" In order to explain explosives bringing the buildings down you have to include magic. " - I'm not wasting time arguing with an uneducated person like you who believes things in blind faith.
You can do study at Journal of 9/11 Studies. It is clear you havn't even read those journals. Nor do you have a degree in engineering, so its probably not worth speaking to an idiot like you anymore.
"I'm not wasting time arguing with an uneducated person like you who believes things in blind faith."
Heh, again, let me recap: You think 1)9/11 was an inside job because buildings couldn't collapse like that, 2)explosives, which no one ever saw, were used, 3)some polls you found tell you some Americans agree with you, 4)the moon landings were a hoax because it was too difficult, 5)we should see stars in the pictures. And you are a blatant hater of Jews.
1) 9/11 was an inside job from all 360 degrees you look at it. Not just the explosives in the towers - I focused on that evidence because thats my field - engineering. There are Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, Political Leaders, Professors, etc..A french military professor was just fired for his 9/11 Truth opinions.
2)100s of People saw the explosions and heard them.
3)Not "some" polls - ALL 9/11 POLLS.
4)Moon LOOKS toB a hoax.
5)one of many anomalies. Playing golf is another strange one.
"Your field is engineering? Wow, your college really should be embarrassed." - The universities and corporations employing the over 600 degreed and professional engineers and architects at ae911truthDOTorg should be embarrassed too I guess? I mean, you know the TWOOF right? Your TeeVee told you so.
"The universities and corporations employing the over 600 degreed and professional engineers and architects at ae911truthDOTorg should be embarrassed too I guess?"
Yes, yes they should be. And they probably are. Yes, I believe exactly what the TV has told me. Good use of logic there.
They just put explosives in the buildings? So what you are saying is that you have no idea how controlled demolitions work.
-------------
The explosives were pre-planted, as per how controlled demolitions work. Look at the way WTC7 came down - buildings don't come down like that "by design" from a few fires you moron.
If you slipped WTC7 amongst 20 other controlled demos and asked people to pick the odd man out, they wouldn't be able to unless they recognised WTC7.
"The explosives were pre-planted, as per how controlled demolitions work. Look at the way WTC7 came down - buildings don't come down like that "by design" from a few fires you moron."
Oh, right, preplanted but never seen? Makes sense. And yes, it was only a few fires. That's exactly what did it. You are really using the logic well today!
Oh, right, preplanted but never seen? Makes sense.
---
The magician fools chidren. Difference is they know he is playing a trick. Problem is they don't know how he did it.
So since you don't know how they did it, you think it must have been magic.
Fucking moron.
Gordon Ross's lecture. Go watch that. They did it in the elevator shafts - must have pretended to be maintenence crew - Nothing unusual. Totally unnoticed.
Sniffer dogs were removed from WTC 2 weeks before 9/11. Did u know?
"The moon has an atmosphere like earth does it? Do you know why you can't see stars during the day on earth?"
Haha, oh this one is my favorite by far! We cannot see stars because it is daylight. Sure, our atmosphere plays a part in that it reflects even more light. But it isn't the atmosphere, it is that it is daylight. Just like on the moon, it was day out. If you shine a bright light in your face, you will not be able to see the stars either.
[But it isn't the atmosphere, it is that it is daylight. Just like on the moon, it was day out. If you shine a bright light in your face, you will not be able to see the stars either.] - hilarious. Thanks for showing everyone you are scientifically ignorant.
Light scatters (defracts refracts inflects reflects) in an atmosphere.
On the moon all light travels in a straight line. So in the day you can see the stars as clear as night.
"On the moon all light travels in a straight line. So in the day you can see the stars as clear as night."
You know what also scatters light? The entire surface of the moon. See how the surface is lit up? That is because the Sun is shining on it. I guess you would need to know how physics and camera apertures work though to understand why the pictures make sense.
"Thanks for showing everyone you are scientifically ignorant. " The irony of that statement is a beautiful thing.
[ I guess you would need to know how physics and camera apertures work though to understand why the pictures make sense.]
You simply don't point the camera at the ground. Idiot.
----
PS: David JEW Coburn of POpular Mechanics claimed to have had special access to see a photo of the south side of WTC7. He claimed that you can see "25% of the building's facade scooped out" - you'd think NIST would have presented that secret photo in their final report. NUP.
"You simply don't point the camera at the ground." Yeah, thanks, that is shocking. The pictures people complain about are ALWAYS pictures that include the moon. ANY time the moon is there, it is daylight and will washout any stars. In order to actually see stars you would have to hold the aperture open too much or have a longer shutter exposure, if you do that the moon completely over exposes the film.
[The pictures people complain about are ALWAYS pictures that include the moon. ANY time the moon is there, it is daylight and will washout any stars.] - There are no photos from the Apollo missions WITHOUT the moon in it Matt. You don't know that?
The Apollo 8 orbited the moon 20 times (if I understood the wiki account properly).
Also mat, you realise no one died in the entire Apollo missions and every mission was successful? Yet 20 years later look at the catastrophes. I suspicious man. ok?
You know what also scatters light? The entire surface of the moon. See how the surface is lit up?
The surface of the moon does not reflect much light. Its not a mirror!
The light it reflects travels in a stright line too. All you need to do is point the camera towards the sky and shoot the stars. They played golf but didn't bother one shot of the stars. They were on the dark side of the moon 20 times in Apollo 8 too.
"The surface of the moon does not reflect much light. Its not a mirror!" So what? It still reflects PLENTY of light. That is why they can walk around without flashlights. It is daylight. Light is scattering ALL over.
They weren't there to take pictures of stars, they were there to study the moon. The cameras they had were not designed to take pictures of stars, they were designed to take pictures of the moon. It isn't that surprising.
"If your above opinion holds water, then can you please explain how the golf clubs were important for the study of the moon."
Another fallacious argument, wonderful! Regardless, they didn't take golf clubs, they took the head to a golf club that they attached to another piece of equipment.
Hey dickhead, NIST admitted finally in October 2008 that WTC7 was the first steel frame skyscraper to collapse from fire in history.
In 2006, 60% of Americans didn't even know there was a third building which came down like a controlled demolition on 9/11.
Murdoch's networks (40% of world's television viewing) had a BLACK OUT policy on WTC7. It was never played on his networks from 2001-mid 2006 when finally they were forced to play it again for fear of everyone noticing.
WTC7 didn't fall just from fire. There was structural damage as well, pictures clearly show damage beyond surface level. Remember, two giant buildings had just collapsed next to it.
I always love how you truthers love to grab onto any little thing and make that clear evidence of conspiracy. Love it!
[WTC7 didn't fall just from fire. There was structural damage as well, pictures clearly show damage beyond surface level.]
Once again a denier showing they don't know the official admitted facts let alone the official lies.
Sorry to break it to you ignoramus, but Popular Mechanics were officially discredit by NIST themselves on Oct 2008 when NIST released their finally report:
WTC7 collapsed soley because of mild fires. No significant structural damage:
matt, look up how Dick Cheney was exposed late last year for planning to paint up PT boats as Iranian and get US seals to dress up as Iranians and attack a US frigate in the Gulf to justify a declaration of war on Iran.
Google around those keywords and you will find it.
Then look at how Zibigniew Brzezinski warned congress in late 2007(?) that "they" were planning a false-flag terrorist attack to justify a war with Iran.
Look up all that, then come back and reflect on 9/11.
You have missed the point. Your logic doesn't follow. It DOES, however, follow that structural damage and hot, extended burning fired could collapse a building.
So Diuck Cheney exposed trying to organise a false-flag terror attack on Iran to get Americans to sacrifice their lives attacking Iran, and you still wet with that cum from the Rabbi's cock?
You really did come down in the last shower hey boy? Such a shame the Rabbi's didn't get you earlier. I know how much you love sucking those little peckers.
ANyway MAt - I did not say I was 100% on the moon landings. It wouldn't surprise me to learn they were staged.
But 9/11 being a false-flag operation? 101% certain. How? Cause I researched it for three years solid. In the first three months I was certain. The rest of the time has been working generally on who these people are and how they operate and what their plans are for the future.
" It wouldn't surprise me to learn they were staged. " Shocking.
"101% certain." So that is your scientific conclusion? Over 100% sure. You don't hang out with scientists much, do you?
"The rest of the time has been working generally on who these people are and how they operate and what their plans are for the future." Heh, you should find a new hobby.
["101% certain." So that is your scientific conclusion? Over 100% sure. You don't hang out with scientists much, do you?]
Says a denier? Deniers have never heard of the wisdom, "Once an accident, Twice a concidence, Three times a conspiracy" - The deniers take every individual piece of evidence from the Truth community and debunk it with "plausible deniability". But where they betray themselves and humanity, is to ignore that now they have compounded too many benefits of doubt to hold water.
"But where they betray themselves and humanity, is to ignore that now they have compounded too many benefits of doubt to hold water."
Heh, right. That is what is going on. You truthers are just unwilling to believe that a very few idiot muslim extremist terrorists could change the course of history like that. It is the simplest and most accurate version of reality but you don't wan't to believe it so you have to take all these little details and try to make them fit your story.
"If muslims did it then you are claiming they ae tactically brilliant and strategically insane at the same time!!!!!!!"
Haha, yes, it takes a real clever mind to use a box knife to force people into giant buildings.
Aside from that, "idiot" can mean idiotic in world view and/or belief. Regardless of how strategic they are, they are still idiots for believing what they do.
"YOU FUCKING MORON!!!! ... ARGUMENT IS NOT POSSIBLE!!! YOU ARE MORONS" Haha, brilliant!
Another note on that: I find it hilarious that you use this argument when conspiracy theorists are constantly having to believe in this paradoxical nonsense: the folks at NASA are complete idiots and could never have made it to the moon BUT they somehow masterminded a GIANT cover up. Right.
