911 facts no theories

[DiveCon]

Miller, YOU need the shrink

I feel sorry for Dennis Kucinich.

ya think?

 

[elvis]

Miller, YOU need the shrink

I feel sorry for Dennis Kucinich.

ya think?

well wait a minute... that wife of his MIGHT make up for dipshits like miller.

 

[SFC Ollie]

YOU CAN'T SEE THOUSANDS OF STEEL BEAMS ON TOP OF THE ROOFS? SEE A SHRINK CAUSE IT AIN'T YOUR EYES!

I see something. But to identify it as steel beams from a controlled demo? Nope I don't see that. There has been no physical evidence of a controlled demolition presented, in this or any other thread.

 

[Jeremy]

YOU CAN'T SEE THOUSANDS OF STEEL BEAMS ON TOP OF THE ROOFS? SEE A SHRINK CAUSE IT AIN'T YOUR EYES!

I see something. But to identify it as steel beams from a controlled demo? Nope I don't see that. There has been no physical evidence of a controlled demolition presented, in this or any other thread.

[/THREAD]

 

[Rat in the Hat]

SEE THE SOUTH TOWER EXPLODE WHILE THE NORTH TOWER BURNS? CAN YOU SEE THE CONTRAST?

 

[the machine rag]

Bush ordered military experts to rig the explosives. Did Osama rig the explosives? Bush is the fucking traitor that you soldier boy are protecting. That means you're a fucking traitor too.

Have you ever heard of an illegal order by the Commander in Chief? He lied you into war if you were in Iraq. Did boot camp brainwash you? That's exactly the purpose of boot camp. I went to Navy boot camp and I got brainwashed. But now I know that.

Lol..So the fact that planes laden with jet fuel that smashed into buildings in which literally hundreds of independent experts contend was the catalyst for bringing them down, were also wired with explosives that nobody witnessed, which were simultaneously charged to explode the moment the planes struck?

Or perhaps you don't believe what billions of people around the world witnessed - namely that planes actually smashed into buildings on 9-11. Perhaps you actually believe it never happened and was thus a kind of mass collective self-induced illusion??

The reality is that EVERY SINGLE theory has been debunked. I refer you to the BBC's excellent 'Conspiracy Files' 9-11 strand of documentaries available on youtube and the excellent debunking911.com website.

 

[Jeremy]

If the Goonies were troofers I think miller would have to be sloth...

 

[eots]

Bush ordered military experts to rig the explosives. Did Osama rig the explosives? Bush is the fucking traitor that you soldier boy are protecting. That means you're a fucking traitor too.

Have you ever heard of an illegal order by the Commander in Chief? He lied you into war if you were in Iraq. Did boot camp brainwash you? That's exactly the purpose of boot camp. I went to Navy boot camp and I got brainwashed. But now I know that.

Lol..So the fact that planes laden with jet fuel that smashed into buildings in which literally hundreds of independent experts contend was the catalyst for bringing them down, were also wired with explosives that nobody witnessed, which were simultaneously charged to explode the moment the planes struck?

Or perhaps you don't believe what billions of people around the world witnessed - namely that planes actually smashed into buildings on 9-11. Perhaps you actually believe it never happened and was thus a kind of mass collective self-induced illusion??

The reality is that EVERY SINGLE theory has been debunked. I refer you to the BBC's excellent 'Conspiracy Files' 9-11 strand of documentaries available on youtube and the excellent debunking911.com website.

You are full of nonsense and the debunking sites are often in contradiction with the NIST report and exclude all first responder testimony that does not support the official story

 

[Jeremy]

Thank god Eots is finally here. Now we can have some sane insanity.

 

[Wayne1954]

Let me ask you something Miller.

If I had built a steel beam wall 1300 feet high and then pushed on it from the top to make it topple sideways, how far away would the top portion land from the foot of the bottom of that wall?

Mr. Gamolon:

I think your comment is in response to the issue of some of the perimeter columns being ejected 600 feet from the twin tower. These were from about the 80th floor and they would have had to break all the connections to the rest of the building and then accelerate from the place in the wall (where it had been for 35 years) at about 50 miles per hour. Four tons ... 0 to 50 mph in a fraction of a second ... better than a drag race.

To answer the question you posed about a 1300 foot steel beam wall that was pushed from the top. The answer is 1300 feet if the wall remained intact and rigid. This is a pretty easy physics problem. So if you want to continue with the physics problem, the top would begin to move and create an arc that would ever so gently begin to accelerate mostly horizontally as it pivoted around the base 1300 feet below. Then it would pick-up speed and as it began to become further unbalanced it would continue accelerating downward still pivoting around the base 1300 feet below. Finally, if it held together, the top would land 1300 feet away. It would be a very graceful thing to watch from a distance as you watched it lean and fall over probably a minute or more.

