Do you believe the official 911 story?

[S.J.]

One thing this thread has accomplished, it's shown how wacked out liberals are.

Your a liberal ?

No, but you sure are a wack job.

 

[editec]

Fyi

whack
/(h)wak/
verb
strike forcefully with a sharp blow: "he whacked him on the head".
Noun
a sharp or resounding blow.
Synonyms
verb. Beat - strike - knock - hit - wallop
noun. Part - share - thwack - portion - wallop

wack
/wak/
adjective
bad; inferior: "a wack radio station".
Noun
a crazy or eccentric person.

 

[SAYIT]

One thing this thread has accomplished, it's shown how wacked out liberals are.

Your a liberal ?

You're an idiot?

 

[SAYIT]

Here's what trouble me about the offical 911 story.

A building that is 1700+ feet high, one that must collapse 100 plus INTACT floors of construction as it falls down?

Cannot possible fall at the same rate as a free falling body dropped from the same height.

Does anyone here disagree?

Because the 911 towers fell in 10 seconds and it order to do that the debris from the upper floors had to smash down intact floor after floor after floor after floor!

And that collapse took exactly the time as a free-falling body would take to cover the same distance?

That seems completely impossible to me.

Clearly the resistance of the still INTACT structure's floors should have slowed down that rate of decent at least somewhat.

It did not?

Your theory fails on facts. Enough of those floors in the impact zone were no longer structurally intact as you claim and many others above and below were also damaged by the fires. Additionally the collapse took longer than 10 seconds. You can't tell from the outside how many floors were partially or wholly collapsed and how many more were on the verge of collapse. There is no evidence of the buildings having been rigged for demo. None.
Unfortunately the Internet has spawned a small army of "Internet experts."

 

[SAYIT]

Fyi

whack
/(h)wak/
verb
strike forcefully with a sharp blow: "he whacked him on the head".
Noun
a sharp or resounding blow.
Synonyms
verb. Beat - strike - knock - hit - wallop
noun. Part - share - thwack - portion - wallop

wack
/wak/
adjective
bad; inferior: "a wack radio station".
Noun
a crazy or eccentric person.quote]

FYI (Urban Dictionary)
Whack Job
1. a crazy person, especially one whose is in some way dangerous
2. Someone who partakes in unbelievably odd behavior that a reasonable human would avoid.
Use in a sentence:
I can't understand why they would let those whack-jobs have a say in things

 

[Mr. Jones]

Here's what trouble me about the offical 911 story.

A building that is 1700+ feet high, one that must collapse 100 plus INTACT floors of construction as it falls down?

Cannot possible fall at the same rate as a free falling body dropped from the same height.

Does anyone here disagree?

Because the 911 towers fell in 10 seconds and it order to do that the debris from the upper floors had to smash down intact floor after floor after floor after floor!

And that collapse took exactly the time as a free-falling body would take to cover the same distance?

That seems completely impossible to me.

Clearly the resistance of the still INTACT structure's floors should have slowed down that rate of decent at least somewhat.

It did not?

Your theory fails on facts. Enough of those floors in the impact zone were no longer structurally intact as you claim and many others above and below were also damaged by the fires. Additionally the collapse took longer than 10 seconds. You can't tell from the outside how many floors were partially or wholly collapsed and how many more were on the verge of collapse. There is no evidence of the buildings having been rigged for demo. None.
Unfortunately the Internet has spawned a small army of "Internet experts."

LOL...It is your CT that fails on its own facts, and has to rely on lies and ignoring of evidence as its foundation.
It also has to rely on highly improbable "coincidences" as well...
Perhaps you might enlighten us and explain how the devout Islamic Jihadists knew that the US was would conducting terror drills/war games at the same times on the same day??
After that you might want to explain how the same thing just "coincidentally" happened in London during the 7-7 bombings???

You are always one to mention "facts" without providing any of your own.
Evey body else is a "conspiracy theorist" but you somehow try to pretend you are not one even when you subscribe to the one that has the least chance of being at all plausible.Has anyone seriously taken a good hard look at what they are asked to believe regarding 9-11? I mean it is insane, and what's worse is that as dubious as it is, it still had to use tactics such as ignoring of evidence and witnesses, and had to change scientific data, and keep some secret. It still has to depend on never before in history events, as being probable...on only that day...in that city....

If anyone still can not look at what is available, and what has been done, and all the lies and still conclude with a straight face that there is no reason to question anything, or that there is nothing at all suspicious, then they are mentally defective and in a state of denial, and they don't know shit about their surroundings...Seriously it is you people that have a problem, not the normal folks who actually can see for themselves the serious problems and the implications they pose.....