The US government are a bunch of idiots and completely mindless BUT they somehow masterminded a GIANT cover up. Right.
mat, operation northwoods was signed off by the joint chiefs of staff. The only reason it didn't go ahead was cause JFK rejected it. And what happened to JFK? When JFK found out about the Northwoods plan he sacked the director of the CIA.
Recently Dick Cheney was exposed for trying to initiate a plan to paint up some PT boats as Iranian and get US Seals dressed up as iranians to attack a US frigate in the giulf and trigger WW3.
"You won't even find 12 engineers and architects who publicly support NISTS report.
There are 700 at ae911truthDOTorg who publicly denounce them."
Heh. You could find a lot of people who don't believe in gravity or who believe in a geocentric Solar System. You don't really need a lot of physicists and engineers coming out denouncing them because it is so absurd.
You have still yet to explain how the huge amounts of explosives and prep work were done without anyone knowing about it.
"You have still yet to explain how the huge amounts of explosives and prep work were done without anyone knowing about it. " - The point is actually that NIST never explained how the plane impacts and fires led to the global collapses.
[There hasn't been a need to go back since then. Fortunately, it looks like we will be going back soon because it is in our interests to do so.]
A common patter with DUPES like you is the whole "WE" "OUR" thing like your country is a footy team. Listen mate, your country is ruled by an elite corportocracy and you aint nothing but a foot soldier gimp. It is no more YOUR country than it is mine you moron.
"There hasn't been a need to go back since then." - And there was a reason before? Idiot
Well rationed? Russia had the the first 9 firsts in space. All of those mile-stones have been advanced on globally since. The only mile-stone was America's "Fist Man on the Moon" and it stopped dead afterwards.
It was a cold-war hoax. you fucking fool. Everyone knows except for you moronic "WE" Americans waving your flags like you are half retarded. WAKE THE FUCK UP MAN.
Everything the space programs internationally have done in space have been progressive steps improving on former accomplishments. Yet the moon landings stand alone like an anomolous blimp in all progress of human history. Why? Cause it was FAKED you naive fool. Your "I am an American" pride indoctrinated from birth and residing greatly on the man-on-the-moon hoax is what blinds you from the blatant obvious.
Heh. Do you see how you keep saying the same thing over and over again and have yet to provide any scientific evidence to support anything you have said? No, you probably didn't notice that.
NIST admitted that they never modelled the collapse to explain why the entire buildings came down symettrically and the same rate as a controlled demolition.
If the fire-hypothesis doesn't hold water then there is only one remaining: Explosives were involved = Black Op. Inside Job - unless you want to explain how Osama got NIST to cover everything up and how he got explosives into the buildings.
Heh, no science to support the moon landing hoax, so back to 9/11? Nice.
They never needed to model that, why should they? Why wouldn't they come down symmetrically? That much weight coming down flattens everything below it, JUST LIKE IN A DEMOLITION. Just because it behaved like a demolition, doesn't mean it was, that just doesn't follow. Again, controlled demolitions take HUGE amounts of planning and prep. You cannot just demolish a building without getting it ready.
[Again, controlled demolitions take HUGE amounts of planning and prep. You cannot just demolish a building without getting it ready.] - Have a very long think about what you just said.
It wasn't a controlled demolition because that takes HUGE amount of planning and 1000s of explosives right?
[Ok, I thought about it: controlled demolitions take HUGE amounts of planning and prep. You cannot just demolish a building without getting it ready.]
DO you see how absurd your argument is? You are claiming that fire and plane impacts ALONE caused a collapse which came down with the symmetry speed of a controlled demolition. I say, nah it must have involved explosives. You counter that with "There is too much planning and preparation for that" - you can't see how absurd your argument is.
Just because you don't want to believe it, doesn't mean the science doesn't support it. The argument is actually quite sound. There is no way you can plan a controlled demolition of that size without people knowing about it.
[There is no way you can plan a controlled demolition of that size without people knowing about it. ] - People did know about it. 100s of witnesses to explosions after the plains hit and preceding the collapse. But anyway----even most of the LIVE reporters were commenting that you can't bring buildings down like that without pre-planted explosives, and structural engineers were baffled by the collapses.
I wasn't relying on them alone. Structural enginners around the world were baffled.
Certainly over 400 firemen were confident the towers were not coming down.
Further, if you look at the fires at the time they collapsed, they had passed their most intense heat. And further, the lower 80 floors were not weakened by fire, and yet the buildings came down as fast as a controlled demolition, where all supporting columns are removed in sequence.
Being "baffled" doesn't mean it is was impossible. It means people were surprised. No one expected it was probable or even possible, that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
The Sun's highest intensity is when it is directly overhead, that is not the hottest part of the day...
Once key supports (most of which were in the core of WTC1 and 2) go, it all goes.
"No one expected it was probable or even possible, that doesn't mean it couldn't happen." -
But it happened to both towers, and then it happened to the WTC7 which wasn't even damaged structurally by the falling towers - NIST admits that now. They came up with this "thermal expansion" theory, an extremely improbable reasoning. And 9/11 set three structural records in one day - Three steel framed towers collapsed because of fire.
"Good thing you keep saying the same stuff over and over, it really helps prove your case... "
Yes three steel high rises did on 9/11 what none other have done in history. WTC7 not even hit by a plane or significantly damaged from debris.
So it tells you NIST should have investigated the theory that explosives were involved. But after being publicly pressured by Twoofers, NIST finally admitted they never tested the hypothesis - didn't test samples for explosive residues, didn't model it....
You don't seem to get it. There was no need for them to investigate that because it is such a ridiculous idea that no one what have a brain takes seriously. It's like saying NASA is stupid for not investigating aliens on the moon. They have no reason to because it is a stupid idea.
[You don't seem to get it. There was no need for them to investigate that because it is such a ridiculous idea that no one what have a brain takes seriously.] - So all the news reporters were stupid? And all the engineers sitting at home thinking "How did the terrorists rig the buildings with explosives?" are all stupid? And only 14% of the US who actually believes the official story - that is becuase only 14% of US arn't stupid and that is directly correlated with 9/11 polls? Give up fool.
"So all the news reporters were stupid? ... And only 14% of the US who actually believes the official story... Give up fool."
Not stupid, wrong. No one imagined such horrible people could possibly hijack 4 planes and send two of them into giant buildings that would then collapse because of structural failure. No one thought it possible. But it was.
What you happen to think US people believe is irrelevant. The science, which you have yet to provide, supports the reality. No explosives.
[No one imagined such horrible people could possibly hijack 4 planes and send two of them into giant buildings]
Is that why NORAD were actually running on 911 those exact War Games of terrorists hijacking planes and flying them into giant buildings?
Is that why int he months before the Pentagon ran terror drills for the scenario of a passenger jet being used as a kamakazi missle into the pentagon?
You just blueprinted the exact word for word lies told from Condi and Bush after 911.
Ok matt. See ya. Let me reimind you little fella - 14% of Americans are with you. I hope you boys know how to shoot a gun. And you better learn how to polish them boots cause they will be the only pride you got left when we blow your stupid head off.
So let's recap our exchange here: You have a degree in science but don't think we went to the moon because you can't see stars in the pictures and it was too difficult. You think 9/11 was an inside job and controlled explosives were used because there are some polls that some Americans don't believe the official story and planes, of course, couldn't take down buildings. (Without ever actually supplying any science for your claims.) Oh, and you are racist.
[So let's recap our exchange here: ....(Without ever actually supplying any science for your claims.) ] - Thats interesting to see how it processes in your head. Now I understand why you are incapable of logical proceeding through the problem.
The scientific proof that 1)NIST's theory is a fraud 2)The towers, the way they came down, is impossible under the official conditions is at Journal of 9/11 Studies.
Matt, look up Doctors for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Firemen for 9/11 Truth, Patriots for 9/11 Truth.
You don't appear to realise how many very qualified and influential people in the world agree 9/11 was clearly a false-flag operation.
Bascially, most people who spend the time to look at the evidence lead to the same conclusion - From every direction you look at it, INSIDE JOB.
[Again, you seem to believe that 1) science actually works by consensus and that 2) the consensus actually agrees with you.} - the mas media has only ever promoted the Official view and when they have mentioned the other they are mocking it -And yet despite all that propaganda only 14% of Americans buy it.
Matt, do you have a billion dollars? If not then you better pay close attention to who your friends and enemies is.
[Heh, I love that you keep throwing that poll percentage around like it means something. I'll stick with the science.]
If you stuck with the science you would know the towers were blown up. The science is well established and exhaustively proven at Journal of 9/11 Studies. The reason only 14% of Americans still believe the official story is cause the regime in control of their media has been saturating the republic with lies - Despite that only 14% believe them!!!
[ The physics of the situation actually work out. I]
NIST didn't even model the collapses after t=0 (the point when the first sign of structural failure is noticed) which is followed by a global collaspe with the symettry and speed of descent of a controll demolition.
The physics doesn't work out even prima facie - The top is weaker than the bottom and yet despite equal-opposites the top smashed all the way down to the bottom.
I think it is funny that you think that it should somehow look different than a controlled demolition. The impact and subsequent trauma on the structure allowed the building to collapse. With that much mass moving downward, structures below (which had already been weakened) collapsed as well. It is not that difficult to explain. The use of explosives, on the other hand, are EXTREMELY difficult to explain (and something that you have yet to do).
"The buildings both withstood the impacts" That does not mean they were not structurally damaged, they clearly were.
---------
Were they? A bomb blew out in the basement in 1993. The tower was structurally damage. it didn't come down.
The towers survived the plane impacts. The fires were burning out and dying down compared to the initial 20 minutes after the impacts. The temps were not extreme - We see people in the crash zone on the edge.
"Were they? A bomb blew out in the basement in 1993. The tower was structurally damage. it didn't come down. " Oh, right, all buildings are built the same way and the two attacks were the same... right...