But in all the videos of the twin towers I have seen, I have never seen a 1300-foot wall pivot like that. Have you seen one?

But ... I have seen the top 30 floors of the South Tower rotate and start to tip over like the steel wall example you posed. It rotated through about 22 degrees as a solid unit and according to the laws of angular momentum, it should have kept rotating because it was unbalanced and (apparently) because it was completely broken away from the rest of the supporting structure, it should have continued tipping over (draw a "free-body" diagram ... which is physics-speak for a picture with arrows representing directional forces). Because the top was rotating and the remaining structure was providing some residual support at the bottom, the to 30 stories should have landed at least 30 stories away and 80 stories below. At least that is what would have happened if it were a gravitational collapse.

I do have one weak point in my argument (the paragraph above) when I said "the remaining structure was providing some residual support at the bottom." I am assuming that the residual structure below this rotating 30-floor intact building structure was providing upwards support. The structure was not hit by a plane at these floors, there was no significant fire ... and the columns went straight down to the bedrock (column on top of column held in-place by steel and reinforced concrete floors) so there should have been plenty of support for the dis-connected top to keep tipping over until it fell as a block down onto the streets below. The weak point is that the video evidence shows that the floors are being destroyed simultaneously and symmetrically all the way around the building and they are not providing any support. Imagine ... the floors are being destroyed before the top of the building even gets there. The laws of physics say that you can't break something until you hit it. Curious isn't it.

The destruction of the twin towers does not have any of the characteristics of a complete gravitational collapse. It seems to have had a lot of "energetic" help.

 

[Shooter]

My German Shepherd, Duke, knows there was no 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Duke is laughing at you all.

 

[Fizz]

Bush ordered military experts to rig the explosives.

PROOF PLEASE!!

where are the explosions?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGI33HsiCc[/ame]

watch the corner of the building buckle with NO EXPLOSIONS.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBYnUyx4kw8[/ame]

this is what REAL building demolitions sound like. do you hear any similarity at all?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ[/ame]

 

[Fizz]

But ... I have seen the top 30 floors of the South Tower rotate and start to tip over like the steel wall example you posed. It rotated through about 22 degrees as a solid unit and according to the laws of angular momentum, it should have kept rotating because it was unbalanced and (apparently) because it was completely broken away from the rest of the supporting structure, it should have continued tipping over (draw a "free-body" diagram ... which is physics-speak for a picture with arrows representing directional forces). Because the top was rotating and the remaining structure was providing some residual support at the bottom, the to 30 stories should have landed at least 30 stories away and 80 stories below. At least that is what would have happened if it were a gravitational collapse.

I do have one weak point in my argument (the paragraph above) when I said "the remaining structure was providing some residual support at the bottom." I am assuming that the residual structure below this rotating 30-floor intact building structure was providing upwards support. The structure was not hit by a plane at these floors, there was no significant fire ... and the columns went straight down to the bedrock (column on top of column held in-place by steel and reinforced concrete floors) so there should have been plenty of support for the dis-connected top to keep tipping over until it fell as a block down onto the streets below. The weak point is that the video evidence shows that the floors are being destroyed simultaneously and symmetrically all the way around the building and they are not providing any support. Imagine ... the floors are being destroyed before the top of the building even gets there. The laws of physics say that you can't break something until you hit it. Curious isn't it.

The destruction of the twin towers does not have any of the characteristics of a complete gravitational collapse. It seems to have had a lot of "energetic" help.

you have way more than one weak point, my man!!!

 

[Fizz]

My German Shepherd, Duke, knows there was no 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Duke is laughing at you all.

super secret government agents have apparently replaced your german sheppard with a doberman mix on Bush's orders.

the reason for them doing this makes absolutely no sense, much like the 9/11 conspiracy is completely pointless, needless and makes no sense at all.

 

[Gamolon]

Let me ask you something Miller.

If I had built a steel beam wall 1300 feet high and then pushed on it from the top to make it topple sideways, how far away would the top portion land from the foot of the bottom of that wall?

Mr. Gamolon:

I think your comment is in response to the issue of some of the perimeter columns being ejected 600 feet from the twin tower. These were from about the 80th floor and they would have had to break all the connections to the rest of the building and then accelerate from the place in the wall (where it had been for 35 years) at about 50 miles per hour. Four tons ... 0 to 50 mph in a fraction of a second ... better than a drag race.

Ejected. You use the term ejected. Can you please supply me with video showing these 4 ton sections of perimeter columns being "ejected" at 50 miles an hour sideways? Can you also tell me how much explosives whould be needed to eject a 4 ton steel component 600 feet AND to get it to go 50 miles per hour in a fraction of a second? I have video of the perimeter columns falling sideways in sections.