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Here's what trouble me about the offical 911 story.

A building that is 1700+ feet high, one that must collapse 100 plus INTACT floors of construction as it falls down?

Cannot possible fall at the same rate as a free falling body dropped from the same height.

Does anyone here disagree?

Because the 911 towers fell in 10 seconds and it order to do that the debris from the upper floors had to smash down intact floor after floor after floor after floor!

And that collapse took exactly the time as a free-falling body would take to cover the same distance?

That seems completely impossible to me.

Clearly the resistance of the still INTACT structure's floors should have slowed down that rate of decent at least somewhat.

It did not?

theres clearly a lot of people here that ditched junior high school science classes.

what cracks me up most about the official conspiracy theory apologists logic is how they blindly accept the the collpase of bld 7 and never have any answers for it that there were other buildings much closer to the towers than bld 7 which had far more extensive fires and far more severe damage done to them than bld 7 did yet THOSE buildings remained standing.and then the coincidence theorists swallow the coincidence theory hook,line,and sinker that all three that collapsed were all owned by zionist jew larry silverstein and all the others that did not collapse,were NOT owned by him.a bizaare coincidence they swallow hook,line,and sinker.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Typical CTBS and half-truths. Some commissioners had a specific problem with testimony of a NORAD General and Colonel. Additionally some felt top officials and bureaucrats were covering their failures. No Commission member has endorsed any or your silly CTs. None.
If Gordon Duff's opinion is all you have then you have nothing at all, Princess.

And John Farmer wasn't a commission member...
To date, not one major inaccuracy has been quoted from the Commission Report.

you just keep telling that lie...lol...you are the same idiot that gives opinions on the NIST report and don't even know what it says..you area clown

 

[Gamolon]

Here's what trouble me about the offical 911 story.

A building that is 1700+ feet high, one that must collapse 100 plus INTACT floors of construction as it falls down?

Cannot possible fall at the same rate as a free falling body dropped from the same height.

Does anyone here disagree?

Because the 911 towers fell in 10 seconds and it order to do that the debris from the upper floors had to smash down intact floor after floor after floor after floor!

And that collapse took exactly the time as a free-falling body would take to cover the same distance?

That seems completely impossible to me.

Clearly the resistance of the still INTACT structure's floors should have slowed down that rate of decent at least somewhat.

It did not?

Right off the bat, you made two errors.

The towers did not collapse in 10 seconds and 1700 feet was the height at the top of the antenna. The towers were about 1369 feet to the roof.

 

[SAYIT]

Here's what trouble me about the offical 911 story.

A building that is 1700+ feet high, one that must collapse 100 plus INTACT floors of construction as it falls down?

Cannot possible fall at the same rate as a free falling body dropped from the same height.

Does anyone here disagree?

Because the 911 towers fell in 10 seconds and it order to do that the debris from the upper floors had to smash down intact floor after floor after floor after floor!

And that collapse took exactly the time as a free-falling body would take to cover the same distance?

That seems completely impossible to me.

Clearly the resistance of the still INTACT structure's floors should have slowed down that rate of decent at least somewhat.

It did not?

Your theory fails on facts. Enough of those floors in the impact zone were no longer structurally intact as you claim and many others above and below were also damaged by the fires. Additionally the collapse took longer than 10 seconds. You can't tell from the outside how many floors were partially or wholly collapsed and how many more were on the verge of collapse. There is no evidence of the buildings having been rigged for demo. None.
Unfortunately the Internet has spawned a small army of "Internet experts."

LOL...It is your CT that fails on its own facts, and has to rely on lies and ignoring of evidence as its foundation.
It also has to rely on highly improbable "coincidences" as well...
Perhaps you might enlighten us and explain how the devout Islamic Jihadists knew that the US was would conducting terror drills/war games at the same times on the same day??
After that you might want to explain how the same thing just "coincidentally" happened in London during the 7-7 bombings???

You are always one to mention "facts" without providing any of your own.
Evey body else is a "conspiracy theorist" but you somehow try to pretend you are not one even when you subscribe to the one that has the least chance of being at all plausible.Has anyone seriously taken a good hard look at what they are asked to believe regarding 9-11? I mean it is insane, and what's worse is that as dubious as it is, it still had to use tactics such as ignoring of evidence and witnesses, and had to change scientific data, and keep some secret. It still has to depend on never before in history events, as being probable...on only that day...in that city....