"Haha, so now preparing for attacks implies foreknowledge. Awesome. I love how troothers can spin anything to fit their world. " - No the point is that they had prepared for such attacks and were even running war games of that exact scenario ON 9/11 - one of the targets in the NORAD war games was the WTC. And then Condi and Bush went on TeeVee after 9/11 and claimed that no one had ever imagined such attacks. The point you missed - The point is THEY WERE OBVIOUSLY LYING.
"The Sun's highest intensity is when it is directly overhead, that is not the hottest part of the day..." - and you compare that to how the temperatures in the towers on the steel beams would be hotter after the fires had already mostly died?
Basic science tells you that when looking at the conditions in the twin towers, use the same physics for a celestial body orbiting a star?
[What you happen to think US people believe is irrelevant. The science, which you have yet to provide, supports the reality. No explosives.]
matt, you couldn't find 1% as many of the engineering and architecture community people supporting the official story than those who are publicly accusing the US/ISrael of 9/11 controlled demolition.
You won't even find 12 engineers and architects who publicly support NISTS report.
There are 700 at ae911truthDOTorg who publicly denounce them.
[Heh, no science to support the moon landing hoax,] - The camera film used would not survive the solar radiation. Therefore the photos were taken on earth. The camera had no protection from radiation.
There were no photos of stars taken and yet all they had to do was point the camera to the sky.
"There were no photos of stars taken and yet all they had to do was point the camera to the sky."
Haha, this is awesome! I love that someone claiming to know science is making that claim. You have just clearly outed yourself as someone who doesn't actually have any clue (as if anyone needed any more proof).
You are saying that too many explosives and preparation would be required to do to the buildings the same as what you are claiming fire and a plane crash did alone.
And then you have WTC7 wasn't even hit by a plane. 3 buildings in one day come down like controlled demolitions and you think it was all done by two kamakazi planes.
"You are saying that too many explosives and preparation would be required to do to the buildings the same as what you are claiming fire and a plane crash did alone.
And then you have WTC7 wasn't even hit by a plane."
So two 110 story buildings collapsing wouldn't cause any damage to surrounding buildings? Gotcha...
[So two 110 story buildings collapsing wouldn't cause any damage to surrounding buildings? Gotcha... ] - NIST concede in their final report on WTC7 that there was no significant structural damage to WTC7 from the falling towers, but that some flaming debris started fires.
That was basically an admission by NIST that the reasons promoted by Popular Mechanics and parroted by their blind followers about WTC7 - Diesel fuel in basements, and 25% of south face of WTC7 scooped out - were blatant lie
No, NIST in appendix L do talk about structural damage to WTC 7. "After further studies, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) told Popular Mechanics that debris from the 110-floor North Tower hit WTC7 with the force of a volcanic eruption." Yeah, two 110 story buildings collapsing wouldn't do much...
[Do you see how you keep saying the same thing over and over again and have yet to provide any scientific evidence to support anything you have said?] - Actually it is the mainstream media who keep repeating the same thing over and over again and NIST have not provided any scientific evidence to support their "fires did it" story. They have provided some cartoons of the collapses, but refused to supply the data inputs and parameters when Journal of 9/11 Studies requested them.
The burden of proof is on me? NIST didn't even bother to try and explain all the molten steel. Rather, they ignored it. They ignored everything and anything which conflicted with their "fire did it" story. They didn't formulate hypotheses and consider which best fitted the data. Rather they started with a conclusion and forced all data to fit it and ignored all data which couldn't fit it.
Given that it was public knowledge that the twin towers were designed to withstand the impacts of fully loaded 707s at 600mph, the muslims would never have imagined that the towers would come down. So it was a pretty stupid target. Flying for nuclear power stations would have been a better plan.
"So because you think the computers weren't good enough, they couldn't go?" - Did I say that? I said that the computers today are 1 million times more advanced. The materials science is 1 million times more advanced, The rocket science is one million times more advanced,. Every aspect technologically. The Chinese, the Indians, the Russians - all have tech 1000s of times more advanced than the US when they went to the moon 7 times in a rowq and played golf. And yet NO ONE has been back. WAKE UP!
So were do you get your information? million times more advanced? Sounds pretty impressive. Almost like we have progressed...
I love that you keep bringing up that they played golf. Glad that that stuck with you. It was pretty amazing that a human was able to hit a golf ball on the moon! Amazing what we can accomplish!
You would have to have a profound basic stupidity to believe that the moon landings were for real. You really would have to have a fundamental retardation in your head.
The computers they allegedly went to the moon with were as powerful as a High school calculator from 20 years ago that you could buy for 50 bucks. Rocket science and computer and material science has advanced a million times since then, and yet no one has been back? And yet in the Apollo missions they were so successful and confident that not one mission caused fatality, and they even played golf on the moon. ARE YOU STUPID? THAT IS THE QUESTION.
Russia had the FIRSTS for the first 9 out of 10 space Firsts. And then suddenly AMERICA FUCK YEH came out of no where and landed golf players on the moon with 100% success, 7 times in a row, and then suddenly the whole world for 40 years never went back. I mean, FUCK OFF with your stupidity and die people. You are an embarrassment to the working class.
So because you think the computers weren't good enough, they couldn't go? So people weren't smart enough to do calculations? Getting there was not easy. Not easy does not equal impossible.
There hasn't been a need to go back since then. Fortunately, it looks like we will be going back soon because it is in our interests to do so.
It is a non sequitur to say that playing golf (which wasn't actually a real golf club) must mean it was fake.
Space science has progressed by leaps and bounds! Just because YOU think progression must mean we have to go back to the moon, doesn't mean that is actual progression. You have yet to actually talk about any science...
Haha. Awesome. 9/11 conspiracy theory: check. Racist: check. Moon landing conspiracy: check. I think we have the trifecta! You should forward this comment thread do your "top 20 university," see if they want to reconsider your degrees.
I have to commend you Focoist911, usually Truthers just spew their unsupported nonsense and resort to ad hominem attacks. You have added in being racist as well. Congrats, you have really set the bar high!
Nah they are not a race Jarek. Actually one can easily figure that by considering that to be born jewish your mother only need be jewish.
If you work that out on a family tree you can see that there can be no racial quality.
Also, there is alot of good articles and books out there which will explain it to you. Look up the recent article [Shattering a 'national mythology' - Haaretz - Israel News]
You ideas are typical of the mainstream media myths about Judaism which have been promoted.
of course I didn't read it, because you never sent one! and as matt said, the moon landing didn't happen either, get some common sense you retard.
who said I agree'd with obama, going more into debt to get out of debt makes no sense. as for you, you're affected too. the whole world is in an economy crisis because of america, so america fucked everyone, have fun with that though
[the moon landing didn't happen either, get some common sense you retard.] - I don't know about the moon landing. But when you look into it there are a lot of strange anomalies. For example recently India sent a probe to the moon. The director said one part of the mission was to get photos of places to land for a future planned manned mission.
That is kind of weird, as why don't they just land where the US landed?
With the moon landing? Unlike 9/11 I am not 100% about the moon landing but I do suspect it yes. Normal technological advancement in all other fields in history are progressive. Ye since the Apollo missions, almost 40 years ago, and with a HP claculator most kids had in high school 20 years ago, we are to believe man went to the moon, played golf, and never went back.
Now you got to be a big silly dilly mate to believe that. Its yourself u will have to face. The truth will out in yr lifetime.
The official version of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory you realise? Just like Gravity is a theory.
You falling for all the double speak. You like a good dupe, and you work hard to maintain it for your masters too, attacking your brothers, defending your slavery and masters. Such a good slave.
Problem with the Official theory is that it needs to ignore open blatant contradictions, like molten steel in pools in the rubble.
So let me get this straight: you say you have a degree in science (what science is that?) AND you are somehow saying that conspiracy theories are similar to gravity being a theory? Is that really what you are saying? You understand that "theory" in common usage (like the conspiracy theory) is quite different than a scientific theory (as in the theory of gravity)?
I keep thinking you can't say anything more ignorant, but you manage to surprise!
Dont get angry with me for pointing out that you must be really really stupid to think that 40 years ago they were so comfortable with their moon mission they even took golf clubs up there and yet no one has ever been back. Dont get angry with me because you are a fucking dumb American brainwashed and blinded by your TeeVee. That you are a fool and the whole world quietly laughs at you.
Its your call moron. It is possible to save the US, but if you insist it will fall.
it fell because of the amount of weight the upper portion of the building had.
You are retarded and I have no idea where you are pulling these %s, out of your ass is the correct answer actually. That sounds more like bush's approval rating which has NOTHING to do with who caused 9/11
Go google [9/11 polls] and you will find them all, Zogby, CNN, CBS. An international poll of 22 countries was the most recent. Thats the most interesting one.
Regarding Bush's approval rating and you thinking that people would believe his administration was involved simply because they don't like Bush anymore - Well thats like saying you think they were polling 5 year olds.
Jarek, I'm just telling you the facts of opinions. You can run away from it with weak rationale like that or research.
weren't you just the one earlier blaming me for believing anything? I could find some bs polls too that say the exact opposite. Also, facts normally have to be right to be facts
[I could find some bs polls too that say the exact opposite.] - Alright, go try then. Google [9/11 polls] and try and find as many as you can. You're in for a big shock buddy.
My point is, that the mainstream media are lying to you. They pretend that 9/11 truth movement is fringe cult and tell everyone at home that. But 80% of the people watching are thus thinking, "Gee, I must be one of those fringe kooks"
wtf are you talking about? the media is so damn liberal, they want you to think bush caused 9/11.
The building got heavier when the upper portion was caught on fire. the main supporting beams were still there, the lower portion simply couldn't hold the weight and it collapsed on itself
[wtf are you talking about? the media is so damn liberal, they want you to think bush caused 9/11.] - The media liberal? Who tells you the media is liberal? Yep, THEY DO.
If they media is liberal then why is 95% of the media in the US, from TeeVee, to radio, to print, owned by just 5 corporations?
