Started By
Message
re: I propose a new law
Posted on 2/4/14 at 11:09 pm to Jefferson Dawg
Posted on 2/4/14 at 11:09 pm to Jefferson Dawg
Why won't the non nuts answer my question?
2
Posted on 2/4/14 at 11:15 pm to Prettyboy Floyd
It's funny how many posts you've ignored in this 6-page thread...how many details, questions and insight you've ignored and been unable to respond to......
Instead, what do we get out of you?
bland generalizations and rationalizations about "inside jobs" and the "naive" people who aren't as enlightened and grounded as someone like YOU..............who has provided NOTHING of worth to this 6-page conversation so far. Absolutely nothing.
But, you cant see that, can you? Of course, you can't.
Instead, what do we get out of you?
bland generalizations and rationalizations about "inside jobs" and the "naive" people who aren't as enlightened and grounded as someone like YOU..............who has provided NOTHING of worth to this 6-page conversation so far. Absolutely nothing. But, you cant see that, can you? Of course, you can't.
Posted on 2/4/14 at 11:18 pm to Jefferson Dawg
Jefferson, watch Myles video series I posted. It's very informative and grounded in fact. I never said to have not had any questions about it myself,(Why not show more of the Pentagon footage than a five frame video?) but there's two sides to every argument 9/11 skeptics have.
Posted on 2/4/14 at 11:25 pm to Jefferson Dawg
quote:
-How is it possible for a passport in the back pocket of one of the hijackers that flew the airplanes into the WTC towers to be recovered on that same day amidst rubble and fires capable of melting steel?
quote:
-How do pilots that couldn't even pass a basic test-flight to rent a Cessna 150 make these direct hits on WTC and pentagon in complex jet airplanes?
This has been rehashed 1000times over but the people who piloted the plains were trained by American schools on how to fly the model plane that was flown into the towers.
quote:
-Why did Osama Bin Laden, a man who supposedly wants to destroy america immediately deny any role in the attacks? Wouldn't he want to take claim for this victory?
They did claim the attack. Where do you come up with this crap.
quote:
-Why was Osama Bin Laden never been officially charged with any connection to 9/11?
He's dead...his punishment has been enacted. Let me guess his death was also a conspiracy.
quote:
-How do a handful of camel-jockeys outsmart a "defense" and intelligence apparatus as large as the U.S. that is funded to the tune of Trillions of dollars?
I think you underestimate just how rich these organizations are and how well connected they are. They flew under the radar just like most of our hown grown terrorist.
quote:
-Why are architects and nano-chemists and physicists with extensive careers and respect in their fields so baffled by the explanations provided by the government for some of the events?
For every idiot that says this there is a scientist, engineer, physicist that debunks all of the conspiracy non sense. Come on man...your a 9/11 Loose change loving machine.
quote:
-Why are so many things left out of the 9/11 commission report?
Oh dear
quote:
-Why is WTC Building 7 not mentioned? Why does it's collapse, hours after the initial twin towers collapsing, look exactly like a demolition? And why is there news footage of fire marshalls repeatedly warning personnel to clear the area around Building 7 because "They are about to pull it"?
-I could go on............
You should stop embarrassing yourself.
You should try doing a little more research.
Posted on 2/4/14 at 11:27 pm to Jefferson Dawg
quote:
It's funny how many posts you've ignored in this 6-page thread...how many details, questions and insight you've ignored and been unable to respond to......
You should probably do more research before you ask questions because it makes you look silly.
Posted on 2/4/14 at 11:27 pm to Prettyboy Floyd
quote:
You should probably do more research before you ask questions because it makes you look silly.
Yes sir.
Thanks so much for taking the time to debunk my honest questions with emoticons, non-answers, opinions, insults, and zero facts.
You have really put me in my place. Well done.
This post was edited on 2/4/14 at 11:35 pm
Posted on 2/4/14 at 11:37 pm to Peter Buck
quote:
Why won't the non nuts answer my question?
They can't.
Although, it would be amusing to watch them try......