If anyone still can not look at what is available, and what has been done, and all the lies and still conclude with a straight face that there is no reason to question anything, or that there is nothing at all suspicious, then they are mentally defective and in a state of denial, and they don't know shit about their surroundings...Seriously it is you people that have a problem, not the normal folks who actually can see for themselves the serious problems and the implications they pose.....

Shrill, desperate and off topic.
Another verbose Sista Jones screed with absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand:

Enough of those floors in the impact zone were no longer structurally intact as you claim and many others above and below were also damaged by the fires. Additionally the collapse took longer than 10 seconds. You can't tell from the outside how many floors were partially or wholly collapsed and how many more were on the verge of collapse. There is no evidence of the buildings having been rigged for demo. None.

 

[editec]

Here's what trouble me about the offical 911 story.

A building that is 1700+ feet high, one that must collapse 100 plus INTACT floors of construction as it falls down?

Cannot possible fall at the same rate as a free falling body dropped from the same height.

Does anyone here disagree?

Because the 911 towers fell in 10 seconds and it order to do that the debris from the upper floors had to smash down intact floor after floor after floor after floor!

And that collapse took exactly the time as a free-falling body would take to cover the same distance?

That seems completely impossible to me.

Clearly the resistance of the still INTACT structure's floors should have slowed down that rate of decent at least somewhat.

It did not?

Your theory fails on facts. Enough of those floors in the impact zone were no longer structurally intact as you claim and many others above and below were also damaged by the fires.

That really would not make any difference. The fact that some floors were structurally weak and most floors were not does negate the fact UNLESS

Additionally the collapse took longer than 10 seconds.

Now that clearly would make a difference.

Tell me, how long did it take for each tower from go from standing to rubble on the ground?

If I have been minformed, then by all means help me out here.

How long did each tower take to go from standing to fallen?

Because I would DEARLY like to think that the offical story is also the REAL story.

 

[SAYIT]

Here's what trouble me about the offical 911 story.

A building that is 1700+ feet high, one that must collapse 100 plus INTACT floors of construction as it falls down?

Cannot possible fall at the same rate as a free falling body dropped from the same height.

Does anyone here disagree?

Because the 911 towers fell in 10 seconds and it order to do that the debris from the upper floors had to smash down intact floor after floor after floor after floor!

And that collapse took exactly the time as a free-falling body would take to cover the same distance?

That seems completely impossible to me.

Clearly the resistance of the still INTACT structure's floors should have slowed down that rate of decent at least somewhat.

It did not?

That really would not make any difference. The fact that some floors were structurally weak and most floors were not does negate the fact UNLESS

Additionally the collapse took longer than 10 seconds.

Now that clearly would make a difference.

Tell me, how long did it take for each tower from go from standing to rubble on the ground?

If I have been minformed, then by all means help me out here.

How long did each tower take to go from standing to fallen?

Because I would DEARLY like to think that the offical story is also the REAL story.

The #1 site at GOOGLE for an answer is WikiAnswers where the #1 answer was provided by someone named User:USCitizen (perhaps our own?). His bio is available by clicking on his SN.
Your claim that the 100+ floors were INTACT when the final collapse began is not likely given the intense jet-fuel precipitated fires:

The South Tower collapsed 56 minutes after being hit, and the North Tower 102 minutes after being hit. Once the buildings began to fall, each took less than 30 seconds to fully collapse. The South Tower, though hit second, collapsed first.

Parts of the South Tower reached the ground about 9 seconds after its collapse began at 9:59 AM EDT, approximately 56 minutes after being hit. The central core of the lower 40 floors caved in within 25 seconds thereafter. Debris flattened or filled the seven basement levels within a few seconds.

The TV mast and roof from the North Tower struck the ground about 11 seconds after the descent began, at 10:28 AM EDT, 102 minutes after being hit. The central core of the lower 60 floors completely collapsed within 10 to 15 seconds after being bypassed by the falling upper floors.

Most of the interior collapse was hidden by dust and debris, which also spread over the surrounding buildings and streets.

 

[eots]

That really would not make any difference. The fact that some floors were structurally weak and most floors were not does negate the fact UNLESS



Now that clearly would make a difference.

Tell me, how long did it take for each tower from go from standing to rubble on the ground?

If I have been minformed, then by all means help me out here.

How long did each tower take to go from standing to fallen?

Because I would DEARLY like to think that the offical story is also the REAL story.