Why did all that 95% of the black-out the footage of WTC7 for 5 years after 9/11? And in 2006 a Zogby poll found that 60% of Americans didn't even know a third skyscraper came down on 9/11.
Hwo come the twins and WTC7 fell as fast as towers do in controlled demolitions? And how come that is the first time in history a tower has done that but it happen 3 times in one day?
do you believe what you are told you see or what you can see with your own eyes?
because it was planned and has been for years. They were celebrating in syria when this happened. I used to live there. I don't believe what I'm told I USE COMMON SENSE. The same method worked on all the buildings. It was controlled in that way.
"it fell because of the amount of weight the upper portion of the building had." - What was the upper portion of the building sitting on before it fell? Wasn't it sitting on top of the rest of the building?
And if there was a structural failure why didn't it fall in that direction, and at worst fall over the side? Why did it fall down through the path of most resistance? And why did it do it at near-free fall speed? Did the rest under it vanish at the command of Allah?
Focoist911, pretty much everything you have said in these comments lead me to believe you haven't taken many science classes. I am not too concerned about what the average joe thinks about what happened. What I am concerned with is the science. And the science throws any conspiracy nonsense right out.
Fine mattit, if you are comfortable that for the first time in history a sky-scraper collapses in on itself like a controlled demolition, and falls at the speed of a controlled demolition, and yet there were no explosives involved, and yet this didn't happen once for the first time in history, but THREE times in one fucking day - If you are comfortable with that mattit, then God help the United States of America. 14 states as we speak are moving to partition from the union. Why? SHAME.
How would you have liked it to have fallen? Just because you don't understand science doesn't mean it should just topple over.
Look, if it had been a controlled demolition there would have been miles of detcord, the buildings would have had to have been stripped, drilled, weakened. There is SO much prep for a controlled demo that there would have been thousands of people that knew about that. Are you telling me that 1000s of people just forgot about that?
"But that doesn't matter anyway, because anyone who has any education at all don't believe the Truther nonsense." - Are you serious? Or are you one of these punks out of the new 70 billion dollar Pentagon Cyberwarfare unit? The one they just set up openly to propagandise the Americans?
Look up Patriots Question 9/11 Truth and see a list of 1000s of PhDs and Professors etc. Look at architects and engineers for 9/11 Truth - 800 of them publicly conclude CD. Pilots for, Medical Profs for,...
" EVERY station and channel is liberal here. get out of the south" - You would think that Democracy Now was a liberal media right? And yet after years of being harassed Amy refused to table the 9/11 Truth issue. Finally when she did table it, she refused to allow the professors and lead academics of the movement debate Popular Mechanics and organised instead for the makers of Loose Change, only allowed to debate contents of LC. If you knew the details it was obvious set up.
Heh, Loose Change was such garbage. Seriously, pretty much any truther you stumble upon has never actually done much with science. Focoist probably believes we haven't been to the moon either.
[I never saw Loose Change on TV or the news papers, ever.] - No they never actually played it because they wouldn't want to conscript more people to the knowledge. But whenever they mentioned 9/11 conspiracy theory (which by late 2006 was starting to become a big problem for the establishment) they would only ever mention Loose Change, as though this was the only film. LC was crap though compared to other documentaries, which they NEVER mentioned. So LC became the best known, simply b/c that.
Heh, the only reason people have talked about LC is because that is ALL your truthers would EVER talk about. And it is funny that you sat it is crap because you spout a lot of the same nonsense.
[Heh, the only reason people have talked about LC is because that is ALL your truthers would EVER talk about. ] - Go ahead and proffer that, but it was the only film ever promoted on mainstream media, and given their coverage, no wonder it became the most watched film in internet history.
IN Australia the media didn't mention anything until 2006 when media people were being flooded with emails about it.
Look matt, if you are sincere, I feel real sorry for you man, cause eventually u will see.
he did everything right
Belkamaniac 1 year ago
" In order to explain explosives bringing the buildings down you have to include magic. " - I'm not wasting time arguing with an uneducated person like you who believes things in blind faith.
You can do study at Journal of 9/11 Studies. It is clear you havn't even read those journals. Nor do you have a degree in engineering, so its probably not worth speaking to an idiot like you anymore.
Prepare for the soup cues in 6-9 months.
Focoist911 3 years ago
"I'm not wasting time arguing with an uneducated person like you who believes things in blind faith."
Heh, again, let me recap: You think 1)9/11 was an inside job because buildings couldn't collapse like that, 2)explosives, which no one ever saw, were used, 3)some polls you found tell you some Americans agree with you, 4)the moon landings were a hoax because it was too difficult, 5)we should see stars in the pictures. And you are a blatant hater of Jews.
Yes, I am clearly the uneducated one.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
1) 9/11 was an inside job from all 360 degrees you look at it. Not just the explosives in the towers - I focused on that evidence because thats my field - engineering. There are Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, Political Leaders, Professors, etc..A french military professor was just fired for his 9/11 Truth opinions.
2)100s of People saw the explosions and heard them.
3)Not "some" polls - ALL 9/11 POLLS.
4)Moon LOOKS toB a hoax.
5)one of many anomalies. Playing golf is another strange one.
3)
Focoist911 3 years ago
Your field is engineering? Wow, your college really should be embarrassed.
So more of the same nonsense with no actual science. The moon landings have NEVER looked like a hoax. The lack of stars aren't an anomaly at all.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
"Your field is engineering? Wow, your college really should be embarrassed." - The universities and corporations employing the over 600 degreed and professional engineers and architects at ae911truthDOTorg should be embarrassed too I guess? I mean, you know the TWOOF right? Your TeeVee told you so.
Focoist911 3 years ago
"The universities and corporations employing the over 600 degreed and professional engineers and architects at ae911truthDOTorg should be embarrassed too I guess?"
Yes, yes they should be. And they probably are. Yes, I believe exactly what the TV has told me. Good use of logic there.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
They just put explosives in the buildings? So what you are saying is that you have no idea how controlled demolitions work.
-------------
The explosives were pre-planted, as per how controlled demolitions work. Look at the way WTC7 came down - buildings don't come down like that "by design" from a few fires you moron.
If you slipped WTC7 amongst 20 other controlled demos and asked people to pick the odd man out, they wouldn't be able to unless they recognised WTC7.
Focoist911 3 years ago
"The explosives were pre-planted, as per how controlled demolitions work. Look at the way WTC7 came down - buildings don't come down like that "by design" from a few fires you moron."
Oh, right, preplanted but never seen? Makes sense. And yes, it was only a few fires. That's exactly what did it. You are really using the logic well today!
mattithyahu 3 years ago
Oh, right, preplanted but never seen? Makes sense.
---
The magician fools chidren. Difference is they know he is playing a trick. Problem is they don't know how he did it.
So since you don't know how they did it, you think it must have been magic.
Fucking moron.
Gordon Ross's lecture. Go watch that. They did it in the elevator shafts - must have pretended to be maintenence crew - Nothing unusual. Totally unnoticed.
Sniffer dogs were removed from WTC 2 weeks before 9/11. Did u know?
Focoist911 3 years ago
"Fucking moron. " Nicely done with that ad hominem attack. Clearly, you have a strong argument!
Oh, right elevator shafts, that's exactly how controlled demolitions are done...
mattithyahu 3 years ago
The lack of stars aren't an anomaly at all.
-------
Oh, o.k. The moon has an atmosphere like earth does it? Do you know why you can't see stars during the day on earth? Idiot.
Focoist911 3 years ago
"The moon has an atmosphere like earth does it? Do you know why you can't see stars during the day on earth?"
Haha, oh this one is my favorite by far! We cannot see stars because it is daylight. Sure, our atmosphere plays a part in that it reflects even more light. But it isn't the atmosphere, it is that it is daylight. Just like on the moon, it was day out. If you shine a bright light in your face, you will not be able to see the stars either.
"Idiot" - Makes this post even better!
mattithyahu 3 years ago
[But it isn't the atmosphere, it is that it is daylight. Just like on the moon, it was day out. If you shine a bright light in your face, you will not be able to see the stars either.] - hilarious. Thanks for showing everyone you are scientifically ignorant.
Light scatters (defracts refracts inflects reflects) in an atmosphere.
On the moon all light travels in a straight line. So in the day you can see the stars as clear as night.
Focoist911 3 years ago
"On the moon all light travels in a straight line. So in the day you can see the stars as clear as night."
You know what also scatters light? The entire surface of the moon. See how the surface is lit up? That is because the Sun is shining on it. I guess you would need to know how physics and camera apertures work though to understand why the pictures make sense.
"Thanks for showing everyone you are scientifically ignorant. " The irony of that statement is a beautiful thing.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
[ I guess you would need to know how physics and camera apertures work though to understand why the pictures make sense.]
You simply don't point the camera at the ground. Idiot.
----
PS: David JEW Coburn of POpular Mechanics claimed to have had special access to see a photo of the south side of WTC7. He claimed that you can see "25% of the building's facade scooped out" - you'd think NIST would have presented that secret photo in their final report. NUP.
watch?v=XLx5GATh_z0
Focoist911 3 years ago
Keep up with the ad hominem attacks. :)
"You simply don't point the camera at the ground." Yeah, thanks, that is shocking. The pictures people complain about are ALWAYS pictures that include the moon. ANY time the moon is there, it is daylight and will washout any stars. In order to actually see stars you would have to hold the aperture open too much or have a longer shutter exposure, if you do that the moon completely over exposes the film.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
[The pictures people complain about are ALWAYS pictures that include the moon. ANY time the moon is there, it is daylight and will washout any stars.] - There are no photos from the Apollo missions WITHOUT the moon in it Matt. You don't know that?
The Apollo 8 orbited the moon 20 times (if I understood the wiki account properly).
Also mat, you realise no one died in the entire Apollo missions and every mission was successful? Yet 20 years later look at the catastrophes. I suspicious man. ok?
Focoist911 3 years ago
You know what also scatters light? The entire surface of the moon. See how the surface is lit up?
