicule is on you the defender of the entirely ridiculous Official Conspiracy Theory. See you and your debunkers buddies are the ones wearing the tin foil hats!
There's some many holes in the OCT it looks like Swiss cheese so you must be a debunker because even simpletons can see it's nothing but lies.

Sure, a guy who could barely fly a piper cub piloted a commercial airliner in a seven thousand foot dive through a 270 degree turned, flew low enough to knock down light poles but didn't hit the ground, then it vanished entirely into the Pentagon through a fifteen foot wide hole even though the walls are made of two foot thick steel reinforced concrete!  Very believable!

And the BBC was simply clairvoyant that day when they reported that the Solomon Building HAS collapsed...twenty minutes before it did! Sounds likely.

And of course the plane in Shanksville simply disappeared into the ground entirley. No wing or tail sections, no seats, luggage or bodies. Sure why not?

And let's not forget about the FBI agent who found in all the debris and dust a paper passport belonging to one of the supposed highjackers! Amazing how it survived fire which was so intense that it caused the building to collapse in seconds. Who would doubt it?

And of course there is the first of its kind complete collapse of a modern steel framed high rise building from normal office fires! And at free fall acceleration no less.. Ok, 

You know, at least when you guys cooked up your conspiracy theory you could have run it by some fifth graders to see if it passed the giggle test.

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so fucking tragic.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 25, 2014)

wihosa said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > I'm no "debunker," Princess ... you and your "cause" haven't earned that kind of respect. Instead you get the kind of disdain and ridicule that you certainly have earned. All that's left of your "Truther" movement is the t-shirt and DVD hawkers and the ragtag mop-up crew ... YOU and Spammy.
> ...



If you actually read the interview with Veitch, you would know that he once slithered among you and was befriended by "Truther" royalty like Jones and Icke. You can the dismiss the disdain most norms have for your 9/11 CT movement but you should at least open your eyes and uncover your ears long enough to learn what destroyed the movement (and it is D-E-A-D) for those who escaped your lunacy:

"This is absolute horseshit, which brings me to why I've formally distanced myself from this sorry excuse for a movement. Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries, Alex Jones, and all the other kooks out there are fucking lying about, distorting, and misrepresenting the facts to further their personal agendas. And what is their agenda, you ask? Money, in the words of Shaggy 2 Dope, "mutha fuckin bitch ass money." Not only are they desecrating 3,000 graves, but they are profiting off of it. That, my friends, makes me sick to my fuckin stomach." - Mike Metzger, co-founder of 9/11 Truth UAlbany.

Loose Change Website - Version 2.0


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 25, 2014)

wihosa said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


In the case of the towers, show the steel framed high rise examples you are using for comparison. Show me your example of a 1300' tall, tube in tube structure that was hit by a plane in the upper third, that remained standing. You MUST have examples to support your claim right? Apples to Apples right?

In the case of WTC7, show me an example of a similar structure that contained truss support assemblies within it's structure, was built on an existing structure, had long floor spans, and had fires that were unfought.

Let's see what buildings you're using to make your "history" comparison.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 25, 2014)

wihosa said:


> No modern steel framed high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire anywhere in the world, except of course on 9/11 when it happened three times!
> Thousands of high rise fires before and since and no collapses?


How many of those thousands of high rise fires where the buildings struck by planes in the upper third? Let's see what you got.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 25, 2014)




----------



## wihosa (Nov 25, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


Ok, it's the old conversion of a debunker who pretends to be a Truther until he saw the light. That's a bunch of bull.
And why did you post a picture of a plane photoshopped onto the  Shanksville site? Oh and let me guess the other pic is supposed to be a twelve foot diameter engine from the Shanksville crash.
Honey I shrank the airplane!


----------



## wihosa (Nov 25, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



You know gamalon, you're the one with the conspiracy theory to defend. I'm just pointing out what a load of crap your theory, the Official Conspiracy Theory is.

So I have to point to another identical structure that had the exact same thing happen to it and remained standing. Gee, I guess you win. You're really reaching.

Why don't you look at the Windsor hotel fire in Madrid Spain, a modern steel framed high rise that burned out of control for nearly twenty four hours virtually gutting it and finally had some limited structural failure near the top where the fire was the hottest. And that failure, as would be expected was slow, uneven with the structural members showing deformation. When the fire was out the vast majority of the building frame was standing. Hotter, longer more complete involvement but it didn't collapse completely in a matter of seconds.

You conspiracy theory really is ridiculous.


----------



## wihosa (Nov 25, 2014)

daws101 said:


>


Really, the Kadar Toy Factory?
That factory was not built to modern standards. The steel wasn't even insulated! It was so poorly built that they didn't even build the fire escapes ( lead to many deaths).
If you want to defend the Official Conspiracy Theory, you're going to have to do better  than that!


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 25, 2014)

wihosa said:


> You know gamalon, you're the one with the conspiracy theory to defend. I'm just pointing out what a load of crap your theory, the Official Conspiracy Theory is.


I have numbers, studies, and FEAs to back up my theory. What do you have? Speculation? Questions? You have NOTHING.



wihosa said:


> So I have to point to another identical structure that had the exact same thing happen to it and remained standing. Gee, I guess you win. You're really reaching.


You don't think that planes removing structural members has anything to do with the towers collapses? You don;t think that structures with different designs are going to react differently to fires? Tell me something. You are the one who first set the comparison standards did you not? Steel framed? High rise? Right? If you can add selection parameters, why can't I. APPLES to APPLES right?



wihosa said:


> Why don't you look at the Windsor hotel fire in Madrid Spain, a modern steel framed high rise that burned out of control for nearly twenty four hours virtually gutting it and finally had some limited structural failure near the top where the fire was the hottest.