The #1 site at GOOGLE for an answer is WikiAnswers where the #1 answer was provided by someone named User:USCitizen (perhaps our own?). His bio is available by clicking on his SN.
Your claim that the 100+ floors were INTACT when the final collapse began is not likely given the intense jet-fuel precipitated fires:

The South Tower collapsed 56 minutes after being hit, and the North Tower 102 minutes after being hit. Once the buildings began to fall, each took less than 30 seconds to fully collapse. The South Tower, though hit second, collapsed first.

Parts of the South Tower reached the ground about 9 seconds after its collapse began at 9:59 AM EDT, approximately 56 minutes after being hit. The central core of the lower 40 floors caved in within 25 seconds thereafter. Debris flattened or filled the seven basement levels within a few seconds.

The TV mast and roof from the North Tower struck the ground about 11 seconds after the descent began, at 10:28 AM EDT, 102 minutes after being hit. The central core of the lower 60 floors completely collapsed within 10 to 15 seconds after being bypassed by the falling upper floors.

Most of the interior collapse was hidden by dust and debris, which also spread over the surrounding buildings and streets.

firefighters made it to the impact zone and reported two small fires

 

[SAYIT]

The #1 site at GOOGLE for an answer is WikiAnswers where the #1 answer was provided by someone named User:USCitizen (perhaps our own?). His bio is available by clicking on his SN.
Your claim that the 100+ floors were INTACT when the final collapse began is not likely given the intense jet-fuel precipitated fires:

The South Tower collapsed 56 minutes after being hit, and the North Tower 102 minutes after being hit. Once the buildings began to fall, each took less than 30 seconds to fully collapse. The South Tower, though hit second, collapsed first.

Parts of the South Tower reached the ground about 9 seconds after its collapse began at 9:59 AM EDT, approximately 56 minutes after being hit. The central core of the lower 40 floors caved in within 25 seconds thereafter. Debris flattened or filled the seven basement levels within a few seconds.

The TV mast and roof from the North Tower struck the ground about 11 seconds after the descent began, at 10:28 AM EDT, 102 minutes after being hit. The central core of the lower 60 floors completely collapsed within 10 to 15 seconds after being bypassed by the falling upper floors.

Most of the interior collapse was hidden by dust and debris, which also spread over the surrounding buildings and streets.

firefighters made it to the impact zone and reported two small fires

I notice you post no link to that claim, rendering of no value.
I certainly hope you aren't stupid enough to use that out-of-context Orio Palmer stuff.

 

[PredFan]

Here's what trouble me about the offical 911 story.

A building that is 1700+ feet high, one that must collapse 100 plus INTACT floors of construction as it falls down?

Cannot possible fall at the same rate as a free falling body dropped from the same height.

Does anyone here disagree?

Because the 911 towers fell in 10 seconds and it order to do that the debris from the upper floors had to smash down intact floor after floor after floor after floor!

And that collapse took exactly the time as a free-falling body would take to cover the same distance?

That seems completely impossible to me.

Clearly the resistance of the still INTACT structure's floors should have slowed down that rate of decent at least somewhat.

It did not?

That really would not make any difference. The fact that some floors were structurally weak and most floors were not does negate the fact UNLESS

Additionally the collapse took longer than 10 seconds.

Now that clearly would make a difference.

Tell me, how long did it take for each tower from go from standing to rubble on the ground?

If I have been minformed, then by all means help me out here.

How long did each tower take to go from standing to fallen?

Because I would DEARLY like to think that the offical story is also the REAL story.

The official story is not the "real" story. It cannot be. It IS however, the closest thing to the truth that we will ever hear.

 

[eots]

firefighters made it to the impact zone and reported two small fires

I notice you post no link to that claim, rendering of no value.
I certainly hope you aren't stupid enough to use that out-of-context Orio Palmer stuff.

funny how you pretend it would make any difference to you

and what is out of context about a firefighter making it to the 78th floor ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iS-amgh0qw]9/11 Firefighter Communications In WTC - Part 8 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SAYIT]

I notice you post no link to that claim, rendering of no value.
I certainly hope you aren't stupid enough to use that out-of-context Orio Palmer stuff.

funny how you pretend it would make any difference to you

and what is out of context about a firefighter making it to the 78th floor ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iS-amgh0qw]9/11 Firefighter Communications In WTC - Part 8 - YouTube[/ame]

Anyone can make a Youtube video. How about some credible testimony.

 

[eots]

funny how you pretend it would make any difference to you

and what is out of context about a firefighter making it to the 78th floor ?