The surface of the moon does not reflect much light. Its not a mirror!
The light it reflects travels in a stright line too. All you need to do is point the camera towards the sky and shoot the stars. They played golf but didn't bother one shot of the stars. They were on the dark side of the moon 20 times in Apollo 8 too.
Focoist911 3 years ago
"The surface of the moon does not reflect much light. Its not a mirror!" So what? It still reflects PLENTY of light. That is why they can walk around without flashlights. It is daylight. Light is scattering ALL over.
They weren't there to take pictures of stars, they were there to study the moon. The cameras they had were not designed to take pictures of stars, they were designed to take pictures of the moon. It isn't that surprising.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
[They weren't there to take pictures of stars, they were there to study the moon.]
Matt I have heard that one before.
Lets be reasonable here.
If your above opinion holds water, then can you please explain how the golf clubs were important for the study of the moon.
Focoist911 3 years ago
"If your above opinion holds water, then can you please explain how the golf clubs were important for the study of the moon."
Another fallacious argument, wonderful! Regardless, they didn't take golf clubs, they took the head to a golf club that they attached to another piece of equipment.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
With the fiery inferno of the Mandarin Oriental Hotel (MOH) in Beijing on February 9, 2009
Very similar building in construction and height to WTC7. But had a fire so extreme it burnt out the whole building?
Guess what dumby Matt? DID NOT COLLAPSE LET ALONE LIKE A CONTROLLED DEMO.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Right, I keep forgetting that all buildings are the same. Oh, wait that one wasn't smashed into by giant planes.
I also think it is comical that you think that a collapsing building should somehow collapse differently than a controlled demo. Love it.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
Hey dickhead, NIST admitted finally in October 2008 that WTC7 was the first steel frame skyscraper to collapse from fire in history.
In 2006, 60% of Americans didn't even know there was a third building which came down like a controlled demolition on 9/11.
Murdoch's networks (40% of world's television viewing) had a BLACK OUT policy on WTC7. It was never played on his networks from 2001-mid 2006 when finally they were forced to play it again for fear of everyone noticing.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Ohhh more ad hominem! Keep it up!
WTC7 didn't fall just from fire. There was structural damage as well, pictures clearly show damage beyond surface level. Remember, two giant buildings had just collapsed next to it.
I always love how you truthers love to grab onto any little thing and make that clear evidence of conspiracy. Love it!
mattithyahu 3 years ago
[WTC7 didn't fall just from fire. There was structural damage as well, pictures clearly show damage beyond surface level.]
Once again a denier showing they don't know the official admitted facts let alone the official lies.
Sorry to break it to you ignoramus, but Popular Mechanics were officially discredit by NIST themselves on Oct 2008 when NIST released their finally report:
WTC7 collapsed soley because of mild fires. No significant structural damage:
watch?v=7oG2iwBi9F0
Focoist911 3 years ago
Just because the primary reason was fires, does not mean there was not structural damage. That just doesn't follow.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
matt, look up how Dick Cheney was exposed late last year for planning to paint up PT boats as Iranian and get US seals to dress up as Iranians and attack a US frigate in the Gulf to justify a declaration of war on Iran.
Google around those keywords and you will find it.
Then look at how Zibigniew Brzezinski warned congress in late 2007(?) that "they" were planning a false-flag terrorist attack to justify a war with Iran.
Look up all that, then come back and reflect on 9/11.
Peace.
Focoist911 3 years ago
"Look up all that, then come back and reflect on 9/11. "
I just love how conspiracies just keep getting deeper and deeper. I am sure I am probably involved in it somehow. Haha.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
[Just because the primary reason was fires, does not mean there was not structural damage. That just doesn't follow. ]
Yes that is correct Mat, it doesn't follow. So now you starting to see?
Focoist911 3 years ago
You have missed the point. Your logic doesn't follow. It DOES, however, follow that structural damage and hot, extended burning fired could collapse a building.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
So Diuck Cheney exposed trying to organise a false-flag terror attack on Iran to get Americans to sacrifice their lives attacking Iran, and you still wet with that cum from the Rabbi's cock?
You really did come down in the last shower hey boy? Such a shame the Rabbi's didn't get you earlier. I know how much you love sucking those little peckers.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Wow, way to keep showing how strong your argument is! You really are setting the bar high for your fellow conspiracy theorists!
mattithyahu 3 years ago
ANyway MAt - I did not say I was 100% on the moon landings. It wouldn't surprise me to learn they were staged.
But 9/11 being a false-flag operation? 101% certain. How? Cause I researched it for three years solid. In the first three months I was certain. The rest of the time has been working generally on who these people are and how they operate and what their plans are for the future.
Focoist911 3 years ago
" It wouldn't surprise me to learn they were staged. " Shocking.
"101% certain." So that is your scientific conclusion? Over 100% sure. You don't hang out with scientists much, do you?
"The rest of the time has been working generally on who these people are and how they operate and what their plans are for the future." Heh, you should find a new hobby.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
["101% certain." So that is your scientific conclusion? Over 100% sure. You don't hang out with scientists much, do you?]
Says a denier? Deniers have never heard of the wisdom, "Once an accident, Twice a concidence, Three times a conspiracy" - The deniers take every individual piece of evidence from the Truth community and debunk it with "plausible deniability". But where they betray themselves and humanity, is to ignore that now they have compounded too many benefits of doubt to hold water.
Focoist911 3 years ago
"But where they betray themselves and humanity, is to ignore that now they have compounded too many benefits of doubt to hold water."
Heh, right. That is what is going on. You truthers are just unwilling to believe that a very few idiot muslim extremist terrorists could change the course of history like that. It is the simplest and most accurate version of reality but you don't wan't to believe it so you have to take all these little details and try to make them fit your story.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
[You truthers are just unwilling to believe that a very few idiot muslim extremist terrorists could change the course of history like that.]
Allahu Akbar!!!!!!!!
You are right man, the muslims are so powerful and stupid and brilliant at the same time.
If muslims did it then you are claiming they ae tactically brilliant and strategically insane at the same time!!!!!!!
YOU FUCKING MORON!!!! WHERE DO LOSERS LIKE YOU LIVE???? GIVE ME YOUR ADDRESS!!!!!! ARGUMENT IS NOT POSSIBLE!!! YOU ARE MORONS
Focoist911 3 years ago
"If muslims did it then you are claiming they ae tactically brilliant and strategically insane at the same time!!!!!!!"
Haha, yes, it takes a real clever mind to use a box knife to force people into giant buildings.
Aside from that, "idiot" can mean idiotic in world view and/or belief. Regardless of how strategic they are, they are still idiots for believing what they do.
"YOU FUCKING MORON!!!! ... ARGUMENT IS NOT POSSIBLE!!! YOU ARE MORONS" Haha, brilliant!
mattithyahu 3 years ago
Another note on that: I find it hilarious that you use this argument when conspiracy theorists are constantly having to believe in this paradoxical nonsense: the folks at NASA are complete idiots and could never have made it to the moon BUT they somehow masterminded a GIANT cover up. Right.
The US government are a bunch of idiots and completely mindless BUT they somehow masterminded a GIANT cover up. Right.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
mat, operation northwoods was signed off by the joint chiefs of staff. The only reason it didn't go ahead was cause JFK rejected it. And what happened to JFK? When JFK found out about the Northwoods plan he sacked the director of the CIA.
Recently Dick Cheney was exposed for trying to initiate a plan to paint up some PT boats as Iranian and get US Seals dressed up as iranians to attack a US frigate in the giulf and trigger WW3.
You are so fucking naive.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Yay, another conspiracy theory! Keep 'em coming! You do such a good job of selling your points!
mattithyahu 3 years ago
"You won't even find 12 engineers and architects who publicly support NISTS report.
There are 700 at ae911truthDOTorg who publicly denounce them."
Heh. You could find a lot of people who don't believe in gravity or who believe in a geocentric Solar System. You don't really need a lot of physicists and engineers coming out denouncing them because it is so absurd.
You have still yet to explain how the huge amounts of explosives and prep work were done without anyone knowing about it.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
"You have still yet to explain how the huge amounts of explosives and prep work were done without anyone knowing about it. " - The point is actually that NIST never explained how the plane impacts and fires led to the global collapses.
Focoist911 3 years ago
No the point is that you troothers NEVER explain how your ridiculous theories are even remotely possible.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
"No the point is that you troothers NEVER explain how your ridiculous theories are even remotely possible"" 0- Go read the articles
at Journal of 9/11 Studies.
Its all old and tired news.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Yes, your spouting of non sequiturs is quite old and tired.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
[There hasn't been a need to go back since then. Fortunately, it looks like we will be going back soon because it is in our interests to do so.]
A common patter with DUPES like you is the whole "WE" "OUR" thing like your country is a footy team. Listen mate, your country is ruled by an elite corportocracy and you aint nothing but a foot soldier gimp. It is no more YOUR country than it is mine you moron.
"There hasn't been a need to go back since then." - And there was a reason before? Idiot
Focoist911 3 years ago
Heh, thanks for your well rationed and informed opinion.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
Well rationed? Russia had the the first 9 firsts in space. All of those mile-stones have been advanced on globally since. The only mile-stone was America's "Fist Man on the Moon" and it stopped dead afterwards.
It was a cold-war hoax. you fucking fool. Everyone knows except for you moronic "WE" Americans waving your flags like you are half retarded. WAKE THE FUCK UP MAN.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Yep, the US space program hasn't done anything since...
Science? Anything? Care to back up ANYTHING at all you have said? Or just more name calling and empty words?
mattithyahu 3 years ago
Everything the space programs internationally have done in space have been progressive steps improving on former accomplishments. Yet the moon landings stand alone like an anomolous blimp in all progress of human history. Why? Cause it was FAKED you naive fool. Your "I am an American" pride indoctrinated from birth and residing greatly on the man-on-the-moon hoax is what blinds you from the blatant obvious.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Heh. Do you see how you keep saying the same thing over and over again and have yet to provide any scientific evidence to support anything you have said? No, you probably didn't notice that.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
NIST admitted that they never modelled the collapse to explain why the entire buildings came down symettrically and the same rate as a controlled demolition.