To answer the question you posed about a 1300 foot steel beam wall that was pushed from the top. The answer is 1300 feet if the wall remained intact and rigid. This is a pretty easy physics problem. So if you want to continue with the physics problem, the top would begin to move and create an arc that would ever so gently begin to accelerate mostly horizontally as it pivoted around the base 1300 feet below. Then it would pick-up speed and as it began to become further unbalanced it would continue accelerating downward still pivoting around the base 1300 feet below. Finally, if it held together, the top would land 1300 feet away. It would be a very graceful thing to watch from a distance as you watched it lean and fall over probably a minute or more.

But in all the videos of the twin towers I have seen, I have never seen a 1300-foot wall pivot like that. Have you seen one?

I used 1300 feet as an example. Your 600 foot landing location of ejected steel means that it could have toppled from about halfway up the tower.

But ... I have seen the top 30 floors of the South Tower rotate and start to tip over like the steel wall example you posed. It rotated through about 22 degrees as a solid unit and according to the laws of angular momentum, it should have kept rotating because it was unbalanced and (apparently) because it was completely broken away from the rest of the supporting structure, it should have continued tipping over (draw a "free-body" diagram ... which is physics-speak for a picture with arrows representing directional forces). Because the top was rotating and the remaining structure was providing some residual support at the bottom, the to 30 stories should have landed at least 30 stories away and 80 stories below. At least that is what would have happened if it were a gravitational collapse.

I do have one weak point in my argument (the paragraph above) when I said "the remaining structure was providing some residual support at the bottom." I am assuming that the residual structure below this rotating 30-floor intact building structure was providing upwards support. The structure was not hit by a plane at these floors, there was no significant fire ... and the columns went straight down to the bedrock (column on top of column held in-place by steel and reinforced concrete floors) so there should have been plenty of support for the dis-connected top to keep tipping over until it fell as a block down onto the streets below. The weak point is that the video evidence shows that the floors are being destroyed simultaneously and symmetrically all the way around the building and they are not providing any support.

The bolded part. What are THEY not providing support FOR?

Imagine ... the floors are being destroyed before the top of the building even gets there. The laws of physics say that you can't break something until you hit it. Curious isn't it.

Do you have proof that the floors were being detroyed BEFORE the top block got to them?

The destruction of the twin towers does not have any of the characteristics of a complete gravitational collapse. It seems to have had a lot of "energetic" help.

We'll have to discuss this further. I would like to see your other examples of this "energetic" help.

 

[the machine rag]

Bush ordered military experts to rig the explosives. Did Osama rig the explosives? Bush is the fucking traitor that you soldier boy are protecting. That means you're a fucking traitor too.

Have you ever heard of an illegal order by the Commander in Chief? He lied you into war if you were in Iraq. Did boot camp brainwash you? That's exactly the purpose of boot camp. I went to Navy boot camp and I got brainwashed. But now I know that.

Lol..So the fact that planes laden with jet fuel that smashed into buildings in which literally hundreds of independent experts contend was the catalyst for bringing them down, were also wired with explosives that nobody witnessed, which were simultaneously charged to explode the moment the planes struck?

Or perhaps you don't believe what billions of people around the world witnessed - namely that planes actually smashed into buildings on 9-11. Perhaps you actually believe it never happened and was thus a kind of mass collective self-induced illusion??

The reality is that EVERY SINGLE theory has been debunked. I refer you to the BBC's excellent 'Conspiracy Files' 9-11 strand of documentaries available on youtube and the excellent debunking911.com website.

You are full of nonsense and the debunking sites are often in contradiction with the NIST report and exclude all first responder testimony that does not support the official story

Are you seriously suggesting to this forum that the buildings were wired without being detected and then simultaneously timed to detonate the moment planes struck them??

Or are you suggesting that literally hundreds of independent experts who contend that planes laden with jet fuel smashing into buildings was the catalyst for bring them down, are wrong??

Or are you suggesting that what billions of people witnessed - ie planes smashing into buildings - never actually happened??

A straight answer would be greatly appreciated. Thanking you in advance.

 

[eots]

Lol..So the fact that planes laden with jet fuel that smashed into buildings in which literally hundreds of independent experts contend was the catalyst for bringing them down, were also wired with explosives that nobody witnessed, which were simultaneously charged to explode the moment the planes struck?

Or perhaps you don't believe what billions of people around the world witnessed - namely that planes actually smashed into buildings on 9-11. Perhaps you actually believe it never happened and was thus a kind of mass collective self-induced illusion??

The reality is that EVERY SINGLE theory has been debunked. I refer you to the BBC's excellent 'Conspiracy Files' 9-11 strand of documentaries available on youtube and the excellent debunking911.com website.