9/11 Firefighter Communications In WTC - Part 8 - YouTube

Anyone can make a Youtube video. How about some credible testimony.

anyone can make a youtube video but you cant make a video claiming to be 9/11 fire fighters when you are not..the sound clip was also included in both pbs and and national geographic 9/11 videos and you already reveled you are aware of this but then made some bizarre claim it was "out of context"

so the real questions is why don't man up and tell us who pays you to do this ??

 

[SAYIT]

Anyone can make a Youtube video. How about some credible testimony.

anyone can make a youtube video but you cant make a video claiming to be 9/11 fire fighters when you are not..the sound clip was also included in both pbs and and national geographic 9/11 videos and you already reveled you are aware of this but then made some bizarre claim it was "out of context"

so the real questions is why don't man up and tell us who pays you to do this ??

As often and thoroughly as the out-of-context Palmer quotes have been exposed, I'm more tham a little surprised you would still trot them out. I guess you're just desperate. Now for the rest of the story:

USATODAY.com - Machinery saved people in WTC

South tower is WTC 2.

The glaringly obvious logical problems with using Orio Palmers quote are:

Orio Palmer was in the South Staircase (Adam) on the South Tower which was not damaged because of large, heavily constructed elevator equipment which protected it.

It’s not unreasonable to expect two small fires on a floor where only a wing tip entered. What was above those floors is the question not answered by the fireman’s quote.

The 78th floor was a sky lobby which didn’t have much office furniture to catch fire. If there were two small fires on the 78th floor where just a wing tip entered, what must the 81st floor be like where the nose of the aircraft hit?

If there were small fires on the 78th floor just before collapse, does that mean the 78th floor never had larger fires?

If he was in the staircase which is in the core, how would he know the perimeter columns were about to get pulled in?

If he did see the building was about to collapse, why would they predict he would get on the radio instead of take immediate action to save his life?

Why do they think the visibility from the smoke of two small fires were such that he could see to the four corners of the building?

Why are they using this quote as a ruler by which to measure the whole building?

This quote was obviously chosen to give the reader the impression that there were only small fires throughout the event. But what is telling is the characterization of the quote. The writer says it “contradicts the official explanation”. It would actually confirm the NIST report which says the trusses heated, expanded then cooled and contracted as the fires moved on. It was the contracting trusses which pulled the columns inward causing the collapse. Once again, conspiracy theorists debunk themselves.

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - The Fires

 

[eots]

anyone can make a youtube video but you cant make a video claiming to be 9/11 fire fighters when you are not..the sound clip was also included in both pbs and and national geographic 9/11 videos and you already reveled you are aware of this but then made some bizarre claim it was "out of context"

so the real questions is why don't man up and tell us who pays you to do this ??

As often and thoroughly as the out-of-context Palmer quotes have been exposed, I'm more tham a little surprised you would still trot them out. I guess you're just desperate. Now for the rest of the story:

USATODAY.com - Machinery saved people in WTC

South tower is WTC 2.

The glaringly obvious logical problems with using Orio Palmers quote are:

Orio Palmer was in the South Staircase (Adam) on the South Tower which was not damaged because of large, heavily constructed elevator equipment which protected it.

It’s not unreasonable to expect two small fires on a floor where only a wing tip entered. What was above those floors is the question not answered by the fireman’s quote.

so firemen made it to the 78 th floor as i stated and your initial claim was the floors below had suffered structural damage from fires now you change to the floors above

The 78th floor was a sky lobby which didn’t have much office furniture to catch fire. If there were two small fires on the 78th floor where just a wing tip entered, what must the 81st floor be like where the nose of the aircraft hit?

your cut and paste needs a link and some support of its claims

If there were small fires on the 78th floor just before collapse, does that mean the 78th floor never had larger fires?

If he was in the staircase which is in the core, how would he know the perimeter columns were about to get pulled in?

If he did see the building was about to collapse, why would they predict he would get on the radio instead of take immediate action to save his life?

Why do they think the visibility from the smoke of two small fires were such that he could see to the four corners of the building?

Why are they using this quote as a ruler by which to measure the whole building?

This quote was obviously chosen to give the reader the impression that there were only small fires throughout the event. But what is telling is the characterization of the quote. The writer says it “contradicts the official explanation”. It would actually confirm the NIST report which says the trusses heated, expanded then cooled and contracted as the fires moved on. It was the contracting trusses which pulled the columns inward causing the collapse. Once again, conspiracy theorists debunk themselves.

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - The Fires

this is just a big mumbo jumbo smokescreen to avoid the fact fireman made it to the 79 th floor reporting two small fires