If the fire-hypothesis doesn't hold water then there is only one remaining: Explosives were involved = Black Op. Inside Job - unless you want to explain how Osama got NIST to cover everything up and how he got explosives into the buildings.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Heh, no science to support the moon landing hoax, so back to 9/11? Nice.
They never needed to model that, why should they? Why wouldn't they come down symmetrically? That much weight coming down flattens everything below it, JUST LIKE IN A DEMOLITION. Just because it behaved like a demolition, doesn't mean it was, that just doesn't follow. Again, controlled demolitions take HUGE amounts of planning and prep. You cannot just demolish a building without getting it ready.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
[Again, controlled demolitions take HUGE amounts of planning and prep. You cannot just demolish a building without getting it ready.] - Have a very long think about what you just said.
It wasn't a controlled demolition because that takes HUGE amount of planning and 1000s of explosives right?
hmmm. Ok, it was just fire then.
Focoist911 3 years ago
"Have a very long think about what you just said. "
Ok, I thought about it: controlled demolitions take HUGE amounts of planning and prep. You cannot just demolish a building without getting it ready.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
[Ok, I thought about it: controlled demolitions take HUGE amounts of planning and prep. You cannot just demolish a building without getting it ready.]
DO you see how absurd your argument is? You are claiming that fire and plane impacts ALONE caused a collapse which came down with the symmetry speed of a controlled demolition. I say, nah it must have involved explosives. You counter that with "There is too much planning and preparation for that" - you can't see how absurd your argument is.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Just because you don't want to believe it, doesn't mean the science doesn't support it. The argument is actually quite sound. There is no way you can plan a controlled demolition of that size without people knowing about it.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
[There is no way you can plan a controlled demolition of that size without people knowing about it. ] - People did know about it. 100s of witnesses to explosions after the plains hit and preceding the collapse. But anyway----even most of the LIVE reporters were commenting that you can't bring buildings down like that without pre-planted explosives, and structural engineers were baffled by the collapses.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Heh, right. Yes, "LIVE reporters" clearly have the science and engineering background to make such factual statements...
mattithyahu 3 years ago
I wasn't relying on them alone. Structural enginners around the world were baffled.
Certainly over 400 firemen were confident the towers were not coming down.
Further, if you look at the fires at the time they collapsed, they had passed their most intense heat. And further, the lower 80 floors were not weakened by fire, and yet the buildings came down as fast as a controlled demolition, where all supporting columns are removed in sequence.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Being "baffled" doesn't mean it is was impossible. It means people were surprised. No one expected it was probable or even possible, that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
The Sun's highest intensity is when it is directly overhead, that is not the hottest part of the day...
Once key supports (most of which were in the core of WTC1 and 2) go, it all goes.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
"No one expected it was probable or even possible, that doesn't mean it couldn't happen." -
But it happened to both towers, and then it happened to the WTC7 which wasn't even damaged structurally by the falling towers - NIST admits that now. They came up with this "thermal expansion" theory, an extremely improbable reasoning. And 9/11 set three structural records in one day - Three steel framed towers collapsed because of fire.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Good thing you keep saying the same stuff over and over, it really helps prove your case...
mattithyahu 3 years ago
"Good thing you keep saying the same stuff over and over, it really helps prove your case... "
Yes three steel high rises did on 9/11 what none other have done in history. WTC7 not even hit by a plane or significantly damaged from debris.
So it tells you NIST should have investigated the theory that explosives were involved. But after being publicly pressured by Twoofers, NIST finally admitted they never tested the hypothesis - didn't test samples for explosive residues, didn't model it....
Focoist911 3 years ago
You don't seem to get it. There was no need for them to investigate that because it is such a ridiculous idea that no one what have a brain takes seriously. It's like saying NASA is stupid for not investigating aliens on the moon. They have no reason to because it is a stupid idea.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
[You don't seem to get it. There was no need for them to investigate that because it is such a ridiculous idea that no one what have a brain takes seriously.] - So all the news reporters were stupid? And all the engineers sitting at home thinking "How did the terrorists rig the buildings with explosives?" are all stupid? And only 14% of the US who actually believes the official story - that is becuase only 14% of US arn't stupid and that is directly correlated with 9/11 polls? Give up fool.
Focoist911 3 years ago
"So all the news reporters were stupid? ... And only 14% of the US who actually believes the official story... Give up fool."
Not stupid, wrong. No one imagined such horrible people could possibly hijack 4 planes and send two of them into giant buildings that would then collapse because of structural failure. No one thought it possible. But it was.
What you happen to think US people believe is irrelevant. The science, which you have yet to provide, supports the reality. No explosives.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
[No one imagined such horrible people could possibly hijack 4 planes and send two of them into giant buildings]
Is that why NORAD were actually running on 911 those exact War Games of terrorists hijacking planes and flying them into giant buildings?
Is that why int he months before the Pentagon ran terror drills for the scenario of a passenger jet being used as a kamakazi missle into the pentagon?
You just blueprinted the exact word for word lies told from Condi and Bush after 911.
Focoist911 3 years ago
"You just blueprinted the exact word for word lies told from Condi and Bush after 911"
Haha, so now preparing for attacks implies foreknowledge. Awesome. I love how troothers can spin anything to fit their world.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
Ok matt. See ya. Let me reimind you little fella - 14% of Americans are with you. I hope you boys know how to shoot a gun. And you better learn how to polish them boots cause they will be the only pride you got left when we blow your stupid head off.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Haha, little fella? Nice.
So let's recap our exchange here: You have a degree in science but don't think we went to the moon because you can't see stars in the pictures and it was too difficult. You think 9/11 was an inside job and controlled explosives were used because there are some polls that some Americans don't believe the official story and planes, of course, couldn't take down buildings. (Without ever actually supplying any science for your claims.) Oh, and you are racist.
Yep.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
[So let's recap our exchange here: ....(Without ever actually supplying any science for your claims.) ] - Thats interesting to see how it processes in your head. Now I understand why you are incapable of logical proceeding through the problem.
The scientific proof that 1)NIST's theory is a fraud 2)The towers, the way they came down, is impossible under the official conditions is at Journal of 9/11 Studies.
Focoist911 3 years ago
"Now I understand why you are incapable of logical proceeding through the problem. "
Heh, I am amazed that you think that what followed that sentence was a) logical in any way and b) remotely related to scientific proof.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
Matt, look up Doctors for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Firemen for 9/11 Truth, Patriots for 9/11 Truth.
You don't appear to realise how many very qualified and influential people in the world agree 9/11 was clearly a false-flag operation.
Bascially, most people who spend the time to look at the evidence lead to the same conclusion - From every direction you look at it, INSIDE JOB.
Focoist911 3 years ago
"You don't appear to realise how many very qualified and influential people in the world agree 9/11 was clearly a false-flag operation. "
Again, you seem to believe that 1) science actually works by consensus and that 2) the consensus actually agrees with you.
Finding people who agree with you doesn't mean it is a majority OR correct.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
[Again, you seem to believe that 1) science actually works by consensus and that 2) the consensus actually agrees with you.} - the mas media has only ever promoted the Official view and when they have mentioned the other they are mocking it -And yet despite all that propaganda only 14% of Americans buy it.
Matt, do you have a billion dollars? If not then you better pay close attention to who your friends and enemies is.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Heh, I love that you keep throwing that poll percentage around like it means something. I'll stick with the science.
I know who our enemies are. They are the Islamic extremists who crashed four planes on 9/11.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
[Heh, I love that you keep throwing that poll percentage around like it means something. I'll stick with the science.]
If you stuck with the science you would know the towers were blown up. The science is well established and exhaustively proven at Journal of 9/11 Studies. The reason only 14% of Americans still believe the official story is cause the regime in control of their media has been saturating the republic with lies - Despite that only 14% believe them!!!
Focoist911 3 years ago
"If you stuck with the science you would know the towers were blown up." That does not follow.
It is amazing how you can keep saying the same things over and over again without realizing how meaningless they are.
The physics of the situation actually work out. In order to explain explosives bringing the buildings down you have to include magic.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
[ The physics of the situation actually work out. I]
NIST didn't even model the collapses after t=0 (the point when the first sign of structural failure is noticed) which is followed by a global collaspe with the symettry and speed of descent of a controll demolition.
The physics doesn't work out even prima facie - The top is weaker than the bottom and yet despite equal-opposites the top smashed all the way down to the bottom.
Focoist911 3 years ago
I think it is funny that you think that it should somehow look different than a controlled demolition. The impact and subsequent trauma on the structure allowed the building to collapse. With that much mass moving downward, structures below (which had already been weakened) collapsed as well. It is not that difficult to explain. The use of explosives, on the other hand, are EXTREMELY difficult to explain (and something that you have yet to do).
mattithyahu 3 years ago
[. The impact and subsequent trauma on the structure allowed the building to collapse. ]
The buildings both withstood the impacts as they had been designed to.
WTC7 wasn't even damaged by the incident and had limited fires.
There are dozens of witnesses on record to the explosions in WTC7.
3 steel frame buildings on 9/11 broke world records to become first steel framed skyscrapers to totally collapse from fires.
Explosives is easy to explain - they put them in the buildings. How hard is that
Focoist911 3 years ago
"The buildings both withstood the impacts" That does not mean they were not structurally damaged, they clearly were.
"WTC7 wasn't even damaged by the incident" Yes, it clearly was.
They just put explosives in the buildings? So what you are saying is that you have no idea how controlled demolitions work.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
"The buildings both withstood the impacts" That does not mean they were not structurally damaged, they clearly were.
---------
Were they? A bomb blew out in the basement in 1993. The tower was structurally damage. it didn't come down.