You are full of nonsense and the debunking sites are often in contradiction with the NIST report and exclude all first responder testimony that does not support the official story

Are you seriously suggesting to this forum that the buildings were wired without being detected

wired no not necessarily

and then simultaneously timed to detonate the moment planes struck them?

the collapse took place hours after the crash

Or are you suggesting that literally hundreds of independent experts who contend that planes laden with jet fuel smashing into buildings was the catalyst for bring them down, are wrong??

who are these claimed thousands ?

Or are you suggesting that what billions of people witnessed - ie planes smashing into buildings - never actually happened?

why would you assume that ?

A straight answer would be greatly appreciated. Thanking you in advance.

you are welcome

 

[LA RAM FAN]

"For your demonstration of the ability to 'cherry-pick' your own set of "facts", and the ability to make a coherent list, along with your ability to spell I will put you in my accelerated class."

The facts don't belong to me. They exist and you have no legitimate method to deny any one of those facts.

Its the propaganda brainwashing that prevents your mind from dealing with the blatant facts. There is no benefit for any American citizen to allow George Bush to avoid prosecution for this incredible crime.

It is undeniable that Bush had been warned more than 40 times and it is undeniable that Philip Shenon published this fact in his book in 2008 but never reported it in 2004 when he learned this set of facts while he covered the 911 Commission. Since every Commissioner and each staff person also intended to cover up the PDBs (Presidential Daily Briefings) they need to be prosecuted for obstructing justice. The 911 Commission had an official obligation to reveal their spectacular finding and the media had an obligation under the 1st Amendment to report what they learned.

Compare Bush's more than 40 warnings to the Tiger Woods girl friend story that the media played day and night every single day from Thanksgiving until the Masters. That's more than 4 months of nonsense vs Bush's more than 40 warnings. Is the brainwashing propaganda becoming more clear for you folks? Try to deal with that. The benefit will prevent you from being brainwashed to act irrationally.

I'm not trying to ridicule you but there is no other way to clarify the problem that makes stooges out of most (more than 90%) of Americans.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Its far easier to sit back and just accept the official story from out government.

I mean, its not like they would ever lie to us to achieve their own ends, right?

9/11 is going down as another Pearl Harbor. Its far too late to do anything about it, and far easier to side with the masses and call the people "loons" for questioning.

If it makes you feel better, nothing will ever be done about 9/11. It happened, it spawned two wars and killed thousands of our families and loved ones.

One thing we do know, without a doubt, is that we were NOT told everything about 9/11. There are things that are unexplained still, to this day, from the phony "comission report" written by people in Bush's own cabinet to the fact that a steel structure has never, in the history of mankind been brought down because of a fire. Especially one with a solid steel core that was not there in the rubble of the towers.

Damn, jet fuel must burn REALLY hot and must have hit ALL those support beams in the right way AND splashed all over the steel core and completly melted it.

The firefighters inside the lobby on the bottom of the tower must of been delriouse from shock because of the explosions in the basement happening. Must of been that damn jet fuel that magically splashed down the elevator shaft and just blew itself up, hard enough to jab metal beams in buildings two blocks away.

We wont even talk about tower 7, which wasnt even hit by a plane, it just had debris fall on it. But that must of been some heavy ass debris cuz that tower fell the EXACT same way the other two did.

Yes, there were planes. Yes, they crashed into buildings. Yes, people on the planes died. But an oxygen starved fire (hence the plumes of black smoke and the firefighters statements saying they could douse the flames easily) did not cause three steel skyscrapers to implode in on themselves. You can have every Popular Mechanics article ever written try to dispute this, but history speaks for itself. It NEVER HAPPENED.

So you all can continue to believe what you want, mock us, call us crazy and looney, and just continue to believe in the two party mockery of government we have installed. Uncle Sam succeeded already because of people like you.

great job taking the 9/11 offical conspiracy theory apologists to school.well done.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Intense super moderator can't deal with facts. The fire chief's claim the tower fell in 6 seconds is impossible. But if he was right that completely eliminates all resistance and needs a vacuum.

How can all resistance be eliminated without exploding all the columns out of the way simultaneously.

I don't know the motive of fire chief Vincent Dunn but I know his 6 second claim is impossible and the physicist who calculated the precise time at 14.5 seconds recognized that time was slightly more than pure free fall speed.

What is your motive for wanting to believe ridiculous claims by the government and the media. If it was only bin Laden and the 19 hi-jackers why did they confiscate the black boxes, and destroy other physical evidence?

you hang around here long enough,you'll notice the mods and the 9/11 official conspiracy theory apologists cant deal with facts,evidence and witness testimonys and can only resort to name calling.