Posted on 2/4/14 at 11:37 pm to Jefferson Dawg
Pretty boy, all the 9-11 stuff aside, do you think that the US govt has overthrown another democratically elected govt in the last 50 or so years?
Posted on 2/4/14 at 11:43 pm to Peter Buck
Edited because a lot of innocent people died...and, although harmless, i still feel bad making jokes out of it......
This post was edited on 2/5/14 at 12:06 am
Posted on 2/4/14 at 11:48 pm to Jefferson Dawg
quote:
Would you ram your jet between this chicks twin towers and crash one into her pentagon?
You jelly
Posted on 2/4/14 at 11:50 pm to Jefferson Dawg
quote:
zero facts.
Did you click the link. 2 of your dumbass questions are answered with 1 click.
The questions are like rehashing Loose Change over and over. You should probably believe everything you watch on the internet.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 12:10 am to Prettyboy Floyd
quote:
The questions are like rehashing Loose Change over and over. You should probably believe everything you watch on the internet
Someone loaned me a DVD of that movie "Loose Change" once. I stopped watching after about 5 minutes because it was so bad..........
Kind of like your own remedial logic and childish posts.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 12:12 am to Peter Buck
Are you insinuating I believe America rules with an iron fist backed by integrity? That's pretty laughable. Most sensible people would believe that not to be true.
But if this notion is to say that anyone who believes 9/11 was a terrorist attack must also believe the government is always honest, then I'd say that is also laughable.
But if this notion is to say that anyone who believes 9/11 was a terrorist attack must also believe the government is always honest, then I'd say that is also laughable.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 7:05 am to dhuck20
I'm trying to think of a democratically elected govt the US has overthrown in the last 50 years.
El Salvador? I don't know all the facts about that.
Certainly not Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, or Afghanistan or Serbia and Bosnia. I don't know. Tell me.
El Salvador? I don't know all the facts about that.
Certainly not Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, or Afghanistan or Serbia and Bosnia. I don't know. Tell me.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 7:14 am to Prettyboy Floyd
quote:
Prettyboy Floyd
you linked an article from FAUX news....1st mistake right there...as liberal and left as CNN is...Fox is worse in the other direction...
i watch Fox at times, but don't let them be your end all be all news source man...they interviewed Ron Paul about two times during an entire election season, even after he won some caucases and primaries...why?...cause he didn't fit the mold...they report what is good for them...
Posted on 2/5/14 at 7:14 am to ugasickem
quote:
I watched planes fly into those towers. I heard al Qaeda take credit for it. If it's a govt conspiracy, I just don't see the end game. shite made it worse. And like someone else pointed out, do you realize the massive amount of people that would have to be involved in something like this?
smoke and mirrors...
Posted on 2/5/14 at 7:15 am to SthGADawg
quote:
you linked an article from FAUX news....1st mistake right there...as liberal and left as CNN is...Fox is worse in the other direction...
i watch Fox at times, but don't let them be your end all be all news source man...they interviewed Ron Paul about two times during an entire election season, even after he won some caucases and primaries...why?...cause he didn't fit the mold...they report what is good for them...
You can find 100 articles with the same information. That was the first one that popped up. Like I said, it answered 2 questions in one report.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 7:18 am to dhuck20
quote:
dhuck20
turned it off as soon as he used the argument about the towers not being designed for the plane that hit it...that is the dumbest argument I have ever heard...a few feet bigger wing span is not gonna be the difference maker...like if it had been a smaller plane it would have not brought the tower down...especially when both the damn towers came down in a demolition style explosion....
Posted on 2/5/14 at 7:18 am to SthGADawg
quote:
.especially when both the damn towers came down in a demolition style explosion
No, No they did not.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 7:24 am to SthGADawg
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Don't let factual science and ACTUAL VIDEO FOOTAGE of what happened get in the way of believing this non sense.
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Don't let factual science and ACTUAL VIDEO FOOTAGE of what happened get in the way of believing this non sense.
Page 6 of 9
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News