The towers survived the plane impacts. The fires were burning out and dying down compared to the initial 20 minutes after the impacts. The temps were not extreme - We see people in the crash zone on the edge.
You are just brainwashed by your TeeVee.
Focoist911 3 years ago
"Were they? A bomb blew out in the basement in 1993. The tower was structurally damage. it didn't come down. " Oh, right, all buildings are built the same way and the two attacks were the same... right...
mattithyahu 3 years ago
"Haha, so now preparing for attacks implies foreknowledge. Awesome. I love how troothers can spin anything to fit their world. " - No the point is that they had prepared for such attacks and were even running war games of that exact scenario ON 9/11 - one of the targets in the NORAD war games was the WTC. And then Condi and Bush went on TeeVee after 9/11 and claimed that no one had ever imagined such attacks. The point you missed - The point is THEY WERE OBVIOUSLY LYING.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Yes, they were obviously lying. So clear. Good science. Well done.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
"The Sun's highest intensity is when it is directly overhead, that is not the hottest part of the day..."
???? Are you serious?
Focoist911 3 years ago
"???? Are you serious?"
Basic science man.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
"The Sun's highest intensity is when it is directly overhead, that is not the hottest part of the day..." - and you compare that to how the temperatures in the towers on the steel beams would be hotter after the fires had already mostly died?
Basic science tells you that when looking at the conditions in the twin towers, use the same physics for a celestial body orbiting a star?
Focoist911 3 years ago
"Basic science tells you that when looking at the conditions in the twin towers, use the same physics for a celestial body orbiting a star?"
Wow. It's called an analogy.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
[What you happen to think US people believe is irrelevant. The science, which you have yet to provide, supports the reality. No explosives.]
matt, you couldn't find 1% as many of the engineering and architecture community people supporting the official story than those who are publicly accusing the US/ISrael of 9/11 controlled demolition.
You won't even find 12 engineers and architects who publicly support NISTS report.
There are 700 at ae911truthDOTorg who publicly denounce them.
Focoist911 3 years ago
[Heh, no science to support the moon landing hoax,] - The camera film used would not survive the solar radiation. Therefore the photos were taken on earth. The camera had no protection from radiation.
There were no photos of stars taken and yet all they had to do was point the camera to the sky.
Focoist911 3 years ago
"There were no photos of stars taken and yet all they had to do was point the camera to the sky."
Haha, this is awesome! I love that someone claiming to know science is making that claim. You have just clearly outed yourself as someone who doesn't actually have any clue (as if anyone needed any more proof).
mattithyahu 3 years ago
So you are claiming that stars can't be seen from the moon? Please explain.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Can you see stars in daylight?
Can you see stars at night when someone is shining a flashlight in your eyes?
mattithyahu 3 years ago
You are saying that too many explosives and preparation would be required to do to the buildings the same as what you are claiming fire and a plane crash did alone.
And then you have WTC7 wasn't even hit by a plane. 3 buildings in one day come down like controlled demolitions and you think it was all done by two kamakazi planes.
Focoist911 3 years ago
"You are saying that too many explosives and preparation would be required to do to the buildings the same as what you are claiming fire and a plane crash did alone.
And then you have WTC7 wasn't even hit by a plane."
So two 110 story buildings collapsing wouldn't cause any damage to surrounding buildings? Gotcha...
mattithyahu 3 years ago
[So two 110 story buildings collapsing wouldn't cause any damage to surrounding buildings? Gotcha... ] - NIST concede in their final report on WTC7 that there was no significant structural damage to WTC7 from the falling towers, but that some flaming debris started fires.
That was basically an admission by NIST that the reasons promoted by Popular Mechanics and parroted by their blind followers about WTC7 - Diesel fuel in basements, and 25% of south face of WTC7 scooped out - were blatant lie
Focoist911 3 years ago
No, NIST in appendix L do talk about structural damage to WTC 7. "After further studies, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) told Popular Mechanics that debris from the 110-floor North Tower hit WTC7 with the force of a volcanic eruption." Yeah, two 110 story buildings collapsing wouldn't do much...
mattithyahu 3 years ago
[Do you see how you keep saying the same thing over and over again and have yet to provide any scientific evidence to support anything you have said?] - Actually it is the mainstream media who keep repeating the same thing over and over again and NIST have not provided any scientific evidence to support their "fires did it" story. They have provided some cartoons of the collapses, but refused to supply the data inputs and parameters when Journal of 9/11 Studies requested them.
Focoist911 3 years ago
The burden of proof is on you. The science is supported by reality, you have yet to mention either.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
The burden of proof is on me? NIST didn't even bother to try and explain all the molten steel. Rather, they ignored it. They ignored everything and anything which conflicted with their "fire did it" story. They didn't formulate hypotheses and consider which best fitted the data. Rather they started with a conclusion and forced all data to fit it and ignored all data which couldn't fit it.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Given that it was public knowledge that the twin towers were designed to withstand the impacts of fully loaded 707s at 600mph, the muslims would never have imagined that the towers would come down. So it was a pretty stupid target. Flying for nuclear power stations would have been a better plan.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Yes, much better plan...
mattithyahu 3 years ago
"So because you think the computers weren't good enough, they couldn't go?" - Did I say that? I said that the computers today are 1 million times more advanced. The materials science is 1 million times more advanced, The rocket science is one million times more advanced,. Every aspect technologically. The Chinese, the Indians, the Russians - all have tech 1000s of times more advanced than the US when they went to the moon 7 times in a rowq and played golf. And yet NO ONE has been back. WAKE UP!
Focoist911 3 years ago
So were do you get your information? million times more advanced? Sounds pretty impressive. Almost like we have progressed...
I love that you keep bringing up that they played golf. Glad that that stuck with you. It was pretty amazing that a human was able to hit a golf ball on the moon! Amazing what we can accomplish!
mattithyahu 3 years ago
You would have to have a profound basic stupidity to believe that the moon landings were for real. You really would have to have a fundamental retardation in your head.
Focoist911 3 years ago
The computers they allegedly went to the moon with were as powerful as a High school calculator from 20 years ago that you could buy for 50 bucks. Rocket science and computer and material science has advanced a million times since then, and yet no one has been back? And yet in the Apollo missions they were so successful and confident that not one mission caused fatality, and they even played golf on the moon. ARE YOU STUPID? THAT IS THE QUESTION.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Russia had the FIRSTS for the first 9 out of 10 space Firsts. And then suddenly AMERICA FUCK YEH came out of no where and landed golf players on the moon with 100% success, 7 times in a row, and then suddenly the whole world for 40 years never went back. I mean, FUCK OFF with your stupidity and die people. You are an embarrassment to the working class.
Focoist911 3 years ago
You seem to be forgetting Apollo 1 and 13. Again, care to offer any actual science instead of your non sequiturs, nonsense and ad hominem attacks?
mattithyahu 3 years ago
So because you think the computers weren't good enough, they couldn't go? So people weren't smart enough to do calculations? Getting there was not easy. Not easy does not equal impossible.
There hasn't been a need to go back since then. Fortunately, it looks like we will be going back soon because it is in our interests to do so.
It is a non sequitur to say that playing golf (which wasn't actually a real golf club) must mean it was fake.
Care to actually use any science?
mattithyahu 3 years ago
No matt, its just that there is not one human triumph in the world other than the moon landing which has not been pursued progressively.
There is some form of brainwashing patriot shit which goes on in Americans in their schooling where they just can't see how ludicrous it is.
7 missions 100% success, playing golf on the moon? And no one has ever been back.
Get fucked man. You insult yourself really. You play right into the pocket of their arrogance that really you are all half-wit morons
Focoist911 3 years ago
Space science has progressed by leaps and bounds! Just because YOU think progression must mean we have to go back to the moon, doesn't mean that is actual progression. You have yet to actually talk about any science...
mattithyahu 3 years ago
Lets remind ourselves of the reason you went to the moon: "Because we can".
And now, not only can't you, but no one else in the world can either.
Do you realise how much of a fuckwit you are? Richard Brasnson and the other billionaires all know they faked it.
"Make it or fake it" was the CIA policy on the moon landing. Russia were kicking their asses in all space races.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Keep that ad hominem comin', they help your cause a lot!
So not going back is the same thing is not being able to? Interesting logic there.
Still yet to hear any science? Any of that going to come out yet?
mattithyahu 3 years ago
Haha. Awesome. 9/11 conspiracy theory: check. Racist: check. Moon landing conspiracy: check. I think we have the trifecta! You should forward this comment thread do your "top 20 university," see if they want to reconsider your degrees.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
Yes, I am quite serious. And fortunately I have the education and science to back myself up.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
education and science? lols. I am biting my fingers.
Nup. Here it goes. I have a BSc and BE from Melbourne University and the year I graduated it was voted in the top 20 Universities in the world.
What were you saying about science jewboy?
Focoist911 3 years ago
Yes, clearly your degree served you well.
I have to commend you Focoist911, usually Truthers just spew their unsupported nonsense and resort to ad hominem attacks. You have added in being racist as well. Congrats, you have really set the bar high!
mattithyahu 3 years ago
Were you brought up to think that the jews are a race?
Focoist911 3 years ago
are you seriously that stupid? jews are a race AND a religion
Jarek4 3 years ago
Nah they are not a race Jarek. Actually one can easily figure that by considering that to be born jewish your mother only need be jewish.
If you work that out on a family tree you can see that there can be no racial quality.
Also, there is alot of good articles and books out there which will explain it to you. Look up the recent article [Shattering a 'national mythology' - Haaretz - Israel News]
You ideas are typical of the mainstream media myths about Judaism which have been promoted.
Focoist911 3 years ago
ok so If only my mother was syrian and my father was spanish I wouldn't be syrian at all? your stupidity amazes me, jews are JEWS. it's a race
Jarek4 3 years ago
Its a race? Pity you don't read or look at any link I give you. Why? Cause you so love being ignorant.