Oh wait! So fires can cause steel to partially collapse, but total collapse is out of the question? Do you have the design of the building? How did it compare WTC7, WTC1, or WTC2? Or are you again insinuating that all structures should behave the same? Was the fire fought at all by firefighters?



wihosa said:


> And that failure, as would be expected was slow, uneven with the structural members showing deformation. When the fire was out the vast majority of the building frame was standing. Hotter, longer more complete involvement but it didn't collapse completely in a matter of seconds.
> 
> You conspiracy theory really is ridiculous.


See above.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 25, 2014)

wihosa said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Oh i get it. You can add and reject comparison parameters when it supports your beliefs, but when I suggest certain parameters, you have a fit. 

I get it know.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 25, 2014)

wihosa said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


your last three post are all rationalizing. you've proved nothing


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 25, 2014)

wihosa said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > "This is absolute horseshit, which brings me to why I've formally distanced myself from this sorry excuse for a movement. Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries, Alex Jones, and all the other kooks out there are fucking lying about, distorting, and misrepresenting the facts to further their personal agendas. And what is their agenda, you ask? Money, in the words of Shaggy 2 Dope, "mutha fuckin bitch ass money." Not only are they desecrating 3,000 graves, but they are profiting off of it. That, my friends, makes me sick to my fuckin stomach." - Mike Metzger, co-founder of 9/11 Truth UAlbany.
> ...



Ah ... your shrill, desperate and unfounded rejection of all which does not conform to your lunacy has been duly noted once again. You can't fathom that most of your fellow foil-hatters have bailed out on you, Princess? Take a look around. All that remains of your never-was movement is Gage (Jones barely mentions 9/11 anymore) and the not-too-brights holding brooms (Spammy and YOU).


----------



## daws101 (Nov 26, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


bravo!


----------



## wihosa (Nov 27, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > You know gamalon, you're the one with the conspiracy theory to defend. I'm just pointing out what a load of crap your theory, the Official Conspiracy Theory is.
> ...



Yes fire that entirely consumes a building could cause some minor failure. Look at the video of the Windsor Tower, it burned light a torch for nearly 24 hours. It was fully consumed yet the vast majority of the frame remained standing. 
Since your all about fair comparisons, are your claiming that the B7 fire was comparable?


----------



## n0spam4me (Nov 28, 2014)

Would you then prefer to have the "truth movement" simply go away?
and with that, where do we draw the line with what gets questioned?
Shall we stop questioning anything & everything? and if there are some questions allowed, who is to decide what questions are proper or not?
This is allegedly a FREE COUNTRY with FREEDOM of expression.
Therefore I express myself in saying that I do not believe the official fairy tale about hijacked airliners ( etc.... ) and I have very good reasons to not believe the official fairy tale, however some people would suppress questioning.
WHY?


----------



## Papageorgio (Nov 28, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Would you then prefer to have the "truth movement" simply go away?
> and with that, where do we draw the line with what gets questioned?
> Shall we stop questioning anything & everything? and if there are some questions allowed, who is to decide what questions are proper or not?
> This is allegedly a FREE COUNTRY with FREEDOM of expression.
> ...


You can waste all the time you want, I find it all a very nice comic relief.

Keep on posting!


----------



## n0spam4me (Nov 28, 2014)

so obviously somebody has NOT examined the evidence and really doesn't want to know about the crime of the century.  This is a matter of national security,  it is a gross injustice to have the mainstream media lie about events, and then promote the idea that anybody who questions the events of 9/11/2001 is a crack-pot.

Have you not seen the video of the towers & 7 being demolished?
have you not seen the Evan Fairbanks video, the alleged crash of "FLT175"
The Pentagon fiasco.... the Shanksville fraud ....
what have you seen that makes you believe the events of 9/11/2001
were the product of religious fanatic hijackers?


----------



## daws101 (Nov 28, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> so obviously somebody has NOT examined the evidence and really doesn't want to know about the crime of the century.  This is a matter of national security,  it is a gross injustice to have the mainstream media lie about events, and then promote the idea that anybody who questions the events of 9/11/2001 is a crack-pot.
> 
> Have you not seen the video of the towers & 7 being demolished?
> have you not seen the Evan Fairbanks video, the alleged crash of "FLT175"
> ...


guess you have no friends or family to spent this holiday with.


----------



## n0spam4me (Nov 28, 2014)

> guess you have no friends or family to spent this holiday with.



Ditto for other posters on this forum, speculation only
there are other HOLY DAYS that are not necessarily on the common calendar but are kept by a few individuals/groups and for some people in this country, "black Friday" "xmas" etc..... mean absolutely nothing and there are other days to be marked as sacred.  The remarks on this forum only serve to prove the shallow nature of the discussion here.  

AMERICA is in denial, its like a family who will state " Uncle Lenny is a good dood" when in fact Uncle Lenny is pimpin' & dealin' and everybody knows it if they would but open their eyes.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 28, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> > guess you have no friends or family to spent this holiday with.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## n0spam4me (Nov 28, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > > guess you have no friends or family to spent this holiday with.
> ...



So obviously YOU do not buy into the standard HOLY DAYS .....


----------



## daws101 (Nov 28, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


obviously you are a nut job ...


----------



## n0spam4me (Nov 29, 2014)

The truther community has upped our standards,
now up yours ........ 

Happy Freaking Consumerists 
Holy Days!


----------