Hey ignorant boy, Obama just printed 7 trillion dollars - You are lucky CHina hasn't fire nukes at you for such betrayal.
Let me tell you, thank God I am not in the US at the moment.
Focoist911 3 years ago
"Let me tell you, thank God I am not in the US at the moment."
Hey, something we agree on!
mattithyahu 3 years ago
hahahah. Jarek you moron. I gave you a link:
[Shattering a 'national mythology' - Haaretz - Israel News]
Clearly you didn't read it.
Focoist911 3 years ago
of course I didn't read it, because you never sent one! and as matt said, the moon landing didn't happen either, get some common sense you retard.
who said I agree'd with obama, going more into debt to get out of debt makes no sense. as for you, you're affected too. the whole world is in an economy crisis because of america, so america fucked everyone, have fun with that though
Jarek4 3 years ago
[the moon landing didn't happen either, get some common sense you retard.] - I don't know about the moon landing. But when you look into it there are a lot of strange anomalies. For example recently India sent a probe to the moon. The director said one part of the mission was to get photos of places to land for a future planned manned mission.
That is kind of weird, as why don't they just land where the US landed?
Focoist911 3 years ago
Haha, wow. Really? Yeah, lots of "anomalies" right.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
With the moon landing? Unlike 9/11 I am not 100% about the moon landing but I do suspect it yes. Normal technological advancement in all other fields in history are progressive. Ye since the Apollo missions, almost 40 years ago, and with a HP claculator most kids had in high school 20 years ago, we are to believe man went to the moon, played golf, and never went back.
Now you got to be a big silly dilly mate to believe that. Its yourself u will have to face. The truth will out in yr lifetime.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Haha we have a winner! Conspiracy Theorists unite! Well done.
Now be honest, have you ever actually studied science?
mattithyahu 3 years ago
[Haha we have a winner! Conspiracy Theorists]
The official version of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory you realise? Just like Gravity is a theory.
You falling for all the double speak. You like a good dupe, and you work hard to maintain it for your masters too, attacking your brothers, defending your slavery and masters. Such a good slave.
Problem with the Official theory is that it needs to ignore open blatant contradictions, like molten steel in pools in the rubble.
Oh God help America.
Focoist911 3 years ago
So let me get this straight: you say you have a degree in science (what science is that?) AND you are somehow saying that conspiracy theories are similar to gravity being a theory? Is that really what you are saying? You understand that "theory" in common usage (like the conspiracy theory) is quite different than a scientific theory (as in the theory of gravity)?
I keep thinking you can't say anything more ignorant, but you manage to surprise!
mattithyahu 3 years ago
Dont get angry with me for pointing out that you must be really really stupid to think that 40 years ago they were so comfortable with their moon mission they even took golf clubs up there and yet no one has ever been back. Dont get angry with me because you are a fucking dumb American brainwashed and blinded by your TeeVee. That you are a fool and the whole world quietly laughs at you.
Its your call moron. It is possible to save the US, but if you insist it will fall.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Angry? I think this is hilarious.
You statements are so filled with non sequiturs, it just boggles the mind.
I also like that you have gone back to name calling as well. Why don't you call me Jew lover while you are at it. It really helps your cause. Heh.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
Just google [Shattering a 'national mythology' - Haaretz - Israel News]
Read that article.
Focoist911 3 years ago
it fell because of the amount of weight the upper portion of the building had.
You are retarded and I have no idea where you are pulling these %s, out of your ass is the correct answer actually. That sounds more like bush's approval rating which has NOTHING to do with who caused 9/11
Jarek4 3 years ago
Go google [9/11 polls] and you will find them all, Zogby, CNN, CBS. An international poll of 22 countries was the most recent. Thats the most interesting one.
Regarding Bush's approval rating and you thinking that people would believe his administration was involved simply because they don't like Bush anymore - Well thats like saying you think they were polling 5 year olds.
Jarek, I'm just telling you the facts of opinions. You can run away from it with weak rationale like that or research.
Focoist911 3 years ago
weren't you just the one earlier blaming me for believing anything? I could find some bs polls too that say the exact opposite. Also, facts normally have to be right to be facts
Jarek4 3 years ago
[I could find some bs polls too that say the exact opposite.] - Alright, go try then. Google [9/11 polls] and try and find as many as you can. You're in for a big shock buddy.
My point is, that the mainstream media are lying to you. They pretend that 9/11 truth movement is fringe cult and tell everyone at home that. But 80% of the people watching are thus thinking, "Gee, I must be one of those fringe kooks"
Focoist911 3 years ago
wtf are you talking about? the media is so damn liberal, they want you to think bush caused 9/11.
The building got heavier when the upper portion was caught on fire. the main supporting beams were still there, the lower portion simply couldn't hold the weight and it collapsed on itself
Jarek4 3 years ago
[wtf are you talking about? the media is so damn liberal, they want you to think bush caused 9/11.] - The media liberal? Who tells you the media is liberal? Yep, THEY DO.
If they media is liberal then why is 95% of the media in the US, from TeeVee, to radio, to print, owned by just 5 corporations?
Why did all that 95% of the black-out the footage of WTC7 for 5 years after 9/11? And in 2006 a Zogby poll found that 60% of Americans didn't even know a third skyscraper came down on 9/11.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Hwo come the twins and WTC7 fell as fast as towers do in controlled demolitions? And how come that is the first time in history a tower has done that but it happen 3 times in one day?
do you believe what you are told you see or what you can see with your own eyes?
Focoist911 3 years ago
because it was planned and has been for years. They were celebrating in syria when this happened. I used to live there. I don't believe what I'm told I USE COMMON SENSE. The same method worked on all the buildings. It was controlled in that way.
Jarek4 3 years ago
"it fell because of the amount of weight the upper portion of the building had." - What was the upper portion of the building sitting on before it fell? Wasn't it sitting on top of the rest of the building?
And if there was a structural failure why didn't it fall in that direction, and at worst fall over the side? Why did it fall down through the path of most resistance? And why did it do it at near-free fall speed? Did the rest under it vanish at the command of Allah?
Focoist911 3 years ago
Focoist911, pretty much everything you have said in these comments lead me to believe you haven't taken many science classes. I am not too concerned about what the average joe thinks about what happened. What I am concerned with is the science. And the science throws any conspiracy nonsense right out.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
Fine mattit, if you are comfortable that for the first time in history a sky-scraper collapses in on itself like a controlled demolition, and falls at the speed of a controlled demolition, and yet there were no explosives involved, and yet this didn't happen once for the first time in history, but THREE times in one fucking day - If you are comfortable with that mattit, then God help the United States of America. 14 states as we speak are moving to partition from the union. Why? SHAME.
Focoist911 3 years ago
How would you have liked it to have fallen? Just because you don't understand science doesn't mean it should just topple over.
Look, if it had been a controlled demolition there would have been miles of detcord, the buildings would have had to have been stripped, drilled, weakened. There is SO much prep for a controlled demo that there would have been thousands of people that knew about that. Are you telling me that 1000s of people just forgot about that?
mattithyahu 3 years ago
"How would you have liked it to have fallen? Just because you don't understand science doesn't mean it should just topple over."
Look mattityahu jew boy,
If you believe that its possible for three world records to be set on one day, then go and suck on your Rabbi's cock.
Focoist911 3 years ago
"But that doesn't matter anyway, because anyone who has any education at all don't believe the Truther nonsense." - Are you serious? Or are you one of these punks out of the new 70 billion dollar Pentagon Cyberwarfare unit? The one they just set up openly to propagandise the Americans?
Look up Patriots Question 9/11 Truth and see a list of 1000s of PhDs and Professors etc. Look at architects and engineers for 9/11 Truth - 800 of them publicly conclude CD. Pilots for, Medical Profs for,...
Focoist911 3 years ago
I live in the nw, almost EVERY station and channel is liberal here. get out of the south
Jarek4 3 years ago
" EVERY station and channel is liberal here. get out of the south" - You would think that Democracy Now was a liberal media right? And yet after years of being harassed Amy refused to table the 9/11 Truth issue. Finally when she did table it, she refused to allow the professors and lead academics of the movement debate Popular Mechanics and organised instead for the makers of Loose Change, only allowed to debate contents of LC. If you knew the details it was obvious set up.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Heh, Loose Change was such garbage. Seriously, pretty much any truther you stumble upon has never actually done much with science. Focoist probably believes we haven't been to the moon either.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
Loose cHANGE WAS promoted by the mainstream media.
Youa are a mainstream fool.
Focoist911 3 years ago
I never saw Loose Change on TV or the news papers, ever.
The moon landing conspiracy theorists are waiting for you to join.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
[I never saw Loose Change on TV or the news papers, ever.] - No they never actually played it because they wouldn't want to conscript more people to the knowledge. But whenever they mentioned 9/11 conspiracy theory (which by late 2006 was starting to become a big problem for the establishment) they would only ever mention Loose Change, as though this was the only film. LC was crap though compared to other documentaries, which they NEVER mentioned. So LC became the best known, simply b/c that.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Heh, the only reason people have talked about LC is because that is ALL your truthers would EVER talk about. And it is funny that you sat it is crap because you spout a lot of the same nonsense.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
[Heh, the only reason people have talked about LC is because that is ALL your truthers would EVER talk about. ] - Go ahead and proffer that, but it was the only film ever promoted on mainstream media, and given their coverage, no wonder it became the most watched film in internet history.
IN Australia the media didn't mention anything until 2006 when media people were being flooded with emails about it.
Look matt, if you are sincere, I feel real sorry for you man, cause eventually u will see.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Don't you worry. I am pretty confidence in science. It generally trumps nonsense.
mattithyahu 3 years ago
"Don't you worry. I am pretty confidence in science. It generally trumps nonsense. "
????
I only have 3 degrees from what was the top 20 Universities in the world in Science, Engineering and Business Systems.
I guess I was a bit too arty farty for this discussio